Middle East Defence & Security

[Karl Franz]

Evacuation of civilians from a warzone, not only is it perfectly legal, but is mandated of any armed force that chooses to uphold IHL.

Although I am not an expert, I do believe that under international law no country can order an evacuation on a territory of another country. There is of course an exception in military conflicts however even here a scope of evacuation must be limited, moving people away from the frontline not clearing regions of its population, and most importantly temporary, meaning everyone who was evacuated must be given right to return.

Even if forced evacuation was enforced, which is not feasible, would not have been classified as ethnic cleansing.
Central to the definition of ethnic cleansing is intent of ethnic homogeneity. An evacuated area and completely depopulated is not ethnically homogenous. The primary objective of clearing the northern half of Gaza is to reduce the threat area and nullify Hamas's main military strategy which relies heavily on territorial control.
For all I care it can be a closed military zone like the Golan, population 0.
This is a point I have repeated many times already.

Yes, because usually two or more ethnicities would live in the same region and then one of them would start ethnic cleansing so the region would be ethnically homogenous, however if single ethnicity lives in certain region and you expel it from it how else but ethnic cleansing would you call this? Whether the region remains empty or in my opinion more likely scenario of Israeli settlements starting to pop up is irrelevant.

I do not object. There is nothing to object about the concept of illegal annexation because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as illegal annexation.
Like there is no such thing as an illegal car. A car can be not authorized for road driving (e.g. race car or car show model). It can be un-registered. Or lacking certain registrations or certifications. Or its owner being stripped of license. Or uninsured. Or impounded. But a car is not a concept which can be illegal.

The west is full of young people who grew up on the notion that any form of war is not only immoral but also illegal. This is not something that can be reasoned with. Nor can I find reason in attending a military-oriented forum to protest war as an illegal concept.

Annexation. That's what the mechanism is called. The act of legally redefining a state's borders is called annexation.

I don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces. That's why we called Trumps desire to take Greenland against the wishes of Denmark annexation. However if Trump can entice or intimidate Denmark into signing away Greenland to US we would no longer call it annexation but a treaty in which Denmark seeded Greenland to the US and that in the end would make it legal.

To move the subject closer to the region we are discussing, an example of the Golan Heights presents itself, which have been illegally annexed by Israel and are considered under international law an occupied Syrian territory. However if Israel and Syria sign a treaty in which Syria seeds the Golan Heights we would no longer be talking about annexation or occupation but simply Israeli territory.

To @Karl Franz and @SinisterMinister if you both wish to actually learn about military subjects, now is the time to stop making uninformed guesses with false confidence, and start understanding that defense is a deep and complex subject that must be studied objectively. If you dwell on falsehoods, you cannot progress.

Military subject is indeed a broad and difficult topic and I cannot speak in @SinisterMinister name but I do consider myself of course still learning and eager to do so. However the arrogance displayed by you has to be earned, and I have seen nothing in our conversation that warrants it.

 

[Feanor]

I do not envision what has happened. In hindsight, voluntary, then less than voluntary, then assisted evacuation (if and only where possible).
The entire northern Gaza has been issued evacuation notices in the past few days and weeks. Today was the notice for the last parts of Gaza city.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939598256029254040

Whomever chooses to stay, risks themselves. In the early parts of the war, the IDF could afford to provide assisted evacuation, but now it's understaffed, and the hazard from going into buildings is far too great, so it's mostly voluntary self-evacuation now.
If IDF go into a building, that building's gone in that moment anyway.

Evacuation of civilians from a warzone, not only is it perfectly legal, but is mandated of any armed force that chooses to uphold IHL.

You can evacuate civilians from a war zone in principle. But generally a state of war is regarded as temporary. Are you envisioning their eventual return? Or their permanent displacement? I think this is where the situation changes.

Even if forced evacuation was enforced, which is not feasible, would not have been classified as ethnic cleansing.
Central to the definition of ethnic cleansing is intent of ethnic homogeneity. An evacuated area and completely depopulated is not ethnically homogenous. The primary objective of clearing the northern half of Gaza is to reduce the threat area and nullify Hamas's main military strategy which relies heavily on territorial control.
For all I care it can be a closed military zone like the Golan, population 0.
This is a point I have repeated many times already.

Where do you propose to move them to? Pack them even denser into the remains of Gaza? What are the consequences for the civilian population of measures such as these? One could argue that physical extermination of the population of Gaza also nullifies Hamas' main strategy. And it's not ethnic cleansing because the plan is to do it to all of them, not based on ethnicity. But these arguments ring hollow. You have a 7 figure population squeezed into a tiny area that's not allowed to act as an independent nation-state, but also not given the rights of Israeli citizens. The entire thing is essentially a giant ghetto, and the population is almost entirely of one ethnic and religious group. Now you're suggesting mass relocations of these people to nullify a strategy of territorial control that relies heavily on the sympathies of the population. This very much looks like ethnic cleansing. Again, the question stands, will they be allowed to return once the war ends?

I do not object. There is nothing to object about the concept of illegal annexation because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as illegal annexation.
Like there is no such thing as an illegal car. A car can be not authorized for road driving (e.g. race car or car show model). It can be un-registered. Or lacking certain registrations or certifications. Or its owner being stripped of license. Or uninsured. Or impounded. But a car is not a concept which can be illegal.

Semantic horseshit. Annexation is an act. An action taken by an actor with agency. Actors are governed by laws. When their actions contradict the law, they are commonly referred to as illegal acts. Word games don't change that. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation.

The west is full of young people who grew up on the notion that any form of war is not only immoral but also illegal. This is not something that can be reasoned with. Nor can I find reason in attending a military-oriented forum to protest war as an illegal concept.

Other then your personal pet peeve to rant about I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But since you want to open this can of worms, the UN Charter, which is binding international law as far as any member states are concerned, has something to say on the subject of legal and illegal wars. Not all wars are illegal. But many are. War is not an illegal concept but discussing the legality and illegality of specific wars and specific military actions is absolutely relevant to a military-oriented forum. I'd say that I'm not sure why you find this is displeasing, but I think I know.

Annexation. That's what the mechanism is called. The act of legally redefining a state's borders is called annexation.

You're playing word games again. One country can not simply legally redefine the borders of another country. Which country is Gaza a part of?

I don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces.

Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza. Russia at least held a referendum. He's proposing emptying the region, and then simply declaring it annexed.

