• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.
To start with, "okay" is not the same as "understandable". Or even "justifiable", exactly.
What I attempt to do is post with some nuance. Including the context, history, and human nature. Ugly as it all is, Oct 7 and the Israeli response didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

And no, I don't think Netanyahu expects peace. I think that hard core Zionists have given up on the possibility of peace with the Palestinians. They are not willing to give up Israel either, and are resigned to military defense for the foreseeable future.
Tom
 
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.
We must live in different worlds.
 
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.
We must live in different worlds.
Why do you think that?
Is that your best response to what I posted?
Tom
 
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.
We must live in different worlds.
Why do you think that?
Is that your best response to what I posted?
Tom
In the sense it is succinct and does not violate the TOU, yes it is.

At least 3 posters routinely pull out the kneejerk Panglossian defense of “ it’s the only feasible response's that insures Israel’s security” to justify any resulting misery on Gazan civilian misery and who reject the nuanced view that Israel has choices that do not result such misery.
 
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.
We must live in different worlds.
Why do you think that?
Is that your best response to what I posted?
Tom
In the sense it is succinct and does not violate the TOU, yes it is.

At least 3 posters routinely pull out the kneejerk Panglossian defense of “ it’s the only feasible response's that insures Israel’s security” to justify any resulting misery on Gazan civilian misery and who reject the nuanced view that Israel has choices that do not result such misery.
Ok.
Your best response doesn't include the possibility that Israel's neighbors might decide to choose peace and prosperity over Islamic vengeance.
Of course not. Everyone knows how likely that is.
Tom
 
Ok.
Your best response doesn't include the possibility that Israel's neighbors might decide to choose peace and prosperity over Islamic vengeance.
Of course not. Everyone knows how likely that is.
Tom
If by “ everyone” you mean those who don’t know that some if Israel's neighbors have chosen peace and helped defend Israel when Iran retaliated for Israel’s attack on one if its embassy compounds, then I agree.

Otherwise, your responses confirm that we live in different worlds.
 
I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I
Ok.
Your best response doesn't include the possibility that Israel's neighbors might decide to choose peace and prosperity over Islamic vengeance.
Of course not. Everyone knows how likely that is.
Tom
If by “ everyone” you mean those who don’t know that some if Israel's neighbors have chosen peace and helped defend Israel when Iran retaliated for Israel’s attack on one if its embassy compounds, then I agree.

Otherwise, you responses confirm that we live in different worlds.
Yeppers
 
As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.

Conversely, and for similar reasons I appear more "pro-Palestinian" than I am. Same-same!

My pro-Palestinian stance is partly in response to Trumpist bashing of college students. I know you're not a Trumpist, Tom, but you're still in effect playing into their hands. That illegal confiscation of Palestinian land -- Tom? Agree with LP that Might Makes Right? -- is still tolerated and has been very WRONG. Evil acts like this build resentment against the Israeli government (and a religious faction). The lives of over a million Gazans are being destroyed in a response that may be intemperate. (By some measures Netanyahu has caused more human suffering than Putin has in ten years of a war.)

Is there anything we CAN agree on? I think it would be great if some Arab coalition would step in as peace-keepers, disarming Hamas. A far-fetched Dream? Surely so, since billion-dollar grifts to Kushner were much more important, and more-or-less likely again.
 
I think it would be great if some Arab coalition would step in as peace-keepers, disarming Hamas
I agree.

Would you bet your family and country on it happening?
I would not.

So I don't expect Netanyahu or other Zionists to do so either.

Tom
 
Here are some examples of choices...*

Israel’s national security minister presented himself before the television cameras to make a statement on Sunday, shortly after leaving a meeting with the country’s prime minister.

Invoking divine support, Itamar Ben-Gvir said he had “warned the prime minister that if God forbids it, Israel will not enter a ceasefire”. He said Benjamin Netanyahu “promised that Israel would enter Rafah, that the war would not end, and promised that there will be no irresponsible deal”.

(It is a choice to decide when to end a war and there is a spectrum of actions in between total war and end such as ceasefires, negotiations, and the like. These are all choices).

The following Tuesday, Israeli troops had entered the Philadelphi corridor on the southern border with Egypt and taken control of the Rafah border crossing, hoisting Israeli flags from the terminal.

The sequencing of the two events was revealing. Faced once again with the threat posed by a fringe and extremist politician – who Netanyahu had elevated into government – the prime minister had given every appearance of blinking, underlining his reliance on far-right coalition allies such as Ben-Gvir and the finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich.

The two are widely assessed to hold Netanyahu’s future political survival in their hands. While Netanyahu could survive them quitting his coalition over a ceasefire deal with Hamas or the failure to launch a full-scale assault on Rafah, the politics of the Israeli right threaten him in more fundamental ways.

