I agree with you that if it actually goes through (always a doubt with this administration lol), it will be really bad. But, imo letting people getting bombed while doing nothing about it is not much better. If it actually stops the current large scale humanitarian disaster, it's still better than what has been going on for more than a year with complete inaction from the US.

Israel was open about their goal of razing the city to the ground, regardless of what it meant in terms of human cost. And Israel would have gone through with it, as they have had absolutely no consequences up until noe. It was their end goal since October 7.

Whereas this can at least stop the bloodshed, and Americans are much less likely to be fully committed to actually erasing Palestinians from the territory than Israelis would be.

Again, in this case I'm just in favor of any action that puts something between Israel and the Gaza population.

That they even seriously discuss nazi-like population displacement is insane, but this entire situation has become so desperate, and the Israel government has been given so much leniency by every western government... that this lunacy is still better than the inevitable results of letting israel have free reigns over Gaza.

Accusation of genocide is simply ridiculous considering this was without question an entirely defensive war against an enemy Hamas who wanted to commit the same atrocity repeatedly and embedded itself in civilians. International law as it exists today in allows civilian infrastructure to be targeted when it is used for military means, and each and every Israeli strike had to be approved by its legal team and were proceeded by warnings in the many situations when the military value would not be lost by pre-warning.

Having consumed far too much content and arguments throughout the past 16 months I have not once seen those that accuse Israel of war crimes being able to suggest and effective and reasonable alternative way to uproot the hamas threat (and suggesting that the two state solution which has remained elusive for 75 years and in the context of October the 7th would reward terrorism, is not a reasonable suggestion to an immediate threat)

That's an very one-sided view, which entirely ignores that every single one of the Israeli wars were defensive (yes, including 1967 per historical consensus and eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0glc7yp/the-fifty-ye...).

The alternative view is that in every single war the neighbouring enemy had openly declared that it wanted to destroy the whole of Israel proper, and either attacked or were massed on its borders waiting to attack.

No "natives" have a right to pursue terrorism in order to grab land (Israel proper) back that they lost through war and international consensus, which is what the Palestinians and other neighbouring enemies have been doing for in the 30s (Hebron massacre 1930s, Sefad massacres 1830s), 40s (multi pronged war on the just-declared Israel), 50s (1953), 60s (1967), 70s (1973), 80s (Lebanon, PLO), 90s (intefada), etc etc

This is not defence by the natives, this is the grandchildren of a small population proving time and time again that allowing them independence will simply increase their continuous existential on threat to the established neighbouring state.

I decry the 25,000 civilian deaths in Gaza and even the 15,000 terrorist deaths but I put the blame for this on Hamas for committing true genocidal acts against Jews and then turning civilians into legitimate (proportional to the threat) military targets, and for the international community for very misguidedly hammering Israel with 10x times ferocity that they reserved for the terrorist who instigated this war.

Why is "defense" in quotes as if israel started any of the wars theyve been involved in?

> Israel has a particular tenacity for moving their borders arbitrarily

Losing has consequences. Israels neighbors shouldnt keep attacking them if they want to keep all their land

[dead]