*Better does not mean good, just... better.

 

[Ananda]

Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza.

Crimea once belong to Russia, and USSR simply give it to Ukraine more on administrative convenience Russo-Ukrainian War | EBSCO. Seems Russia also arguing on that base aside referendum one. Doesn't mean it is acceptable or legally debatable, but has as you say has more legal base to argue.

While Gaza and West Bank are not and never part of Israel, never been recognize as it is. It is just steal and robing the land whatever some in Israel try to argue.

 

[seaspear]

If one was to refer to biblical borders of Israel this would indeed show an increase in the size of present day Israel but times have changed

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

This map features the biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel as described in Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:8.

theisraelbible.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Re annexation of land through war the U.N which Israel is a member of have passed many resolutions on

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

LEDR:
One of the most popular misconceptions on international law, is that the UN is the high authority defining, interpreting, and/or enforcing it.
In fact there is no relation between the two.

LOAC/IHL is a collection of laws from various conventions and treaties unrelated to or merely hosted in a UN forum.

The UNHRC in particular, which you quoted, has been known for decades to be the UN's most flagrant violator of human rights. Now only second to UNRWA, which has been globally criticized for extensive ties to terrorist organizations.
In fact, it became so severe, that in 2006 the UN shut down UNHRC and rebuilt it. Unfortunately over the years it evolved to again be as corrupt as before, but not shut down since.

The UN is also not a single entity. It consists of many agencies.
Two legal authorities in the UN are the ICC and ICJ. However the ICJ is generally respected, while the ICC is generally ignored, despite working in tandem.

So lesson #1:
Never quote the UN on matters of law.

Lesson #2:
They can be valid for quoting treaties/conventions formulated in a UN forum.

Although I am not an expert, I do believe that under international law no country can order an evacuation on a territory of another country. There is of course an exception in military conflicts however even here a scope of evacuation must be limited, moving people away from the frontline not clearing regions of its population, and most importantly temporary, meaning everyone who was evacuated must be given right to return.

If you claim evacuation orders are illegal, why do you then explain a pseudo-legal framework for evacuation?

Evacuations are not necessarily temporary. Military actions are evaluated based on their military advantage. That is, how much one stands to gain militarily from an action, vs how much unwanted damage is incurred.

Conquest for military advantage is normal, or in other words "an international norm".

Yes, because usually two or more ethnicities would live in the same region and then one of them would start ethnic cleansing so the region would be ethnically homogenous, however if single ethnicity lives in certain region and you expel it from it how else but ethnic cleansing would you call this? Whether the region remains empty or in my opinion more likely scenario of Israeli settlements starting to pop up is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because you skipped the core of the matter which is intent.

don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces

Annexation cannot be illegal.

However if Trump can entice or intimidate Denmark into signing away Greenland to US we would no longer call it annexation but a treaty in which Denmark seeded Greenland to the US and that in the end would make it legal.

If a treaty was signed, it would be followed by the legal action of annexation, which is legal.

move the subject closer to the region we are discussing, an example of the Golan Heights presents itself, which have been illegally annexed by Israel

Annexation cannot be illegal.

considered under international law an occupied Syrian territory

Annexation and occupation may be chronologically tied but are otherwise separate things.

You can evacuate civilians from a war zone in principle. But generally a state of war is regarded as temporary. Are you envisioning their eventual return? Or their permanent displacement? I think this is where the situation changes.

Permanent displacement to the Khan Younis metro area.

Where do you propose to move them to? Pack them even denser into the remains of Gaza? What are the consequences for the civilian population of measures such as these?

Khan Younis, and I do not principally object to Rafah as well if Israel can reform the border control on the Egyptian side.
The humanitarian consequences are a matter for the government of Gaza to decide and act upon.
In reality, the new Gaza would be far from being the most densely populated area in the world.

You have a 7 figure population squeezed into a tiny area that's not allowed to act as an independent nation-state, but also not given the rights of Israeli citizens

Between 2005-2023 they have indeed been a de facto independent nation.

Now you're suggesting mass relocations of these people to nullify a strategy of territorial control that relies heavily on the sympathies of the population.

Hamas grows in effectiveness with the more territorial control it has, because its current strategy is to boobytrap every building, and inflict maximum casualties that way.

I once again post this to illustrate the course of ongoing military action. This is Rafah, and it is being done in northern Gaza as well.
Northern Gaza is being systematically demolished and cleared to remove booby-traps, tunnels, and other military infrastructure.
This is very clearly NOT a place where civilians can stay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939601965207744744

This very much looks like ethnic cleansing.

You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. You can also call me a martian man.

Again, the question stands, will they be allowed to return once the war ends?

I do not know what Israel decides. But IMO they shouldn't.

Semantic horseshit. Annexation is an act. An action taken by an actor with agency. Actors are governed by laws. When their actions contradict the law, they are commonly referred to as illegal acts. Word games don't change that. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation.

Words matter, because they are created to have meaning.
Can you provide one example of an illegal annexation?
Preferably one in which an authorized court of said annexing country has nullified the annexation.

Other then your personal pet peeve to rant about I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But since you want to open this can of worms, the UN Charter, which is binding international law as far as any member states are concerned, has something to say on the subject of legal and illegal wars. Not all wars are illegal. But many are. War is not an illegal concept but discussing the legality and illegality of specific wars and specific military actions is absolutely relevant to a military-oriented forum. I'd say that I'm not sure why you find this is displeasing, but I think I know.

Can you then prove that the war being discussed is illegal?

You're playing word games again. One country can not simply legally redefine the borders of another country. Which country is Gaza a part of?

Gaza.


A few things regarding misconceptions plaguing this debate:
1. The war in Gaza is certainly legal. On October 7th when Hamas invaded Israel, and a day later when Hezbollah did so as well, they've done a LOT of illegal stuff. But every actor is judged separately, and Israel is in that war legally.

2. Any instance of challenging Israel's policies in court, resulted in exoneration.

3. Territorial change during war is normal and occurs in most wars between bordering nations.

4. Security-wise, Israel would benefit tremendously from annexing northern Gaza and maintaining a thick buffer zone into other areas of Gaza.
These benefits include shortening the border, lowering manpower demand and expenses, distancing Israeli population centers from Gaza, and thus effectively reducing the threat of invasion and artillery attacks from Gaza.

5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability.

