That's a single story from a few years ago. There's been plenty of violence against Israelis since; we very rarely see those stories here. Why should we have daily discussions about one-sided anti-Israel stories, and almost none of the opposite? Not to mention very little about other conflict around the world.
There are a lot of casualties on both sides of conflicts around the world. It is a bit suspicious when certain communities want to focus almost exclusively on one side of one conflict, while also leaving out any context about the terrorists that started the conflict and fight in civilian clothing.
> There are a lot of casualties on both sides of conflicts around the world. It is a bit suspicious when certain communities want to focus almost exclusively on one side of one conflict, while also leaving out any context about the terrorists that started the conflict and fight in civilian clothing.
You make it sound like both sides experienced the same amount of casualties, blockades and massive displacement from their homes during the conflict
They somehow manage to find uniforms when they do parades. In any case, the principle of distinction merely requires combatants to wear distinguishing marks. Hypothetically if they ran out of uniforms, they could use something as simple as colored armbands.
It's a basic tenet of IHL which is essential for the protection of civilians in a war zone. If the pro-Palestinian community was genuinely focused on the well-being of Gazans, they would have extremely concerned about this particular war crime, and would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So the 20 thousand children killed in Gaza should have been wearing what kind of uniform to avoid behind killed? Just so I understand correctly.
>>would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So if the international community somehow pressured Hamas to wear uniforms, IDF would kill fewer children? Or they would stop their policy on waiting until a suspected Hamas combatant returns home and then blowing them up along with their family?
I just feel like that's such a dishonest, morally bankrupt take. For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children. But hey, Hamas militants don't wear uniforms sometimes, damn I wish the world would talk more about this war crime too.
I'm just trying to think of when my own country was under German occupation and 2 millions of our citizens were killed by Nazis - if internet was around back then I'm sure someone would have said that it's really suspicious no one talks about how our resistance forces don't walk around the streets in their uniforms or you know "at least wear an armband". If only anyone really cared about our well being surely someone should have pointed it out, maybe UK could have sent some strongly worded letters to the underground leaders to just wear uniforms when outside, then(and only then) talking about the genocide would finally be fine.
Civilians don't have to wear distinguishing marks, combatants do if they care about the laws of war and protecting the civilian population.
Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help. If you care about limiting civilian harm, you should be focused on ensuring Gaza has a government that doesn't keep starting wars, or at least put on uniforms before they attack Israel. Maybe even letting civilians shelter in bunkers, rather than reserving them for terrorist use only.
Can you name a single conflict in a comparable urban setting, against terrorists that dressed as civilians, that definitely had a better civilian casualty ratio? Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
> For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children.
It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios. By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
>>Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
I'm sure I can name a few militaries in the world that would manage to not shoot at a marked ambulance and kill the medics inside. And a few others that actually manage to successfully prosecute their soldiers raping and torturing captured enemies, not have the prosecutors let them free as heroes of the nation.
>>Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help
And why is that? I think if we continue sanctioning Israel as much as we can that will help. If we keep putting pressure on Israel to let journalists in, that will help.
>>By this logic
I don't know what logic that is. The ratio alone doesn't make you good or bad.
Well, when are you planning to name them? If Israel is so evil, it must be very easy to name a few militaries that are much better at fighting terrorists, who dress as civilians and hide among them, without much collateral damage.
> actually manage to successfully prosecute
There are countries that never let off suspected criminals due to insufficient evidence?
Also if we're just bringing up random stories to paint one side in a bad light, what happened to the Gazans who paraded their rape victims around the streets? They didn't seem at all worried about being arrested.
> if we continue sanctioning Israel as much as we can that will help
Sanctions can't convince a nuclear state to ignore the attacks against it and give up on its own defense. If we want Israel to stop fighting messy wars, the focus should be on its neighbors who keep attacking it.