(Netanyahu could turn on his very extremist allies and act more moderately but he has chosen to act in accord with their extremism).

During the course of the war, the uncompromising position of Ben-Gvir in particular has widened support for his extremist brand of politics, attracting some on the right of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

It is a choice to be uncompromising.

A settler and lawyer, Ben-Gvir was cleared by Israel’s high court to serve as a cabinet minister despite convictions for incitement to racism and for supporting a terror group – Meir Kahane’s banned Kach party.

The actions of Ben-Gvir were choices that led him to be convicted for incitement to racism and for supporting a terror group. The clearing of Ben-Gvir by the high court was also a choice. Allying with Ben-Gvir and making him a cabinet minister was also a choice.

In 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the murder of members of the Palestinian Dawabshe family in an arson attack on a West Bank village,

Many attacks by settlers on West Bank homes and villages are choices. The destruction of homes by IDF and subsequent displacement are also choices.

he was filmed as an attender at a wedding party of a radical settler along with now sanctioned anti-Arab activist Bentzi Gopstein.

Ben-Gvir's attendance at the wedding party of a radical settler and anti-Arab activist were choices.

In the footage, guests could be seen stabbing a picture of Ali Dawabshe, a toddler who died during the attack,

Stabbing the photo of a Palestinian toddler is a choice.

Using the stabbing incident as a means to saber-rattle and celebrate is a choice.

Choosing to be in the company of such people is a choice.

waving guns and firebombs and singing. Netanyahu, who described the images as “shocking”, would later give Ben-Gvir a portfolio with responsibility for Israel’s police.

Giving an extremist with at background a job of heading Israel's police is not only a choice, but a bad one.

Here is a lot more on Ben-Gvir:
On 25 February 2019, Ben-Gvir said that Arab citizens of Israel who were not loyal to Israel "must be expelled".[4]

Prior to entering office Ben-Gvir was known to have a portrait in his living room of Israeli-American mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 others in Hebron, in the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre;[7][48] he removed the portrait in preparation for the 2020 Israeli legislative election in hope of being allowed to run on the unified right list headed by Naftali Bennett.[49]

In October 2021, Ben-Gvir and Joint List leader Ayman Odeh had a physical confrontation during a visit to the Kaplan Medical Center to see Miqdad Qawasmeh, a Hamas operative who had been on a hunger strike for over three months of his administrative detention. Ben-Gvir was against Qawasmeh being treated in an Israeli hospital, and stated that he had visited to check the detainee's conditions, as well as to "see up close this miracle that a person remains alive despite not eating for several months". As Ben-Gvir attempted to enter Qawasmeh's room, he accused Odeh of being a terrorist for supporting extremists like Qawasmeh. Odeh then struck first, pushing Ben-Gvir, and the pair began to scuffle before being separated by bystanders.[50] Ben-Gvir later filed a complaint against Odeh, claiming that he had "committed a serious criminal act".[51]

In December 2021, Ben-Gvir was investigated after a video surfaced of him pulling a handgun on Arab security guards during a parking dispute in the underground garage of the Expo Tel Aviv conference center. The guards asked Ben-Gvir to move his vehicle as he was parked in a prohibited space. He then drew a pistol and brandished it at the guards.[52] Both parties taunted each other, and Ben-Gvir claimed that he felt his life threatened. The guards were unarmed.[53] He was criticized by lawmakers across the aisle, and the incident was investigated.[54]

On October 13, 2022, in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem, Ben-Gvir took part in the clashes between Israeli Jewish settlers and the local Palestinian residents, brandishing a gun, telling the police to shoot at Palestinians throwing stones at the scene, and yelling at them that "We're the landlords here, remember that, I am your landlord."[55] This was a message that was later repeated by him in a tweet on the morning after the 2022 election in his victory tweet.[56]

On 3 January 2023, Ben Gvir, as national security minister, visited the Temple Mount, which prompted a wave of international criticism from the United States, European Union, and Arab countries including Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who termed his visit as provocative and called on Israel to respect the status quo of holy sites.[13] Ben Gvir had been long accused of being a provocateur, having previously led several visits to the Temple Mount as activist and member of Knesset, contentious marches through Jerusalem's Old City Muslim Quarter, and set up an office in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood which witnessed Israeli-Palestinian tensions.[13] On 8 January, he ordered Israeli police to remove Palestinian flags being flown in public, stating the flags symbolized terrorism.[57]

In August 2023 he stated "My right, and my wife's and my children's right, to get around on the roads in Judea and Samaria is more important than the right to movement for Arabs".[58] These comments were condemned by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the US State Department as racist. The PA condemned "the racist and heinous remarks by Israel's fascist minister Itamar Ben Gvir, which only confirms Israel's apartheid regime of Jewish supremacy and racial terror against the Palestinian people".[59]