6. War in itself is legal, as is annexation, occupation, siege etc. These are terms used to describe legal frameworks. International law has no concept of an illegal occupation or an illegal siege. Only what an occupation or siege are, and what is legal or illegal to do within those.
So an occupation can be conducted in a manner that is illegal, but in itself cannot be described as illegal.

7. Syria lost the Golan in 1967 because it, as a state with agency, decided to gamble it in a war. If you start a war, you risk losing territory and other stuff.
Israel was required to take it to deny Syria key artillery positions used to attack the Galilee.
Similarly here, Gaza under Hamas chose to invade Israel, thus putting its territory under risk of taking if it loses the war.


And as a closing statement:
I heard complaints but none has actually criticized my opinions.
If you have another opinion, do share.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If one was to refer to biblical borders of Israel this would indeed show an increase in the size of present day Israel but times have changed

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

This map features the biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel as described in Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:8.

theisraelbible.com

Why would anyone refer to biblical borders in reference to modern Israel?
All it does is fuel talk about the so called and extensively debunked "Greater Israel" conspiracy theory, created a long time ago for antisemitic purposes.

Military subject is indeed a broad and difficult topic and I cannot speak in @SinisterMinister name but I do consider myself of course still learning and eager to do so. However the arrogance displayed by you has to be earned, and I have seen nothing in our conversation that warrants it.

The universal truth is that it is easier to lie and that the abundance of idiots in this world means a lie will spread further than the truth.
But the complexity of defense means that even people who are not idiots, people who are intelligent, will fall for stupid lies if they do not approach new information rationally - with a scientific approach of theory, evidence, proof.
Throughout our discussions, I have provided evidence whenever asked. But you have refused time and again to provide evidence.
I have it on record many times that I asked you to substantiate, rationalize, prove, and you refused.
Refusal to substantiate is proof of lack of proof. It is also proof that you lack conviction in your arguments.
This hurts none but yourself. You will continue to say things you don't fully believe, disinforming only yourself, and stunting your progress.

 

[seaspear]

Why would anyone refer to biblical borders in reference to modern Israel?
All it does is fuel talk about the so called and extensively debunked "Greater Israel" conspiracy theory, created a long time ago for antisemitic purposes.


The universal truth is that it is easier to lie and that the abundance of idiots in this world means a lie will spread further than the truth.
But the complexity of defense means that even people who are not idiots, people who are intelligent, will fall for stupid lies if they do not approach new information rationally - with a scientific approach of theory, evidence, proof.
Throughout our discussions, I have provided evidence whenever asked. But you have refused time and again to provide evidence.
I have it on record many times that I asked you to substantiate, rationalize, prove, and you refused.
Refusal to substantiate is proof of lack of proof. It is also proof that you lack conviction in your arguments.
This hurts none but yourself. You will continue to say things you don't fully believe, disinforming only yourself, and stunting your progress.

I was referring to Anandas post above of:" West bank and Gaza are not never being part of Israel" to show in a historical context it was, not to argue for a change

 

[seaspear]

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

LEDR:
One of the most popular misconceptions on international law, is that the UN is the high authority defining, interpreting, and/or enforcing it.
In fact there is no relation between the two.

LOAC/IHL is a collection of laws from various conventions and treaties unrelated to or merely hosted in a UN forum.

The UNHRC in particular, which you quoted, has been known for decades to be the UN's most flagrant violator of human rights. Now only second to UNRWA, which has been globally criticized for extensive ties to terrorist organizations.
In fact, it became so severe, that in 2006 the UN shut down UNHRC and rebuilt it. Unfortunately over the years it evolved to again be as corrupt as before, but not shut down since.

The UN is also not a single entity. It consists of many agencies.
Two legal authorities in the UN are the ICC and ICJ. However the ICJ is generally respected, while the ICC is generally ignored, despite working in tandem.

So lesson #1:
Never quote the UN on matters of law.

Lesson #2:
They can be valid for quoting treaties/conventions formulated in a UN forum.



If you claim evacuation orders are illegal, why do you then explain a pseudo-legal framework for evacuation?

Evacuations are not necessarily temporary. Military actions are evaluated based on their military advantage. That is, how much one stands to gain militarily from an action, vs how much unwanted damage is incurred.

Conquest for military advantage is normal, or in other words "an international norm".


It is not irrelevant because you skipped the core of the matter which is intent.


Annexation cannot be illegal.



If a treaty was signed, it would be followed by the legal action of annexation, which is legal.


Annexation cannot be illegal.


Annexation and occupation may be chronologically tied but are otherwise separate things.



Permanent displacement to the Khan Younis metro area.


Khan Younis, and I do not principally object to Rafah as well if Israel can reform the border control on the Egyptian side.
The humanitarian consequences are a matter for the government of Gaza to decide and act upon.
In reality, the new Gaza would be far from being the most densely populated area in the world.


Between 2005-2023 they have indeed been a de facto independent nation.


Hamas grows in effectiveness with the more territorial control it has, because its current strategy is to boobytrap every building, and inflict maximum casualties that way.

I once again post this to illustrate the course of ongoing military action. This is Rafah, and it is being done in northern Gaza as well.
Northern Gaza is being systematically demolished and cleared to remove booby-traps, tunnels, and other military infrastructure.
This is very clearly NOT a place where civilians can stay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939601965207744744

You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. You can also call me a martian man.


I do not know what Israel decides. But IMO they shouldn't.



Words matter, because they are created to have meaning.
Can you provide one example of an illegal annexation?
Preferably one in which an authorized court of said annexing country has nullified the annexation.


Can you then prove that the war being discussed is illegal?



Gaza.


A few things regarding misconceptions plaguing this debate:
1. The war in Gaza is certainly legal. On October 7th when Hamas invaded Israel, and a day later when Hezbollah did so as well, they've done a LOT of illegal stuff. But every actor is judged separately, and Israel is in that war legally.

2. Any instance of challenging Israel's policies in court, resulted in exoneration.

3. Territorial change during war is normal and occurs in most wars between bordering nations.

4. Security-wise, Israel would benefit tremendously from annexing northern Gaza and maintaining a thick buffer zone into other areas of Gaza.
These benefits include shortening the border, lowering manpower demand and expenses, distancing Israeli population centers from Gaza, and thus effectively reducing the threat of invasion and artillery attacks from Gaza.

5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability.