Is there a reason why you cut off the second part of that first sentence when you quoted it? Or was it again because you wanted to argue against a point in your head instead of the one I actually made? Because I'm sure even you can name militaries that generally don't shoot at ambulances, or if they do the people responsible tend to go on trial and be prosecuted.
>>There are countries that never let off suspected criminals due to insufficient evidence?
Funny how Israel always finds insufficient evidence against all of its soldiers.But maybe that just doesn't bother you.
>>what happened to the Gazans who paraded their rape victims around the streets?
Oh wait, it's Gazans now? not Hamas? Or are they one and the same for you?
>>Sanctions can't convince a nuclear state to ignore the attacks against it and give up on its own defense
Of course they can't, and no one advocates anything of that sort. We do want Israel to stop killing Palestinian civialians in the numbers that they do. We want food and medical supplies to be restored. No one says Israel shouldn't defend itself - but this has crossed the line of defence long time ago. Maybe it hasn't for you, but that's your morality that you have to live with.
>> the focus should be on its neighbors who keep attacking it.
You do realize that both of these things can happen, right. We should be criticizing Israel for how it's leading this war, and we should focus on it's neighbours to stop the terrorists inside them. Do you feel Israel is being unfairly treated in this case?
> By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
Can you elaborate on this? I thought that the Nazis were pretty obviously the "bad guys" due to committing genocide and mass casualties (combatant and civilian) while trying to expand their borders.
> It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios.
Really, even the ratio of civilian casualties, or ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties? Those seem pretty relevant to morality in my book, but I might be misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly in agreement? I agree civilian casualty ratios can be meaningful signals about morality, provided that we account for context (e.g. whether civilians are trapped in a warzone or able to evacuate) and are careful to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.
But the parent wasn't really comparing these ratios; it was closer to a "total deaths on either side" sort of comparison. Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral. That dubious logic would suggest e.g.
- The Nazis were morally superior to Western Allies, since the Western Allies killed more Germans than the reverse.
- The Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, since Iraq suffered several orders of magnitude more casualties.
- Israel is bad partly because it goes to extreme lengths to protect its people (Iron Dome, bomb shelters everywhere, etc.). Letting more of its people get killed would "even out the scales" and suddenly make Israel's military operations more moral.
>>Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral.
And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that, instead of what I'm actually saying - which sure, would lead to the nonsensical logical conclusions that you wrote.
What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation is the fact that they target civilians on purpose. That they shoot at medics, deny food supplies, shoot rockets at refugee camps, hospitals, schools, they shoot at little kids playing around, they torture their prisoners, they use AI to guess which person needs to be eliminated and they blow them up with their families to maximise casualties - and all of the above happens without any oversight or consequence for any people involved. The 20k children dead is a consequence of all of these decisions, the number itself isn't what makes Israel bad - it's how they got to it, through a culmination of decades of decisions on how they see Palestinians - as subhuman scum needs to die. There is no effort to protect civilian life, and IDF saying otherwise is just lying.
But I feel like you're keen to say that Israel is "defending" itself and Gaza is a narrow urban zone, so of course it can't be done any other way.
Let me maybe ask you this, just to satisfy my own curiosity more than anything - if Israel decided to kill everyone in Gaza, based on the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified, would you just go "yeah that's fair"? Or would you just make some argument about how no army in the world would do better.
> And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that
Then what was the point of your numeric comparison? If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
> What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation [...]
It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light. Should we try this game with another country, like say Palestine?
> the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified
>>It seems like you're just listing every random accusation you've heard that paints Israel in a bad light
I really don't understand your train of thought. Are you saying these things didn't happen? Or they did happen but Palestine also is doing despicable things so they don't matter? Or they do matter but they aren't worth being upset about? Or it's worth being upset about them, but they shouldn't be discussed?
>>No I certainly don't think that.
