Most people get impossible to "work with" if you force them out of their homes and start randomly killing their family and friends whenever you feel like
Hamas is a corrupt and violent organization, and I won't defend their murder and rape of the innocent any more than I would Israel's. But only one party to the conflict has such an overwhelming military advantage that they're able to (and do) kill with impunity, and one particular party created the conflict in the first place by seizing land and resources from some people who had no earthly reason to have any type of feeling one way or another towards them before that all happened. Feels unfair to assign much responsibility at all to the other party given all that as background to the situation.
one particular party created the conflict in the first place by seizing land and resources from some people who had no earthly reason to have any type of feeling one way or another towards them before that all happened.
So, Hamas killed 1500 non-combatants on 6 October, right?
And Israel has killed about 34,000 people in Gaza so far, at least 15,000 of them children, with a total of over 27,000 non-combatants killed by Israeli forces?
Someone tell me again who is supposed to be the better side here?
I dunno man, if someone shot my dad, and said that he was just between them and their target, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make me feel warm-and-fuzzy about them shooting my dad.
The IRA lost according to the goals they set themselves, Ireland is still partitioned. And the modern remnant and splinter groups are closer to drug trafficking gangs than militant resistance.
What can be learned from that conflict is how the state should act, especially when operating inside non and semi-permissive territory - any atrocities your forces commit will set back your goals, and fuel support for extremist actors.