6. War in itself is legal, as is annexation, occupation, siege etc. These are terms used to describe legal frameworks. International law has no concept of an illegal occupation or an illegal siege. Only what an occupation or siege are, and what is legal or illegal to do within those.
So an occupation can be conducted in a manner that is illegal, but in itself cannot be described as illegal.

7. Syria lost the Golan in 1967 because it, as a state with agency, decided to gamble it in a war. If you start a war, you risk losing territory and other stuff.
Israel was required to take it to deny Syria key artillery positions used to attack the Galilee.
Similarly here, Gaza under Hamas chose to invade Israel, thus putting its territory under risk of taking if it loses the war.


And as a closing statement:
I heard complaints but none has actually criticized my opinions.
If you have another opinion, do share.

The International court of Justice made a ruling on the war in Ukraine that has some similarities to Events in Gaza

Summary of the Judgment of 31 January 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

www.icj-cij.org

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The International court of Justice made a ruling on the war in Ukraine that has some similarities to Events in Gaza

Summary of the Judgment of 31 January 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

www.icj-cij.org

That is a very long document. If you have a specific point to make, please quote the relevant part.

I was referring to Anandas post above of:" West bank and Gaza are not never being part of Israel" to show in a historical context it was, not to argue for a change

Understandable. Though you needn't look so far back. In 1967 Israel owned these lands, until it negotiated them away later on.

 

[Yama]

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

UN is a legal authority to countries which belong into it. It's very simple, you join into organization, you're expected to commit to its rules. "Conquests" and "annexations" being "normal" are part of the pre-UN international order, which any country wanting to join UN must agree to forfeit.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

UN is a legal authority to countries which belong into it. It's very simple, you join into organization, you're expected to commit to its rules. "Conquests" and "annexations" being "normal" are part of the pre-UN international order, which any country wanting to join UN must agree to forfeit.

No.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I can see that an overwhelming majority have excessive confidence saying verifiably false nonsense, especially in a topic so trivial as LOAC/IHL.
If I have nothing to learn here, there is no reason to stay.

 

[SinisterMinister]

The universal truth is that it is easier to lie and that the abundance of idiots in this world means a lie will spread further than the truth.
But the complexity of defense means that even people who are not idiots, people who are intelligent, will fall for stupid lies if they do not approach new information rationally - with a scientific approach of theory, evidence, proof.
Throughout our discussions, I have provided evidence whenever asked. But you have refused time and again to provide evidence.
I have it on record many times that I asked you to substantiate, rationalize, prove, and you refused.
Refusal to substantiate is proof of lack of proof. It is also proof that you lack conviction in your arguments.
This hurts none but yourself. You will continue to say things you don't fully believe, disinforming only yourself, and stunting your progress.

Evidence is only worthwhile to those who are interested in objective fact. You have demonstrated time and time again that any evidence produced against any of your arguments will simply be dismissed with the wave of a hand, falling back on the "anti-semitism" trope if necessary. So what is the point of wasting time playing your game?

There are words for what you engage in, like "flooding the zone" and "propaganda". The internet is a very large place full of a whole lot of false information, and "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you throw some claims up there from dubious sources does not mean your arguments are actually based on the preponderance of the evidence.

What is the point of engaging with you? You are here to defend Israel and the IDF. 60,000+ dead in Gaza and it's all Hamas' fault, all just a tragic result of the actions of the bad guys, sorry nothing to be done about it. You can put up nonsensical tweets from liars all day long as "evidence". At some point it becomes obvious that you are not here as an "expert" on "defense". You are not trying to objectively inform. You are trying to persuade, and your mind is made up about the facts before any interaction with so called evidence.

 

[Feanor]

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

The UN Charter is a treaty. Signing the treaty incurs an obligation to follow its terms. This creates legal authority.

Permanent displacement to the Khan Younis metro area.

Khan Younis, and I do not principally object to Rafah as well if Israel can reform the border control on the Egyptian side.
The humanitarian consequences are a matter for the government of Gaza to decide and act upon.
In reality, the new Gaza would be far from being the most densely populated area in the world.

Dense population requires increasing amounts of infrastructure that Gaza simply does not have. It also requires a level of economic activity to maintain that isn't present. What you're suggesting amounts to packing in massive numbers of people into a tiny area that can't effectively support them.

Between 2005-2023 they have indeed been a de facto independent nation.

More words games. We're talking about international law, and here you go moving the goal-posts to talk about de-facto governance. In international law which country is the territory of Gaza a part of?

Hamas grows in effectiveness with the more territorial control it has, because its current strategy is to boobytrap every building, and inflict maximum casualties that way.

I once again post this to illustrate the course of ongoing military action. This is Rafah, and it is being done in northern Gaza as well.
Northern Gaza is being systematically demolished and cleared to remove booby-traps, tunnels, and other military infrastructure.
This is very clearly NOT a place where civilians can stay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939601965207744744

Perhaps Israel shouldn't be systematically demolishing a heavily populated urban area. Then civilians could stay there. But I digress. This has little to do with the discussion at hand.

You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. You can also call me a martian man.

If it was only me, you wouldn't be arguing about it. Clearly many see it that way, and again substantively it's hard to argue otherwise. Perhaps you can get away with a technicality, where it doesn't quite meet the definition. It's an ugly move.

I do not know what Israel decides. But IMO they shouldn't.

I think this is where the difference lies. Israel is entering what you call a de-facto independent nation, and you're arguing for a forced deportation of a large chunk of the population to another part of the country.

Words matter, because they are created to have meaning.
Can you provide one example of an illegal annexation?

Israel annexing northern Gaza. Russia annexing Zaporozhye region of Ukraine.

Preferably one in which an authorized court of said annexing country has nullified the annexation.

I'm assuming this is a joke, I mean I certainly laughed out loud. Why on earth would the court of a country engaged in an annexation declare that annexation illegal? If a country gets to decide whether it's own annexations are legal or illegal, obviously that decision is unlikely to be impartial. At the end of the day, unless your position is simply might makes right and you don't want a rules-based international order, the behavior of nation-states is subject to rules. The fact that there is a lack of enforcement or even adjudication mechanisms doesn't meant the rules don't exist.

Can you then prove that the war being discussed is illegal?