Well what did you bring it up as the first point then? I said - hey I'm bothered by the fact that Israel killed 20k children in this conflict, and then you said hey I wish someone was talking more about the fact that hamas doesn't wear uniforms when fighting. Like, what is the conclusion here? That Israel is killing civilians because anyone can be a militant(since hamas militants don't wear uniforms), or.......what is the alternative?
>> If you agree it's a very poor signal about morality, why bring it up?
I don't agree with that - I just said it's a consequence of every other choice that Israel made up to this point.
Well, it's certainly not limited to bodies that were confirmed by officials in a hospital or morgue. A lot of the casualty reports were from a Google form, or later, a self-hosted form (https://sehatty.ps/moh-registration/public/add-order).
> Well, it's certainly not limited to bodies that were confirmed by officials in a hospital or morgue. A lot of the casualty reports were from a Google form, or later, a self-hosted form
Yes it is. Literally on that form "Not registered with the Palestinian Ministry of Health". This is a form to report missing people, the number of the dead are people identified by a doctor.
Though that number has stagnated because all the hospitals have been destroyed by Israel.
No, that's just saying that the form is for reporting casualties that are not already registered with the MoH.
Hamas' casualty numbers came from hospitals and morgues only in the first few months of war; that hasn't been the case for a long time. This isn't controversial - Hamas has been fairly open about incorporating "reliable media sources".
I think only Hamas knows the breakdown for their latest numbers, but earlier they used to acknowledge how many casualty reports were based on online form submissions. For example you can see some old data in Figure 11b here:
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/...
Sorry, I'm not going to take seriously a report by an AIPAC funded institution from a guy who's basically spent all of Israel's genocide talking about how fake the Hamas numbers are.
Basically all his reports have one narrative "It's not that bad, and actually it is all terrorists that Israel has killed".
NGOs that have managed to get aid workers and doctors in (which, btw, are often killed by Israel) all say that the death toll is a massive undercount. [1]
There, of course, is a solution here. It's for Israel to let in aid works and stop killing them [2]
AP: "As Gaza’s hospital system collapsed in December and January, the ministry began relying on hard-to-verify “media reports” to register new deaths. Its March report included 531 individuals who were counted twice, and many deaths were self-reported by families, instead of health officials." https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-cas...
It's more or less the same with any modern military. Ukraine for example doesn't allow journalists (foreign or not) in the more dangerous areas near front lines, with rare exceptions for journalists that they invite and escort.
It's perfectly reasonable to not want unrestricted journalists leaking information about military assets, or possibly getting themselves killed. Most people seem to understand (or at least not care) when Ukraine imposes press restrictions. The question should be, why are people suddenly outraged when Israel does roughly the same thing?
That is not the same. When the US invaded Iraq there were over 3000 journalists in Iraq. None of them were in firing zones to be used as human shields. That said, there are still journalists operating in Ukraine even today.
How many journalists does Israel allow in Gaza, anywhere in Gaza? The answer is 0. Worse still is that they appear to directly target journalists for elimination, as became evident when they shot a rocket at a building stairwell that contained only journalists trying to transmit video and then shot a second rocket at the exact same location shortly after to kill any first responders. The entire event, both rocket attacks, was caught on video that made it out of the enclave.
Iraq isn't the most useful comparison because it wasn't feasible for the US to fully control access; determined journalists could find ways into the warzone. They still tried to encourage embedded journalists, who they could protect and also censor, so that they weren't tweeting photos showing artillery locations or what not.
There are journalists operating in Ukraine, but they're either
- embedded/escorted (IDF did a bit of that also)
- in safe ("green") areas far away from fighting (Gaza is too small to really have those; Ukraine is ~1650x larger)
- or just ignoring the laws, and illegally reporting from dangerous yellow or red zones
> or just ignoring the laws, and illegally reporting from dangerous yellow or red zones
I skimmed Wikipedia [1] but couldn't find any mention of laws in Ukraine that forbid reporting from certain areas. I see laws forbidding statements of support for Russia, and laws enabling censorship. Maybe I've misunderstood: are you referring to anti-trespassing laws in general, and not specifically about reporters?
