In any conflict, it is crucial to examine the sequence of events and identify the party that initially instigated the conflict. This party, often referred to as the aggressor Hamas, bears primary responsibility for instigating the violence and creating the conditions that led to the conflict.

For example, in a situation where one country invades another and carries out massacres, the invading country would be considered the initial aggressor.

The responsibility of the initial aggressor is significant because their actions provoked a retaliatory response from the attacked country, Israel.

It is also essential to acknowledge that the response of the retaliating party can have consequences that further escalate tensions and violence. These consequences may include a broader conflict, increased loss of life, and destruction of infrastructure.

The retaliating country's response is shaped by a variety of factors, such as the need to defend its people and territory, the desire for justice, and the pressure to maintain its reputation and credibility.

It is important to note the blame and responsibility in the Palestinian Israeli conflict are in the hands of Hamas.The severity of Hama's actions, started this war.

I appreciate you've joined the thread late, but this 'analysis' has been done to death and is frankly about 5 months out of date. Israel absolutely had the right to respond to October 7th, I don't think anyone denies that, but what we have seen in the 6 months following has vastly exceeded what could be considered a proportionate military response in any objective reality.

I'm sure you agree that being the victim of a terror attack does not give a nation carte blanche to act however they see fit - international law does not cease to exist because you have suffered an attack, and so the travesty of October 7th in no way justifies the conduct of Israel since.

Sorry, I was trying to paraphrase Douglas Murray on my previous post. so, I thought I post you what he actually thinks on this matter of proportionality. which I find ridiculous as well.

Mr Murray insisted: "There is some deep perversion in Britain whenever Israel is involved in a conflict, and is the word you just used proportion, proportionate proportionality, only Britain is really obsessed with this.

"But if we were to decide that we should have this fetish about proportionality, then that would mean that in retaliation for what Hamas did in Israel on Saturday, Israel should try to locate a music festival in Gaza and rape precisely the number of women that Hamas raped on Saturday, kill precisely the number of young people that Hamas killed on Saturday.

"They should find a town of exactly the same size as a town like Sderot and make sure they go door to door and kill precisely the correct number of babies that Hamas killed in Sderot on Saturday, and shooting precisely the same number of old age pensioners as was shot on Saturday, proportionality in conflict is a joke.

"It's a very strange British concept which we've had only the Israelis in a conflict when they are attacked are expected to have precisely the proportionate response."

This is sort of Israel’s 9/11, in that it initially gave them a free hand at going after anybody who had p1ssed them off. The US did it and now Israel are doing the same. It’s the collateral damage to civilians that we are seeing that is the problem. But did the allies do just as much damage post 9/11 in their attempts to go after their bad guy?

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Just pure nonsense - even for Murray, this is a terrible argument.

Proportionality in conflict is not a British fetish nor any other weird description - it's a long-accepted, key principle of international humanitarian law; [Link]

Well, if you have any solutions. Let the world know. I certainly haven't.
It's a complex situation with no easy solutions. Israel faces security challenges, but there's always room for reevaluation and seeking better approaches to minimize civilian casualties. Historical parallels can provide context, but each situation is unique. The current actions could have long-term implications, potentially exacerbating tensions. Finding sustainable solutions is crucial for peace and stability.

And, it's not like Palestine hasn't been given the chance of peace. They have literally rejected every peace deal since 1948.

Hamas, has also said openly that, it wants to eradicate israel.

That's basically calling for genocide.

I say enough is enough. If you give them any more leeway. The violence will continue.
I agree with a two state solution. However, not governed by Hamas.

[Link]
Listen to Gazans speaking the truth about Hamas...