When did I claim this thing you're asking me to prove? Again, you brought up this irrelevant aside because on the main point you have no argument. You're advocating what amounts to a crime against humanity, a forced mass deportation of a mostly ethnically and religiously homogenous population for "security" reasons. This looks a lot like ethnic cleansing, and given the history of Israeli settlers moving into areas that Palestinians are displaced from, and the likelihood that could happen here, it's hard to argue otherwise on anything other then some very thin technicality. You would like to switch this conversation to a discussion of the legality of Israel's current war in Gaza because it's an argument where you're on more solid footing.

Gaza.

Interesting argument. Israel recognizes the independence of Gaza? We've been here before. Your position is thoroughly dishonest and disconnected from reality. Gaza is in fact not recognized nor treated as an independent nation-state. It's treated like an occupied territory with local autonomy tolerated by the imperial occupier as long as they don't get too nasty.

A few things regarding misconceptions plaguing this debate:
1. The war in Gaza is certainly legal. On October 7th when Hamas invaded Israel, and a day later when Hezbollah did so as well, they've done a LOT of illegal stuff. But every actor is judged separately, and Israel is in that war legally.

I don't disagree, but again what does this have to do with the questions of forced deportations amounting to ethnic cleansing?

2. Any instance of challenging Israel's policies in court, resulted in exoneration.

Weakness of adjudication mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms doesn't equate into a negation of the law. If an international and independent (i.e. no Israeli or Palestinian members) tribunal on Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza took place, what do you think their conclusion would be?

3. Territorial change during war is normal and occurs in most wars between bordering nations.

Rape is normal in some places in the world during some parts of history. It's still a crime. The argument is irrelevant. Wars of conquest are a violation of the UN Charter to which Israel is a signatory and is therefore bound by treaty law to follow.

4. Security-wise, Israel would benefit tremendously from annexing northern Gaza and maintaining a thick buffer zone into other areas of Gaza.
These benefits include shortening the border, lowering manpower demand and expenses, distancing Israeli population centers from Gaza, and thus effectively reducing the threat of invasion and artillery attacks from Gaza.

Security wise Gaza would benefit from wiping Israel off the map. So what? This isn't a relevant argument. If you only obey laws and treaties when it suits you and ignore them when it doesn't, then you're a rogue state and have no respect for international law.

5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability.

Great argument except again you're being thoroughly dishonest. You are advocating the removal of the population with no right to return. Who is going to be involved in your democratic institutions? Israeli settlers moved in after the Palestinians are "evacuated"? But this isn't ethnic cleansing? You know there's a German word for conquering territory to expand living space for your people at the expense of others - Lebensraum.

6. War in itself is legal, as is annexation, occupation, siege etc. These are terms used to describe legal frameworks. International law has no concept of an illegal occupation or an illegal siege. Only what an occupation or siege are, and what is legal or illegal to do within those.
So an occupation can be conducted in a manner that is illegal, but in itself cannot be described as illegal.

An occupation conducted in a manner that is illegal would be described, quite accurately, as an illegal occupation.

7. Syria lost the Golan in 1967 because it, as a state with agency, decided to gamble it in a war. If you start a war, you risk losing territory and other stuff.

This is a violation of the UN Charter which prohibits using force to compromise the territorial integrity of another state. Israel has no legal authority to annex the Golan heights, or northern Gaza, or anything else, based on winning a war. Israel is bound by the UN Charter as a signatory to it. I trust the linked document is short enough for your liking.

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-206473/

Israel was required to take it to deny Syria key artillery positions used to attack the Galilee.
Similarly here, Gaza under Hamas chose to invade Israel, thus putting its territory under risk of taking if it loses the war.

Again practical expedience is not justification. If you only obey laws when it's practically expedient, you don't obey laws. You do whatever is convenient.

And as a closing statement:
I heard complaints but none has actually criticized my opinions.
If you have another opinion, do share.

Recognize the independence of Gaza, respect their territorial integrity, allow them to join the UN, and respond to any military actions from them with a military response the way you would against another nation-state when fighting a war of self-defense. Don't annex their territory, don't deport their population, and don't conduct policing or law enforcement actions in their territory. If Israel doesn't want to provide aid to Gaza it doesn't have to. But it certainly shouldn't be controlling who else gets to operate in Gaza or not operate there, if Gaza is an independent nation-state. If Israel wants to retaliate to every bottle rocket fired with a GMLRS counter-battery strike, I have no problem with this. And if Israel wants to cut all aid to Gaza (i.e. aid Israel provides) they have the right to do so. This is my opinion.

 

[Karl Franz]

Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza. Russia at least held a referendum. He's proposing emptying the region, and then simply declaring it annexed.

*Better does not mean good, just... better.

Crimea once belong to Russia, and USSR simply give it to Ukraine more on administrative convenience Russo-Ukrainian War | EBSCO. Seems Russia also arguing on that base aside referendum one. Doesn't mean it is acceptable or legally debatable, but has as you say has more legal base to argue.

While Gaza and West Bank are not and never part of Israel, never been recognize as it is. It is just steal and robing the land whatever some in Israel try to argue.

I agree, Russia could even claim that transfer of Crimea was forced upon it by the central government and that it had no choice in the matter. In the end however it wouldn't matter as Russia has reaffirmed its borders after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and as such lost its legal claim on Crimea.

It would be interesting if Russia demanded the return of Crimea as the new states were forming and whether its claim would have any merit.

The referendum question is an interesting one, the UN charter clearly states that self determination is one of its core principles but at the same time considers countries' borders almost sacrosanct while providing no mechanisms or pathway for people to exercise their self determination right. My honest opinion is that self determination right was an agreement between the US and the Soviet Union as a way to speed up/justify decolonization as both countries were supporters of it and both stand to benefit from it. However in todays world this right, more specifically its unclear/undefined status, is causing a lot of troubles.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The UN Charter is a treaty. Signing the treaty incurs an obligation to follow its terms. This creates legal authority.

That's what happens when responding to the TLDR portion and not the full text. The UN is not a single body, and different agencies have diffeIt rent authority. WHO cannot comment on LOAC in matters not relevant to health, nor can UNHRC comment on LOAC/IHL (at all). And the single entity capable of passing judgment is the ICJ, whereas the ICC is its advisory counterpart.

Dense population requires increasing amounts of infrastructure that Gaza simply does not have. It also requires a level of economic activity to maintain that isn't present. What you're suggesting amounts to packing in massive numbers of people into a tiny area that can't effectively support them.

It is not Israel's responsibility to handle such matters. Israel was invaded, and now must care for its security needs. Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories, has been recognized as independent since 2005, and while Israel does has designated Hamas for destruction, it still recognizes Gazan independence and overall seeks an alternative civil government to Hamas.