> The rules bar journalists from working in so-called “red zones” deemed most dangerous, and require a military press officer’s escort to work in less dangerous yellow zones. Journalists can work freely in green zones.
The notion of owning or monetizing an international waterway is fundamentally incompatible with customary international law. Iran can try it anyway if they're not worried about international law, but that was always an option for them, war or not. The timing of performing this extortion now seems to be mainly about scoring war propaganda points.
> fundamentally incompatible with customary international law
So is bombing countries on a whim.
If you want to take the high ground you have to make sure you don't first poison it with your own stupid mistakes. Iran can make a pretty credible play for reparations, and if the belligerents are unable or unwilling to pay up then Iran can selectively blockade the strait for their vessels and cargo. It is one of those little details that was 100% predictable going into this.
Yes, and before you know it we're at the Balfour declaration. But none of that matters in the context of the situation on the ground (and, crucially, in the water) today which was entirely predictable (except by Trump, Hegseth & co). You either plan for that eventuality or you don't start the war.
Note that we're talking about the US and Iran, not about Israel, though obviously they are a massive factor here it is the US that is in the hot seat, both Israel and Iran were doing what they've been doing for many years.
I can't find sources for "tens of thousands of rockets just since oct 7", can you help me? I see a few thousand as parts of exchanges after the Israel-initiated "12 Days War", and then a few thousand more after the (also Israel-initiated) current conflagration. Notably, the rocket attacks stopped during peace talks that US and Israel entered after starting the wars, only to resume after those peace talks were betrayed with bombing.
The 9,500 figure was for all fronts, not just Gaza. But true, it does include some Hamas rockets, most of which are not exactly "Iranian" (although Iran helped with training and smuggling some parts).
> Since the start of the war, 13,200 rockets were fired into Israel from Gaza. Another 12,400 were fired from Lebanon, while 60 came from Syria, 180 from Yemen and 400 from Iran, the military said.
So 12,400 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah, the vast majority of which are supplied by Iran at no cost. That's just in one year and doesn't include drones.
We need to have realistic expectations though - air defense is an inherently asymmetric problem. The US broadly has the best air defense, but it's explicitly not focused on Russia or China, because it acknowledges that deterrence is the only plausible defense there.
While Iran isn't a superpower, they have hypersonic weapons that no system can intercept very reliably, and a sizeable assortment of ballistic missiles. Even if all other militaries joined forces, they probably couldn't intercept every single projectile coming out of Iran, at least not without depleting their interceptors to unacceptable levels.
> Benjamin Netanyahu on record. And there's plenty of such quotes.
If there are "plenty" of quotes like this, can you identify just one that we know he actually said? (Not the "thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state" quote, which is unverified and denied by him [1].)
In any case, actions speak louder than words. If we look past Wikipedians' spin and look the substance of what Israel actually did, they once facilitated Qatari aid to fund some basic civil services, to prevent societal collapse in Gaza. That's it, that's essentially the sole basis for all the misleading claims about Israel "supporting Hamas".
Correcting misinformation is “shilling”? What does my work have to do with anything?
Your claim was that Netanyahu was "on record" with "plenty" of quotes. If that's true, surely it must be very easy to identify two or three specific quotes that he definitely said? Your link doesn't do that. The first answer doesn't quote Netanyahu. The second says "well he didn't deny the unverified quote", which is obviously false/outdated per my link above.
In any case, is there some particular action Netanyahu took to "support Hamas" that you disagree with? Do you think Israel should have blocked the Qatari aid funds, which were ostensibly necessary to keep basic civil services running and prevent societal collapse?
The problem is that the language you're using—"propped up Hamas"—obscures the fact that for the bulk of the time when Israel was directly supporting Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's efforts, "Hamas" technically didn't exist.
Yes, those early contributions obviously facilitated its emergence, but this is probably why people are disagreeing with you.
