As for whether this was a “good” disproportionate attack, that depends on what happens next. If Palestine stops attacking and supporting attacks against Israel, then yes, that’s a great result and will save lives in the long run. If not then they didn’t go far enough.
When I talk about Israel, I frame it through the lens of settler colonialism, side stepping ancient claims, religious narratives, or jewish minorities that pre-existed. To me, the clearest and most relevant historical parallel is the United States (or even Australia), but Northern Irelands history is also worth commenting on. The U.S. experience illustrates how settler societies expand, displace, and often outright eliminate Indigenous populations over generations. That process provides a useful template for understanding the dynamics in Israel and Palestine today.
In the United States, European settlers arrived, displaced Native American nations repeatedly, seized land inch by inch, and pushed the frontier outward across the continent. This wasn’t a single war or a single event—it was a continuous, generational process of expansion, ethnic cleansing, and often outright genocide. The Indigenous population was gradually confined, marginalized, or destroyed, and only once that process was largely complete did the American state stabilize territorially and politically. Many people argue might is right, but to my mind being a mass murderer is well, being a mass murderer.
I see Israel following a similar trajectory. A settler population arrived (yes some jewish ppl were already there), consolidated its hold over territory, and has expanded its control repeatedly over time. Palestinian communities have been displaced repeatedly—from the Nakba to the present day—through land seizures, settlement expansion, demolitions, military pressure, and administrative restrictions. The key point is that this process is not historical in the past-tense sense; it is active and ongoing, particularly in the West Bank, where new settlements and outposts continue to proliferate. There can be no peace when Israel continues to carry out all of these activities, yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Because of this, I think comparisons to Northern Ireland don’t work. In the case of Ireland, the British colonized the island, and when Irish independence movements gained momentum, the remaining British-descended settlers—now the Unionist community—held onto the northeastern portion. But crucially, they were not expanding further. They weren’t pushing into new land, displacing more people, or trying to erase the native population. While the conflict involved terrorism, repression, sectarianism, and profound injustice, the territorial question was relatively static. As a result, the problem, though severe, was potentially solvable within political frameworks.
Northern Ireland’s “Troubles” were about political rights, national identity, and sectarian conflict—not about continuous, state-backed seizure of additional land or demographic replacement. Since the British state was not attempting to colonize new territory or eliminate the remaining Irish population of the region, the conflict could eventually be negotiated. Peace was imaginable because the underlying structure did not require the physical disappearance of one community for stability to be achieved.
The Israel/Palestine situation is different at a structural level. The settlement enterprise continues. Palestinian land is still being taken. Communities are still being displaced or cut off. Gaza and the West Bank remain under varying forms of blockade, siege, or military occupation. The demographic and territorial struggle did not end in 1948 or 1967—it is still unfolding. And historically, settler-colonial conflicts in this stage almost never resolve peacefully, because the material interests of the settler population depend on continual expansion or control.
In most cases of settler colonialism, the conflict ends in one of two ways: either the Indigenous population is largely removed, eliminated, or politically neutralized (as in the United States, Canada, and Australia), or the settler project is reversed or transformed (as in Algeria, Vietnam, or South Africa). Israel has clearly adopted the former pattern. As long as Palestinians remain numerous, present, and in the way of expanded territorial claims, the system generates tension, conflict and war.
This leads to the core of my position: peace is structurally impossible because Israel believes that seizing more land and using overwhelming force is the only way forward. Northern Ireland could achieve peace because its conflict was not driven by continual land - it was all historic. The United States achieved “peace” only after wiping out the the Indigenous population. Israel today has adopted the same approach as the US, and indeed will often point to US atrocities as to why they do what they do "the US did it so we can too" The conflict will continue on - with each bombing, with each land seizure.
when you say "they didn’t go far enough" I understand what you are saying - I said much the same thing early on in the thread, but that does not make it morally right. ultimately, as the invading force, it is difficult for me to have sympathy for Israel, especially when we read about, right to rape, 65,000+ dead, repeatedly changing the goal posts for peace, lying about facts, denying facts, burying ambulances, not allowing baby powder into Gaza.
This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 19 2025 11:45am