More words games. We're talking about international law, and here you go moving the goal-posts to talk about de-facto governance. In international law which country is the territory of Gaza a part of?

Recognition is not a hard prerequisite for independence or statehood. No scarcely recognized nation has ceased existence just because they're not recognized. Example: Taiwan. None can deny its independence and uniqueness.

Perhaps Israel shouldn't be systematically demolishing a heavily populated urban area. Then civilians could stay there. But I digress. This has little to do with the discussion at hand.

They in fact cannot. These areas are far too dangerous for residence and must be demolished. If a building isn't collapsed and removed by the IDF, it'll collapse on its inhabitants within months, all by itself. These areas also include significant military infrastructure such as tunnels and embedded weapons, so a military operation to remove them is warranted.

If it was only me, you wouldn't be arguing about it. Clearly many see it that way, and again substantively it's hard to argue otherwise. Perhaps you can get away with a technicality, where it doesn't quite meet the definition. It's an ugly move.

Quantity of believers does affect the validity of the idea. Put me in a room with 100 evolution-deniers and I'd still believe in evolution. Put me among 100 flat earthers, I'll still think the earth is round.
The reason I care about it is because bullshit like this is that the occasional top daily headline is whether Israelis should say they're Maltese or Greek when traveling.

I think this is where the difference lies. Israel is entering what you call a de-facto independent nation, and you're arguing for a forced deportation of a large chunk of the population to another part of the country.

Yeah and? What's the problem?
Also displacement, not deportation.

Israel annexing northern Gaza. Russia annexing Zaporozhye region of Ukraine

Israel didn't annex northern Gaza.
Considering the annexation of the Golan has been legal, I see no reason to believe the same won't be true for northern Gaza. Can you provide a basis for your implication that it'll be illegal?

I'm assuming this is a joke, I mean I certainly laughed out loud. Why on earth would the court of a country engaged in an annexation declare that annexation illegal? If a country gets to decide whether it's own annexations are legal or illegal, obviously that decision is unlikely to be impartial.

Because in a democracy, the court supervises the legislative branch. If a parliament votes on an annexation law, the court must decide whether or not to approve it depending on whether it conflicts with any existing law.
That is literally my entire point about using the term "illegal annexation". Annexation is an entirely internal action. It is not judged by international authorities.
When it comes to international affairs, and other nations want to dispute it, they refer to it as occupation. Occupation itself also cannot be illegal, but at least in this case the international community can recognize the occupied party's claim to the land and support it by re-occupying it.
Has it not been abundantly clear by now that this is the sole issue with saying the word "annexation"?

At the end of the day, unless your position is simply might makes right and you don't want a rules-based international order, the behavior of nation-states is subject to rules. The fact that there is a lack of enforcement or even adjudication mechanisms doesn't meant the rules don't exist.

To the contrary. I cannot think of another nation that has upheld the "rules based international order" like Israel does (through quantity), except the US.
Might makes right is not the point of my argument and it shows you have missed it entirely. To the contrary - might does not necessarily makes right, which is why I advocate for solutions that prioritize long term solutions and humanitarian and reconciliatory approach, than the forceful and inhumane ideas you and others here have proposed, such as keeping civilians within an active war zone and the 3D equivalent of a minefield.

You're advocating what amounts to a crime against humanity, a forced mass deportation of a mostly ethnically and religiously homogenous population for "security" reasons. This looks a lot like ethnic cleansing, and given the history of Israeli settlers moving into areas that Palestinians are displaced from, and the likelihood that could happen here, it's hard to argue otherwise on anything other then some very thin technicality. You would like to switch this conversation to a discussion of the legality of Israel's current war in Gaza because it's an argument where you're on more solid footing.

No, I literally only said terms like "annexation" and "occupation" cannot be prefixed with "illegal" because that's inappropriate terminology. You and others have turned this into a debate.
Also it's nice that it looks like things to you but appearance does not make reality, and it has no bearing on what is and will happen going forward.

Interesting argument. Israel recognizes the independence of Gaza? We've been here before. Your position is thoroughly dishonest and disconnected from reality. Gaza is in fact not recognized nor treated as an independent nation-state. It's treated like an occupied territory with local autonomy tolerated by the imperial occupier as long as they don't get too nasty.

You don't really know what "occupation" and "imperial" mean, right?

Weakness of adjudication mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms doesn't equate into a negation of the law. If an international and independent (i.e. no Israeli or Palestinian members) tribunal on Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza took place, what do you think their conclusion would be?

The ICJ is that, and it did not conclude that crimes took place.

Rape is normal in some places in the world during some parts of history. It's still a crime. The argument is irrelevant. Wars of conquest are a violation of the UN Charter to which Israel is a signatory and is therefore bound by treaty law to follow.

This is not a war of conquest. Israel is the self-defending side to this conflict, which is an indisputable fact, and its goals do not include territorial aspects.
Israel however is the last recognized owner of Gaza (til 2005), and it can certainly revoke Gaza's practical independence in part or in full.
Can you quote the section of the UN charter which prohibits military occupation? I'll make it easier for you - there is none. Only the legal definitions of how an occupation must take place.

Security wise Gaza would benefit from wiping Israel off the map. So what? This isn't a relevant argument. If you only obey laws and treaties when it suits you and ignore them when it doesn't, then you're a rogue state and have no respect for international law.

Military advantage is central to the aspect of proportionality in LOAC/IHL.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

You are advocating the removal of the population with no right to return. Who is going to be involved in your democratic institutions? Israeli settlers moved in after the Palestinians are "evacuated"? But this isn't ethnic cleansing? You know there's a German word for conquering territory to expand living space for your people at the expense of others - Lebensraum.

And the Russian word for potato is Kartoshka. And?
You are taking it a few extra steps and asserting that annexation means population. Can you provide any basis for your assertion? Because the counter-example to this is Golan, which remains largely closed as a military zone, with few pre-existing communities. Another counter-argument is the abundance of evidence that Israel is setting up a buffer zone, to which population runs counter.

An occupation conducted in a manner that is illegal would be described, quite accurately, as an illegal occupation.

Which evidently is not the case here.

