Western media is just as complicit in this genocide as the fascists in charge of the Israeli government. And media are self-censoring which is reprehensible.
The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals.
Here's is one example from 1954 when Israel did not control Gaza or the West Bank: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27ale_Akrabim_massacre
"The Ma'ale Akrabim massacre, known in English as the Scorpions Pass Massacre, was an attack on an Israeli passenger bus, carried out on 17 March 1954, in the middle of the day. Eleven passengers were shot dead by the attackers who ambushed and boarded the bus. One passenger died 32 years later of his injuries, in a state of paralysis and partial consciousness. Four passengers survived, two of whom had been injured by the gunmen."
Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
The plan's tactics involved laying siege to Palestinian Arab villages, bombing neighbourhoods of cities, forced expulsion of their inhabitants, and setting fields and houses on fire and detonating TNT in the rubble to prevent any return. Zionist military units possessed detailed lists of neighborhoods and villages to be destroyed and their Arab inhabitants expelled.
This strategy is subject to controversy, with some historians characterizing it as defensive, while others assert that it was an integral part of a planned strategy for the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, of the area's native inhabitants.
Israelis and Palestinians are largely in the reality they're in due to the violence.
Parent claims the violence is simply due to:
"The idea of Hamas wouldn't exist if Gaza (and the West Bank) wasn't occupied by land, air and sea; their land stolen on a daily basis, and Palestinian people treated as subhuman animals."
This is not true. And this is what I'm addressing in my reply.
We can litigate 1948 as well. Plenty of Palestinian violence pre-1948. Their refusal to accept the UN's partition plan (which was a lot more generous than the two state solution people are talking about today).
EDIT: Also I hope you're not trying to say that Israel's actions during the war in 1948 (even if we accept they were in the wrong, which I do not) justify boarding a bus and slaughtering civilians 6 years later.
Your last statement I guess is true but not helpful. Plenty of violence to go around.
The situation is completely different. One action is a defensive response and the other was an offensive initiative. There is no reality in which the Hamas attack can be framed as defensive or justifiable by any western values. The IDF response however is very much in line with what western nations have actually done, e.g. the US response to 9/11, the response to ISIS, WW-II or any other war you can think of.
The US went to the other side of the world to get the people it thought wanted to harm it. There wasn't even any real threat to its territory or people. It was simply about deterrence and getting even and it was significantly more heavy handed. Similarly other western powers that went after ISIS. Israel to contrast is facing an existential threat and parts of the country are/were unlivable because of the threat of attacks. It has no option other than the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza (and Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon which has largely been accomplished).
There's nothing defensive about embarking on a self-described colonial endeavour.
I don't know where you live, your nationality or heritage, but you're likely more of a colonizer than any Israeli. Since most are. I'll bet you think you have the right to defend yourself, your family, your nation.
EDIT: Also I should thank you for saying that. A lot of people try to pretend that if only Israel behaved differently then everyone would live happily ever after. Most do not even understand what "Palestine" is and what "Israel". Where's the West Bank and where's Gaza. But the Palestinians and the Arabs believe the Israelis are colonizers (of the entire region) and invaders and therefore they have the right to kill them, civilians or otherwise, until they repel them out of the region and Israelis do not have the right of self defense. This is of course absurd and would discourage many people from supporting their cause so they try their best to not say this outwardly. The truth is that if the Palestinians and the Arab countries recognized the Jewish people's legitimate rights in the region and were looking for peace we'd have peace a long time ago.
That's crazy because Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, definitely defined it as a colonial endeavour.
You should read his book: "The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question", it's quite enlightening on exactly where this movement began and its historical motivations, which is absolutely the same MO as modern Israel.
Also the notion that people who are over 1000 years removed from a piece of land coming to violently remove current residents from their homes and massacre and imprison them for over 70 years isn't colonialism is absolutely ludicrous. Please seriously think about this sentence again. Think about it hard, like, harder than you've ever thought before.
>Arab expansion in the middle east is a colonial endeavor.
It's clear after you typed these first two sentences that you're probably a genocidal maniac, like approximately 57 percent of the Israeli population who believe that the current amount of force used is still not enough.
>Arab countries recognized the Jewish people's legitimate rights in the region and were looking for peace we'd have peace a long time ago.
There is absolutely zero legitimacy to the Zionist regime.
Not a word.
>demonization
Yeah, they behave like demons
>double standards
Why is suggesting that the people who lived on the land for thousands of years have a right to not be genocided and ethnically cleansed a double standard? Why do the invaders have a right to the land they stole?
You, I have no more interest in talking to.
And delimitization is still not a word.