Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Jimmy Higgins]

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

I mean Gaza, not some house in Gaza.

You apparently don't realize that most anything that matters in Gaza is under Hamas control.

I'm saying the greater risk is Gaza is being away permanently. That the Palestinians will be living in a refugee camp near the Egyptian border.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

I mean Gaza, not some house in Gaza.

You apparently don't realize that most anything that matters in Gaza is under Hamas control.

I'm saying the greater risk is Gaza is being away permanently. That the Palestinians will be living in a refugee camp near the Egyptian border.

I think you might have been right the first time. This seems thoughtful:
"Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference."

Rather than "in war," in particular, consider a broader scope such as "due to war" or "as a consequence of war." The loss of basic infrastructure for survival such as shelter and healthcare does not bode well even if Israel immediately stopped troop actions.

Consider the consequence of post Iraq war consequences for example. The number of deaths, at least partly due to the war was an order of magnitude more than those directly killed in fighting/shooting/bombing. So if we are talking tens of thousands killed directly, we are talking potentially hundreds of thousands who could die from factors such as lack of healthcare, lack of shelter, lack of food, lack of drinkable water. Having regular infrastructure present at least has features of quality and immediacy, but that is not expected in makeshift camps.

This last point is I think what you are focusing on now. How many years would Palestinians be in camps with low quality survival and means?

 

[TomC]

Make a deal and honor a deal are two different things.

Iran does have reason to distrust the US as well.

Both are painfully true.
I see Iranian intransigence as largely due to Teaparty Obstruction during the Obama administration. They torpedoed the peace deal with Iran, then Trump finished it off.
Thereby demonstrating that the USA is generally in favor of conflict and cannot be trusted for longer than a political cycle. As a result, we have nearly zero influence/soft power. Iran is strongly allied to Russia and China. All three are inclined to give the USA fits, including our unofficial 51st state of Israel.
Now we're reaping what the GOP sowed.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Our issues with Iran are complicated more by the alt-right and the Tea-Party and Trump... but the issues go way back before the Southern Strategy was born.

 

[TomC]

Our issues with Iran are complicated more by the alt-right and the Tea-Party and Trump... but the issues go way back before the Southern Strategy was born.

Definitely true.
However, our policies became especially atrocious for the decade or so after the Iranian people took back their country in the late 70s.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The trouble (of the many) with the Middle East / Persia is that we really have no moral high ground to cling to. A good deal of the anti-US sentiment isn't unfounded. So when we go in there to save the day, there is historical precedence that we are pretty much fending for our personal benefit and not any one local.

And in Israel, the guy in charge is a far right radical who only has eyes to a far right radical solution to Gaza. He helped kill the guy who might have been able to have brought forth a peace... maybe. Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt. His military response is really pointing to the large scale goal. Which will be a great short term plan. It'll be awful long-term, but short-term it looks great, for far right radicals.

 

[TomC]

The trouble (of the many) with the Middle East / Persia is that we really have no moral high ground to cling to. A good deal of the anti-US sentiment isn't unfounded. So when we go in there to save the day, there is historical precedence that we are pretty much fending for our personal benefit and not any one local.

Absolutely true.
Zillions of USA people fail to grasp that we earned the moniker "The Great Satan" over decades.
Not just there either. Around the globe, from central America to southeast Asia to Africa, plenty of people hate us for very good reasons.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt.

Several posters here would have us believe that unless we personally can think of a better solution we just need to accept that Netanyahu’s current plan is the only and best option.

 

[TomC]

Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt.

Several posters here would have us believe that unless we personally can think of a better solution we just need to accept that Netanyahu’s current plan is the only and best option.

I don't believe that is true.
Many of us recognize the lack of any plan better than Netanyahu's , for providing Israelis security, that is feasible. You needn't personally think of the better solution, but if you know of one suggested by anyone (a feasible plan, not just a reference to vague possibilities) I would love to hear it. But nobody has one.

Notice the word "feasible", it's important.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt.

Several posters here would have us believe that unless we personally can think of a better solution we just need to accept that Netanyahu’s current plan is the only and best option.

I don't believe that is true.
Many of us recognize the lack of any plan better than Netanyahu's , for providing Israelis security, that is feasible. You needn't personally think of the better solution, but if you know of one suggested by anyone (a feasible plan, not just a reference to vague possibilities) I would love to hear it. But nobody has one.

Notice the word "feasible", it's important.
Tom

If you read your own words, you'd see that the your use of "vague possibilities" and "feasible plan" make your response internally consistent.

 

[TomC]

If you read your own words, you'd see that the your use of "vague possibilities" and "feasible plan" make your response internally consistent.

I presume you meant "inconsistent".

Could you explain why? I'm not seeing it.

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.
What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt.

Several posters here would have us believe that unless we personally can think of a better solution we just need to accept that Netanyahu’s current plan is the only and best option.

I don't believe that is true.
Many of us recognize the lack of any plan better than Netanyahu's , for providing Israelis security, that is feasible.

Not really. It isn't reasonable to say that the guy who was in charge when the massacre happened, has a good plan for securing Israel. This is ignoring all of his other considerable baggage. One can't just handwave the massacre and say "...and he's made us safer".