This is a violation of the UN Charter which prohibits using force to compromise the territorial integrity of another state

Intent is central to many criteria that would constitute violations of LOAC/IHL. Your implied intent is false. Israel did not initiate the 6 day war to "compromise the territorial integrity of another state". It was attacked, and decided against withdrawing from territories for a belligerent state.
Every piece of territory captured in 1967 was negotiated for non-belligerence. Egypt got theirs, Jordan too, Syria opted out.
Diplomatic solutions when possible IS however mentioned in the UN charter.

Again practical expedience is not justification. If you only obey laws when it's practically expedient, you don't obey laws. You do whatever is convenient.

Thing is, while wars of conquest are frowned upon, there is certainly nothing that guarantees an aggressor immunity from consequences, including territorial integrity, should they lose.

Recognize the independence of Gaza, respect their territorial integrity, allow them to join the UN, and respond to any military actions from them with a military response the way you would against another nation-state when fighting a war of self-defense.

We did all that. They attacked us, we responded like we would respond to any aggressor.
Lebanon invaded Israel on October 8th, 2023. Israel initiated a ground maneuver inside Lebanon, and for the sake of the security of northern communities, it maintained a buffer zone in Lebanon like 1982-2000.
Israel negotiated an agreement with the US, Lebanon, and Hezbollah.
When the Lebanese government stabilized and started acting against Hezbollah, Israel withdrew gradually from the buffer zone as per agreement, and provided the LAF assistance in disarming Hezbollah.

When Assad's government fell and rogue terrorist organizations exploited the situation on the border with Israel, Israel rushed to secure a buffer zone. Which is now the subject of negotiations with the new government, with Israel showing intent to withdraw, and Syria signaling it might be willing to withdraw claims to the Golan.

And when (hopefully soon) a ceasefire is negotiated in Gaza, a political solution will be involved and the buffer zones could either remain or shrink depending on how much Hamas is willing to offer, and how hostile they intend to remain going forward.

You see, what you called Lebensraum, in non-germanic cultures is called "Strategic Depth".
Israel is a weird mix of being the most powerful nation in the region, the most attacked nation in the region, and the only nation that lacks any form of strategic depth.
After giving Gaza chance after chance over decades, it's time Israel start working toward establishing at least some strategic depth.

Don't annex their territory, don't deport their population, and don't conduct policing or law enforcement actions in their territory.

That was never done. Especially the last part.

If Israel doesn't want to provide aid to Gaza it doesn't have to.

For the duration of presence of civilian population in an occupied area - it does.

But it certainly shouldn't be controlling who else gets to operate in Gaza or not operate there, if Gaza is an independent nation-state.

If by "operate" you mean militant groups, then it certainly does. Every nation has the right to self defense, and that includes proactive action. As long as two parties are warring, it is absolutely permissible and encouraged to attack military targets in each other's territories.
It is the non-military targets that are usually frowned upon.

If Israel wants to retaliate to every bottle rocket fired with a GMLRS counter-battery strike, I have no problem with this.

That is actually extremely illegal and definitely not something I would advise anyone to do.
LOAC/IHL requires reasonable discrimination, which such method is certainly not. If the IDF had employed such strategy, we'd see casualties multiplied several times.

And if Israel wants to cut all aid to Gaza (i.e. aid Israel provides) they have the right to do so. This is my opinion.

So annexation - no, starvation - yes.
Did I get that right?

Do you know why we insist on our humanity? Because we actually mean that. We don't starve people, we don't shoot innocent people by policy and we certainly work to catch and prosecute anyone who permits themselves to do that.

It's funny, the amount of complaints I get for my ideas, but things like bombing indiscriminately, keeping civilians in extremely dangerous environments with active warfare, intentional starvation - that's fine.

You know what Israelis consider the most popular and effective policy item employed in Gaza since October 2023? The GHF. A humanitarian aid mechanism that allows Palestinians to receive food aid for free and not pay exorbitant prices to UNRWA and Hamas, which by the way are required to distribute it for free.

 

[Karl Franz]

@Big_Zucchini I don't want to go over everything you said as I see other members have answered majority of your assertions. Claiming that annexation cannot be illegal or that the UN charter can be ignored as conquest is "an international norm" are such outlandish statements that nothing I can say can prove to you otherwise.

As far as the conversation we were having before, you have not provided any evidence that Iranian nuclear program was set back years, just few days ago Grossi said Iran could resume enrichment in just a few months if not sooner. You have not provided evidence that Iranian arms industry is destroyed nor have you provided evidence that Iran no longer has the ability to conventionally endanger Israel.

The primary reason I am writing this is to divert your attention to the fact that the opinions expressed here by myself and others can be looked as a microcosmos of the general opinions held around the world but more specifically and more importantly for Israel in its western allies.

Israel can afford for Hamas to survive, Israel can afford for Hezbollah to survive, Israel can even afford not to accomplish its objectives in the current conflict, none of this will endanger Israel's existence or its ability to function the way it did until now. However Israel cannot afford to lose its support in Europe and primarily in the United States because that can actually and realistically endanger Israel.

By its actions Israel has incurred a seismic shift in general opinions towards it. Walk on any campus in the west and try talking about Israel in a positive light. Talk to people on the street and you will find them angry and the reason they are angry is that they feel deceived. Majority of them supported Israel even before October 7th, majority of them had a picture of this bastion of democracy assailed from all sides. Now that picture is replaced by carnage and starvation in Gaza, and instead of finding ways to mitigate the damage you are suggesting radical action that would even further push the public opinion against Israel.

The current political leadership in the US is very pro Israeli but what comes after Trump? Currently most likely republican candidate is Vance, have you seen his statements, have you seen who is the likely new mayor of New York, what happens when this new generation that you don't particularly like comes to positions of power, are you that confident that lobbying would be enough to sway them?

What happens to Israel if it loses its military and financial aid not to mention physical protection, we do not agree on how many missiles penetrated Israeli defenses but how many more would have done it had the US not intervened, according to some estimates US used 15 to 20 percent of its THAAD missiles to defend Israel, what if it didn't, how would Tel Aviv look now?

The most dangerous thing for Israel right now is its own behavior, to say that they are shooting themselves in the foot would be a gross understatement.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

that the UN charter can be ignored as conquest is "an international norm" are such outlandish statements that nothing I can say can prove to you otherwise.

That is not what I said.