On the other hand, that doesn't belie the argument that Israel/Netanyahu's tactics since 1989 (e.g. leveraging Qatari aid) have ulterior motives assigned.
Your original point about Hamas being used as a proxy for Iran was solid. It's a pity that it's since descended into an argument about a secondary remark. But the support that Hamas gets from Iran versus the support than Hamas gets from Qatar (with Israeli/American approval) shouldn't be conflated.
Lying about nukes until Mordechai Vanunu outed the program. Iran has been cooperative in letting its nuclear program being audited, your country like the countless "execptions" it claims for itself does not permit any audits.
You tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel?
Israeli nukes must be brought under audit and transferred or decommissionied urgently by neutral third parties, it is a very grave matter.
Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?
> your country
I'm not Israeli
> the countless "execptions" it claims for itself
What exceptions? They don't need an exception to an agreement that they never consented to.
> played games about nukes
It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
> transferred or decommissionied
Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Who said anything about the NPT? The exceptions are to such things as audits of nukes which the other party here, Iran has had no problems with. Israel also claims exception and offense to the ICCPR which was one of the examples I had in mind of how Israel always seems to want "exceptions" for perfectly normal things.
>It's not much of a game, they just don't divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems. Why do Israel supporters always exaggerate and invent things not said by anyone? We ask Israel to simply be subject to similar audits of its nukes as Iran was, being like Iran and several other countries in that region a volatile and violent country. Illegal nukes in such a country should be a subject of concern.
And suppose Iran walks out of NPT, I have a feeling you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes. So please do not lie that it is anything about the NPT.
>Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Who said I want Israel to give up its means of defence? I only wish for them to be subject to standard audits and inspections.
>Why would Israel give up a means of defending itself, while several of its neighbors continue trying to wipe it off the map? The only way this becomes plausible is if Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis stop trying to destroy Israel.
Israel's origin is a long and complex story. No entity in that region is blameless, Israel included.
Again, you tell me, if Iran, Hamas, and (insert other groups you hate) played games about nukes and told you they "don't" have nukes despite having hundreds how would you feel? Obviously they would not wish to divulge sensitive information about their capabilities.
What would be illegal about them? Israel never agreed to the NPT.
> Nobody is expecting them to divulge any intelligence about its nuclear weapon systems.
Even if Israel could trust a group of foreign auditors not to leak any military secrets, what information would you hope to gain from the exercise? Confirmation that Israel does have nuclear weapons, which we already know in practice anyway?
> you'd still want to interfere and bomb their attempts at making nukes
Only as long as a regime with an official stance of "Death to America and Israel" is in charge.
Why not. If we take words as violence, how about the dreams of violent annexation to achieve the so called Greater Israel. Or statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe. I have very little trust in Israel or Iran, both are crappy countries high on fumes of religion and nationalism and constantly belligerents. Though funnily this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked while pretending to negotiate with Iran, after of course a series of murders of negotiators. Actions are louder than words. It shows far more who is more unpredictable, violent and backstabbing liars. I trust Israel today even less than I trust Iran, thus we should treat them just like any other untrustworthy and volatile entity such as by conducting thorough and 24x7 audits of their nuclear programs.
I am neither Israeli nor Iranian. They can bomb and kill each other all they want as long as they don't involve anyone else. And they will continue bombing and killing each other as they are both driven by the classic cause of endless wars: religion and nationalism. I do not think one side better than other. I considered Israel mildly better but I had to change my stance. Being that I am not a fan of either country, I would prefer either Israel's nuclear capabilities be incapacitated or Iran develop nuclear capabilities as a balancing factor.
> statements by Israeli's of threatening to nuke Rome and the entirety of Europe
I take it you’re quoting some random individual? Certainly no Israeli leaders said anything of the sort. The Iranian regime’s leaders on the other hand are quite explicit about their ambitions of destroying the US and Israel.