You needn't personally think of the better solution, but if you know of one suggested by anyone (a feasible plan, not just a reference to vague possibilities) I would love to hear it.

Well, currently, I'd like to hear what the current plan actually is. "Attack Hamas" isn't a plan.

But nobody has one.

Nobody has a solution (including BiBi). But I think an understanding on priorities regarding a military response could easily be had.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Too many people are giving Netanyahu too much benefit of the doubt.

Several posters here would have us believe that unless we personally can think of a better solution we just need to accept that Netanyahu’s current plan is the only and best option.

I don't believe that is true.
Many of us recognize the lack of any plan better than Netanyahu's , for providing Israelis security, that is feasible. You needn't personally think of the better solution, but if you know of one suggested by anyone (a feasible plan, not just a reference to vague possibilities) I would love to hear it. But nobody has one.

Notice the word "feasible", it's important.
Tom

Fair enough, perhaps that was a bit of hyperbole with the use of the word "personally". Honestly, I don't know what other options may have been floated by any other governments, organizations, or individuals, including Israelis. "Feasible" is a vague term so it's hard to say what that means.

I guess it depends on what the concrete goals of the Israeli government actually are, and where the line is drawn for acceptable civilian deaths (on both sides) to achieve those goals.

 

[TomC]

Not really. It isn't reasonable to say that the guy who was in charge when the massacre happened, have a good plan for securing Israel. This is ignoring all of his other considerable baggage.

I didn't actually say it was good.
If I understand correctly, the main reason Netanyahu's polling is in the toilet is because he didn't prevent the October 7th terrorist attacks before it became such a huge disaster.
But he isn't stupid. The cynic in me strongly suspects that he and Likud were handing rope to the terrorists in Gaza until they hung themselves. 1200* Israeli deaths was the price paid to justify trashing the military installation in Gaza for the long term benefit of Israeli security, by his lights. Possibly driving all Muslims out of Gaza permanently.

And the Cold Equation is that the utter destruction of Gaza will mean that Israel has only the western border to protect. I could totally see why hard core right wing Zionists would call that an improvement to the situation back in September 2023.
Tom

ETA ~In case it isn't obvious, I have a very low opinion of humans and their behavior across the board.~

 

[Shadowy Man]

Not really. It isn't reasonable to say that the guy who was in charge when the massacre happened, have a good plan for securing Israel. This is ignoring all of his other considerable baggage.

I didn't actually say it was good.
If I understand correctly, the main reason Netanyahu's polling is in the toilet is because he didn't prevent the October 7th terrorist attacks before it became such a huge disaster.

Being on trial for corruption probably didn't help his polling, either.

 

[TomC]

Being on trial for corruption probably didn't help his polling, either.

Probably true.
But living here in the USA, I can't help but notice that sometimes corruption charges energize your base. Google "Trump corruption charges" for more information.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If you read your own words, you'd see that the your use of "vague possibilities" and "feasible plan" make your response internally consistent.

I presume you meant "inconsistent".

Could you explain why? I'm not seeing it.

Feasiblity and vagueness are in the eye of the beholders. When the beholders deny every offered possibility based on those standards, they are saying Netanhayu's plan is the best one available.

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.
What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?
Tom

So killing 1000s of the noncombatants and displacing millions is necessary because otherwise nukes are the only option to defend Israel from a bunch of murdering terrorists who have relatively little firepower?

 

[TomC]

So killing 1000s of the noncombatants and displacing millions is necessary because otherwise nukes are the only option to defend Israel from a bunch of murdering terrorists who have relatively little firepower?

This is the kind of strawman I have mentioned before.
I didn't say that because I don't think it's true.
Nukes aren't the only choice, just the last resort. In the meantime, trashing Gaza is much more feasible.
Of course, getting rid of the murdering terrorists without civilian casualties would be better. Got a feasible plan for that?
Anyone?
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Being on trial for corruption probably didn't help his polling, either.

Probably true.
But living here in the USA, I can't help but notice that sometimes corruption charges energize your base. Google "Trump corruption charges" for more information.
Tom

I guess the appropriate thing to do would be to look at changes in polling with time over the course of his corruption trial and Hamas attacks and his response.

 

[laughing dog]

So killing 1000s of the noncombatants and displacing millions is necessary because otherwise nukes are the only option to defend Israel from a bunch of murdering terrorists who have relatively little firepower?

This is the kind of strawman I have mentioned before.
I didn't say that because I don't think it's true.

You really need to read your own posts. You wrote "I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes. What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?" That certainly suggests that there is only the current strategy or nukes in your mind.

Nukes aren't the only choice, just the last resort. In the meantime, trashing Gaza is much more feasible.
Of course, getting rid of the murdering terrorists without civilian casualties would be better. Got a feasible plan for that?
Anyone?
Tom

For someone who claims to abjure straw men, you certainly introduce them all of the time. No one suggested that no civilian casualties were possible unless you think that avoiding killing 1000s of noncombatants and displacing millions means no civilian casualties. If that is case, then no rational discussion with you is possible.