As far as the conversation we were having before, you have not provided any evidence that Iranian nuclear program was set back years, just few days ago Grossi said Iran could resume enrichment in just a few months if not sooner. You have not provided evidence that Iranian arms industry is destroyed

There is no visual evidence for this. The IDF and Iranian people published footage of only a part of the hits.
We can estimate the IDF publishes only ~10% of targeting footage, and the public is inconsistent due to internet disruptions.
Hence my intentional wording such as "highly likely".
But the intelligence consensus on the matter suggests that Iran's nuclear and conventional production capabilities were severely damaged.
Note that I have not said its nuclear program was set back years, but also resuming enrichment in a best case scenario "in months" ignores the serial processes that occur after, such as weaponization, which was reportedly struck as well.

Regarding MIC, it should be understood that when it comes to a multi-step process, it is only necessary to strike the longest part (to rehabilitate) of that process.
If SRM (solid rocket motor) production takes, say, 9 months to restart + 1 month lead time, and navigation system production takes 6 months to restart + 2 weeks lead time, then hitting the SRM segment will provide the best result, and hitting both will not affect the restart time.
Or in other words - striking bottlenecks.

Example of a typical serious bottleneck - electronics.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1934217728061063432

I also explained earlier about rushing and vulnerability.
Iran could rush every rehabilitation process - at increased risk of Israeli involvement. Or it could do a de-risked but slower approach. Both options have some benefit to Israel.

nor have you provided evidence that Iran no longer has the ability to conventionally endanger Israel.

The majority of Iran's conventional capability came from its proxy armies. These are neutralized so automatically Iran lost a lot.
When it comes to Iran's own conventional capability, the graph showing gradual reduction in launch capacity should be sufficiently telling of Iran's degraded capability.

This is proven in 2 parts.
1. Iran was unable to endanger Israel even with full arsenal. It failed to hit military targets and resorted to firing at civilians. This would be painful, but it does not endanger Israel. For targeting civilians to be effective, WMDs are needed, or an arsenal an order of magnitude larger than what Iran started with.
The few times it came near military targets, it missed. The majority of Iran's missiles have either failed to reach the intended area (miss, malfunction etc) or were intercepted.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1938500595796611223

2. Its launch capability has been rapidly degraded over a matter of days. At this rate, given another 2 weeks, it would drop to single digits per day at best.


So Iran was unable to conventionally threaten Israel on day 1, it couldn't on day 12, and it won't be able to do so until probably around 2030 or later (production restart and accumulation).

The primary reason I am writing this is to divert your attention to the fact that the opinions expressed here by myself and others can be looked as a microcosmos of the general opinions held around the world but more specifically and more importantly for Israel in its western allies.

Public opinion is a problem, but it is an uphill battle. Disinformation is so much more available and accessible than facts and proper analysis.
But where I exist, I try to provide that analysis to individually combat disinformation.
There isn't a conflict anywhere in the world that exceeds the levels of disinformation in wars between Israel-Palestine. And it is evident in other conflicts involving Israel and the cognitive dissonance associated with it.
Israel is regarded as a genocidal and evil entity when fighting Hamas, and exceedingly precise and methodical when fighting anyone else.
Most people are unable to reason through it, hence Israel's perceived unpopularity in the west.

Israel can afford for Hamas to survive, Israel can afford for Hezbollah to survive, Israel can even afford not to accomplish its objectives in the current conflict, none of this will endanger Israel's existence or its ability to function the way it did until now. However Israel cannot afford to lose its support in Europe and primarily in the United States because that can actually and realistically endanger Israel.

True, but these are processes that are much bigger than Israel's ability to influence.
When looking at people who self describe as anti-Israeli, we can see a wide common denominator between them involving ideologies like isolationism (non-interventionism), socialism/communism, open borders, anti-work, to name a few. These are ideologies Iran, Russia, Qatar, China etc are able to influence in the west, but Israel cannot.
Israel contacts lawyers and military experts to promote its narrative, and OSINT accounts also provide analysis that promote it, but their reach is low, and wide reaching media connections to Qatar and other axis nations is not something that is subject to sufficient regulation.

By its actions Israel has incurred a seismic shift in general opinions towards it. Walk on any campus in the west and try talking about Israel in a positive light. Talk to people on the street and you will find them angry and the reason they are angry is that they feel deceived. Majority of them supported Israel even before October 7th, majority of them had a picture of this bastion of democracy assailed from all sides. Now that picture is replaced by carnage and starvation in Gaza, and instead of finding ways to mitigate the damage you are suggesting radical action that would even further push the public opinion against Israel.

There is no correlation between Israeli actions and public opinion. To the contrary. I can make an argument why more aggressive actions would be perceived more positively.
Anti-Israeli talking points are necessarily based on either disinformation (e.g. Israel is blocking aid), antisemitism (e.g. Israel is committing a genocide), or fundamental misunderstanding of warfare and security (e.g. Israel bombs indiscriminately). Never in my life have I heard an argument that is anti-Israeli that isn't based on at least one of these principles.

Have you ever heard an intelligent person actually claim there is starvation in Gaza?
Have you heard an intelligent person claim indiscriminate bombing/targeting?
No, because that person would not be intelligent if they made these arguments.

Examples:
If Israel was to block UNRWA entirely and install the GHF very early in the war - the "blocking aid" narrative would be largely dismantled early on.
If Israel imposed a full siege on Gaza, famine would ensue and the narrative would remain as is, but Hamas would likely snap much earlier, bringing the war to an end perhaps in a matter of months to 1 year, not approaching 2 years, so the narrative would also be dismantled and public opinion started normalizing earlier.
If Israel would push the entire Gaza into just Rafah or just Khan Younis in the first 1-2 months and announce a ceasefire then, public opinion would quickly normalize again.

But these are less humane actions than what Israel is doing right now, so the world does not care about Israeli humanity.

The most dangerous thing for Israel right now is its own behavior, to say that they are shooting themselves in the foot would be a gross understatement.

Name 1 course of action Israel could take, that would improve public opinion.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Right on time and in preparation for another round, Israel is putting into production an active RF seeker for David's Sling's Stunner interceptor (All-Weather Stunner).


Similar to Iron Dome's spiral development resulting in 2 interceptor types - EO and RF. However in this case it'll most likely be just one interceptor containing both EO + RF.

To illustrate my point on Khan Younis. When the IDF finishes clearing the area of booby-traps and tunnels and the area is flattened, it could accommodate tent cities that would vastly expand the viable humanitarian area currently in Rafah.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1940382172046913622

And as I realize most here are probably unaware of where GHF sites are