In early October 2023, following the arrest of 5 ultra-Orthodox Heredi Jews for spitting at Christians and outside churches, Ben-Gvir said it was "not a criminal case" following arrests.[60] Prior to entering politics, he defended Jews spitting at Christians as "an ancient Jewish custom".[61] After the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023, Ben Gvir said that "Israel is experiencing one of the most difficult events in its history. This is not the time for questions, tests and investigations."[62]

In November 2023 he declared that "when they say that Hamas needs to be eliminated, it also means those who sing, those who support and those who distribute candy, all of these are terrorists."[63][64] On 1 January 2024, Ben-Gvir said that the war with Hamas presented an "opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza."[65] He has stated that "We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing".[66]

Israeli sociologist Eva Illouz has said Ben Gvir represents "Jewish fascism".[67]

*This isn't meant to be anti-Israel. It's meant to show that both sides have extremists and have choices. It is a counter-point to the illogical proposition that only Muslims have created this situation. It is obvious that Hamas has also had choices and Hamas has chosen violence, death and destruction many times, but not always. There are extreme tribalists on both sides, though, who don't care about children's lives on the other side.

 
Here are more examples of choices, this time by President Biden:

President Joe Biden said for the first time Wednesday he would halt some shipments of American weapons to Israel – which he acknowledged have been used to kill civilians in Gaza – if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of the city of Rafah.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett in an exclusive interview on “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to 2,000-pound bombs that Biden paused shipments of last week.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.


The president’s announcement that he was prepared to condition American weaponry on Israel’s actions amounts to a turning point in the seven-month conflict between Israel and Hamas. And his acknowledgement that American bombs had been used to kill civilians in Gaza was a stark recognition of the United States’ role in the war.

The president has come under extraordinary pressure, including from members of his own party, to limit shipments of arms amid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Until now, the president had resisted those calls and strongly supported Israel’s efforts to go after Hamas. Yet a looming invasion of Rafah, the city in southern Gaza where more than a million Palestinian civilians have been sheltering, appears to have shifted the president’s calculus.
 
Joe Biden is, yet again, allowing himself to be dragged to the left by the fringes of his party.
Biden urges Israel ‘to just call for’ 6-8 week ceasefire, slams PM’s handling of Gaza war

Biden wants Israel to impose a unilateral ceasefire on themselves, with no hostages being released or other concessions by Hamas. However, White House staff later walked back the demand.
In the meantime, Hamas says they do not even have 40 hostages they are willing to release.
Hamas says it does not have 40 Israeli hostages to trade in cease-fire deal
Even though they are holding some 100 hostages or so (133 officially, but many of those have probably died while being held hostage). That's because they are unwilling to release any non-elderly men.

Biden is no doubt trying to appease the "Death to America" Dearbornistan crowd because he needs Michigan so bad come November.
At Michigan Quds Day rally, protesters chant ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’
Biden is selling his soul for electoral votes.
Very much agree. A politician should ignore the “fringe” 77 percent that want a cease fire now. Biden such a silly duck for even considering the opinion of such a small part of the electorate!!!
I hate the term ceasefire as it isn't really applicable here. We have a siege. The siege must end, Israel can continue going after Hamas all they want. Hamas deserves no refuge.
And why shouldn't Israel siege them?

Note that Israel is not stopping supplies even though that would be completely legal. Rather, Hamas is fucking things up so badly the people are starving.

A cease fire is to abandon the hostages to torture and death. Is that ok because they're just Jews rather than Palestinians?
Hamas isn’t fucking things up if you mean that their actions are somehow a mistake or just incompetence. It’s a deliberate strategy to ramp up world wide anti-Israel and anti-Jew sentiment. But it’s not originating with Hamas and if Israel is destroyed, that’s just a bonus. The real target is Western power.
 
Here are more examples of choices, this time by President Biden:

President Joe Biden said for the first time Wednesday he would halt some shipments of American weapons to Israel – which he acknowledged have been used to kill civilians in Gaza – if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of the city of Rafah.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett in an exclusive interview on “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to 2,000-pound bombs that Biden paused shipments of last week.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.


The president’s announcement that he was prepared to condition American weaponry on Israel’s actions amounts to a turning point in the seven-month conflict between Israel and Hamas. And his acknowledgement that American bombs had been used to kill civilians in Gaza was a stark recognition of the United States’ role in the war.

