My struggle with Israel

I will preface everything I say with a full acknowledgment that there is far more that I don't know than anything I could profess intelligently. I am writing this both explaining where I stand, and hopefully being part of any discussion that may emanate from this post. If anything I post here is offensive, please trust that it is innocent of any malice.
The main reason I am writing this is because this issue triggers my emotional responses to being abused every single day. As is typical of abuse survivors, I have been afraid to speak out in fear of abandonment, rejection or being ridiculed for how ignorant I am about this issue.
I'm originally from Germany (born in 1966) and there is no question that that has been a very important factor in my blind sympathies toward the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
I have always believed that Israel has every right not just to defend herself but to do so very aggressively. My image of Israel, if she was human, would be as a diagnosed PTSD survivor living in an environment that elicits daily triggers. To what end would any of us defend ourselves now against an abuser?
My struggle begin with what I read about the people of Gaza being among the very poorest in the world, their access to any kind of life being censored if you will, at the border as I believe that theoretically at least, nothing gets in to Gaza without inspection by Israel first. See current attempts to deliver aid as a recent example that may be extreme, but very much personifies Israel's stance for decades.
I had the following email exchange with Josh Marshall from TPM a few days after the attack from Hamas.

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 2:06 PM John Mckusick wrote:
Hi Josh,

I'm really struggling with how to define what's going on in Israel and Gaza. Are these events from Hamas an act of war or terrorism?
I understand that this is a situation that is both fluid and generational. What I'm wondering is that since Hamas was elected in 2006 and governs Gaza to this day, was this an act of war?
The manner of attack is unquestionably terroristic since it seemed no rules of war seemed to dictate any actions. It is this quandary that leads to my confusion.
I'm fairly certain that Israel would never allow the Palestinians to have their own standing army. So it would seem that an attack like this would be the closest thing to a coordinated armed incursion that Hamas could muster.
I really value your perspective and I'm terribly afraid that I'm missing important context that will help define what an appropriate response looks like.

Thank you for all you do day in and out,
Youngdumbson

P.S. I hope that any family you have in Israel is safe.

His response the next morning:


Josh Marshall
Oct 11, 2023, 8:13 AM
to me

The unclarity is certainly real. And in many ways I think we need to look beyond technical definitions. Hamas governs the Gaza Strip. Policing, what counts as the military, supply of basic services. They took power after the 2006 election and there's never been another election. There has been another for the West Bank either. So by any real definition Hamas is the government of Gaza and is treated as such. So there's really no question that this attack is an act of war. But it also targeted mostly civilians, and not as secondary or collateral damage. Whether that's an act of war or terrorism is kind of an academic question. Basically both.

Israel basically has allowed Hamas to have a standing army, though of an irregular sort and has relied on occasional retaliatory attacks to prevent it from getting too strong. What you have to see behind this though is that Netanyahu long followed a policy of undermining the PA government in the West Bank in favor of Hamas. That worked because you can't negotiate a settlement with Hamas. So by undermining the Palestine Authority government in the West Bank you basically get rid of a potential partner you can talk with in favor of an extremist one you can't.

The premise of Netanyahu's security policy has been, we'll keep these guys in check in Gaza. So this attack in addition to all the points you're making has really gutted that premise. Because this clearly wasn't kept in check.

That's why I think the response will be similar to the seige of Beirut in 1982 or whatever to basically drive Hamas out of Gaza. Because clearly the communities in the south can't survive as long as Hamas is planning more attacks like this. What comes after they're forced out - and we have to mean by that they're military command and control -human and material - is anyone's guess.
End of Email

I am trying to justify in my mind what I have been reading and thank God not seeing on my tv as I'm sure visual images of these attacks and counter attacks, not to mention the issue of real aid reaching the people of Gaza would be beyond disturbing and triggering.
Unfortunately, in this case, visual aid would be helpful if I can use that word, because one of the things I really struggle with is the quality and accuracy of the information I read. Both Hamas and Israel, and further, Palestinians and others have a propaganda mission that weighs on much of what they report.
There are two parts to my struggle with this issue:
1. A UN resolution proposed two states being formed from Palestine. That was summarily rejected by Arab states and civil wars began shortly thereafter with the primary aggressor being Arab States. Immediately after the end of the British Mandate for Palestine, Israel declared Independence May 14, 1948. The next day She was invaded. So Israel has never spent 24 hours without the threat of attack or invasion.
I can't imagine what that feels like, and I spent every day up until my early thirties petrified as an abuse survivor.
2. A UN resolution is the precipitating event that takes territory from one party and it is used to create the State of Israel. (summarizing)
I'm sorry, but just imagine if the UN passed a resolution tomorrow that the state of Texas would now be called Apachestan to reunite the Apache with land they held 1000 years ago.
I know this isn't a perfect analogy with one simple exception. Everyone in the USA would be vehemently if not violently opposed just as the Arab world was universally opposed. I know a devout Christian who believe fervently that the only good Muslim is a dead one. I can imagine that there are those that would feel the same toward the Apache under similar circumstances.
So, my questions are these:
1. If the only way to get rid of the Mafia is root and stem, and since anti Israel/Jewish indoctrination is documented in eighth graders in Gaza schools, Is Israel justified in its seeming take no prisoners approach and ultimately justified in its violence against women and children?
2. Has Israel transitioned from an abuse survivor into the abuser by finding it easier to make no distinction between Hamas and the population of Gaza, therefore imposing a policy of discrimination that it justifies by "not knowing where the next attack is coming from" mentality? (They all look alike) Is it justified?
3. Aren't you just really amazed when you think back to the early 20th century to the mid sixties that there wasn't way more violence protesting racial discrimination?
4. Would acts of terrorism to fight white nationalism and racism back to the late 1600's have been justified by Africans, African Americans, Native Americans, etc... as a means to fight their oppression?
5. What does a fair resolution even look like?

I will close with the following.
If you've read this far, please like and subscribe, sorry, just kidding. Please comment and help me grow in this important issue. Again, I did not write this to offend or upset anyone. I wrote it in part for self therapy, and take advantage of this amazing encyclopedia that is DU.
Love, John