> this war was started by Israel and America unprovoked
Israel has been attacked with over a hundred thousand Iranian rockets and drones in recent times. If that isn’t a provocation, what is? How many Iranian rockets do you expect Israel to tolerate before finally responding?
It may be random, but I didn't hear any Iranian saying they want to nuke the entire Europe if they feel threatened. I can already tell who I feel more threatened by. Even if we assume the Iranian govt truly means that, its still countries that have bonbed, hurt and destroyed Iran, and this begins far before the Islamic republic itself such as toppling Irans just and honorably elected government to install a dictatorial puppet monarch. Whereas that Israeli is threatening the entirety of Europe who never hurt Israel and even against all common sense and justice and fairness have been giving billions of euros to the Israeli entity, and this is how the ingrates respond.
Being neither Israeli nor Iranian and not having my brain clouded by the stupidities of religion, nationalism or racialism there is a certain clarity of mind that arises in these matters.
Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum. If that's not a statement by thr government, what is?
Are you sure about the timing, who started shooting who first?
Have you talked to an actual Israeli before? They just want to not suffer constant rocket attacks. If Hezbollah stopped attacking, there would be ~zero interest in any sort of military action in Lebanon.
Israeli's are people like anyone else. However they are a peoples who are heavily propagandized to be fearful and hateful of everything since birth by their government, a peoples who have in my view become somewhat pathological as a reaction to the Holocaust. It is not wholly their fault. There are good people and bad people like in any country or group. But what I have seen of them has been more than enough for me, I have seen them laugh about throwing rocks and launching rockets at a peaceful Palestinian settlement for example. What do you say of that? Is that an example of they will stop violence if they are left alone?
I am not a big fan of basically any country in that region, Israel while better in some respects eg lgbtq is also more paranoid and psychotic in other aspects.
There's no need for anyone to "propagandize" Israelis into fearing attacks; they personally experience enemy attacks all the time. So much so that a lot of Israelis are just sleeping in bomb shelters at this point, so they don't have to jump out of bed and run whenever there's yet another nighttime attack.
You don't want to go into "who fired the first shot". The terrorist group who did the King David Hotel bombing yielded one of Israel's prime ministers. The formation of the country itself was a series of violent terroristic attacks by self proclaimed zionists. I do not say the arab countries around them are innocent, but that who fired the first shot does not leave Israel innocent either. Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time the fun of bomb shelters that all their neighbors felt due to them for years.
I didn't say anything about who fired the first shot. I was just responding to
> Greater Israel expansionism is something Israeli leaders including Bibi constantly say. Israel wants Lebensraum.
The reality is that Israelis don't care about ancient maps, they care about the terrorists operating in Lebanon that have been bombarding them for years.
> Israeli's are just experiencing for the first time
Not at all. Israel was attacked by five armies the day after it declared independence, and has been attacked many times since, including regular rocket attacks over the past ~25 years.
What's not to care about who fired the first shot? I am not talking about 3000 year old maps, though Bibi is. I am talking about events in the late 1940s where jewish terrorists constant bloodsoaked violence and terror led to rhe states foundation, including prime ministers being extracted from one of these terror outfits. It's all a direct continuation of that.
>Again do you have some sort of example or evidence?
There is discrepancy between what Vanunu said and what the government of Israel said. Evidence points to Vanunu being truthful, thus naturally, the Israeli government are liars.
You claimed something about "lies about nukes". There's really no way to construe "we neither confirm nor deny" as a lie, whether or not someone else leaks the information.
Netanyahu did not fund Hamas. You might be thinking of when Israel allowed Qatar to provide aid funds for some Gazan civil servants, infrastructure projects, etc.
It's not "peace" when the Iranian regime sends tens of thousands of projectiles to Hezbollah specifically for attacking Israel. It's not "offensive" to respond to decades of bombardment.
If we want peace, regime change in Iran is the only option, otherwise the best case is a return to somewhat slower paced proxy warfare.
reply