The president has come under extraordinary pressure, including from members of his own party, to limit shipments of arms amid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Until now, the president had resisted those calls and strongly supported Israel’s efforts to go after Hamas. Yet a looming invasion of Rafah, the city in southern Gaza where more than a million Palestinian civilians have been sheltering, appears to have shifted the president’s calculus.

It's way too late for Biden to undo the damage that we've already done up to this point by supplying weapons for Israel's blood feud with Palestinians. Our country has allowed itself to be dragged into this position, and it has torn parts of Biden's political base apart. So I don't think his pledge to stop sending weapons, if Israel invades Rafah, will deter Israel, whose extremist-dominated government has already voted to go into Rafah. Nor do I think it will do much to stop the domestic unrest on college campuses, but the end of the semester will serve to cool that down. It will probably have a strong negative impact for Biden from those most sympathetic to the Israeli side of the fighting.
 
My pro-Palestinian stance is partly in response to Trumpist bashing of college students. I know you're not a Trumpist, Tom, but you're still in effect playing into their hands.
I cannot imagine why you think that my staunch support of Biden is playing into the hands of Trump's supporters, instead of the people trying to reduce Biden's support.

Sorry, an Arabic voter, or a student, in a swing state like Michigan who "just can't" support Biden anymore is supporting Trump.

It's an unfortunate part of our obsolete political system, but voters in November will have 3 choices. The Dem, the Rep, and "whoever wins". I am utterly certain that a Trump administration will be much worse for everyone, especially Palestinians.
Tom
 
It's way too late for Biden to undo the damage that we've already done up to this point by supplying weapons for Israel's blood feud with Palestinians.
Long ago, over 20 years, I made a tongue in cheek suggestion on a couple of other forums.
It was for the USA to divide it's military aid in half. Give on half to Israel and the other half Palestinians. My guess was that if the Palestinians had attack helicopters and such the conflict would end very quickly.

But to address your post, if Islamic terrorists like Hamas stopped inciting violence this would end. But they of choose to continue. So it won't. The Palestinians keep the blood feud going on.
Tom
 
It's way too late for Biden to undo the damage that we've already done up to this point by supplying weapons for Israel's blood feud with Palestinians.
Long ago, over 20 years, I made a tongue in cheek suggestion on a couple of other forums.
It was for the USA to divide it's military aid in half. Give on half to Israel and the other half Palestinians. My guess was that if the Palestinians had attack helicopters and such the conflict would end very quickly.

But to address your post, if Islamic terrorists like Hamas stopped inciting violence this would end. But they of choose to continue. So it won't. The Palestinians keep the blood feud going on.
Tom

It would also end if the Zionists stopped their opposition to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank merging with the current state of Israel and forming a new country on the basis of equal rights for all. But they choose to continue. So it won't. The Israelis keep the blood feud going.

Two can play that rhetorical game. You have chosen to align yourself with the Zionist cause, which is backed by superior military force. The Palestinians resort to asymmetric warfare (terrorism), because they never had your tongue in cheek solution--equivalent military force--to fall back on. My position is that I don't want my country to be the one to decide which side of the feud gets to dominate the other. If we are to step back, it is better late than never, but it would be better sooner than later.
 
It would also end if the Zionists stopped their opposition to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank merging with the current state of Israel and forming a new country on the basis of equal rights for all. But they choose to continue. So it won't. The Israelis keep the blood feud going.
Your underlying assumption is that a Muslim majority state would be "equal rights for all".
I don't share that assumption.

Nor would I expect Zionists to do so. Do you realize how many of them were forcibly driven out of Muslim dominated states? They didn't all come from Germany you know.

But pretending to believe that it's Israel keeping the blood feud going is hard for me to fathom. You'd think it was Israeli forces that launched the current debacle. Or that the civilians in Gaza are not human shields for Hamas.

Tom
 
You have chosen to align yourself with the Zionist cause, which is backed by superior military force.
Two can play at that game.
You have chosen to align yourself with violent Muslim terrorists. Terrorist leaders that are backed by super rich Muslim oil billionaires and such.

The people caught between the hammer and the anvil are the regular folks who just want to lead peaceful lives and take care of their families and such. Most of those are Palestinians, but many are Israeli.

And it looks to me like Hamas is about to double or triple the number of human shields who die in Rafah. But they will probably keep their grip on power, so those Gazan casualties are not a big deal to them.
Tom
 
But to address your post, if Islamic terrorists like Hamas stopped inciting violence this would end. But they of choose to continue. So it won't. The Palestinians keep the blood feud going on.
Tom
If this is your idea of balanced and nuanced posting, we have very different views on those terms.

The slow persistence in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank had been going on for decades. It is one of a multitude of factors contributing to the ongoing blood feud. It isn’t all at the hands of the Palestinians.
 
Back
Top Bottom