Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

Ah, a tacit admission there is much more than simple defense of Israel in the war in Gaza. Revenge is an integral part of the human nature component.

Tacit hell.
I pointed it out up thread somewhere. More than once.
I'm sure revenge is one of the many motivations. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.
But not the only one, or even in the top three for the defense forces.

Do you think it's unacceptable for Israeli victims of Islamic violence to want revenge?
Tom

 

[TomC]

The willingness to excuse the unnecessary massive civilian deaths and destruction in Gaza is nauseating.

Got a better solution, that you're willing to discuss the ramifications of?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, a tacit admission there is much more than simple defense of Israel in the war in Gaza. Revenge is an integral part of the human nature component.

Tacit hell.
I pointed it out up thread somewhere. More than once.
I'm sure revenge is one of the many motivations. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.
But not the only one, or even in the top three for the defense forces.

Do you think it's unacceptable for Israeli victims of Islamic violence to want revenge?
Tom

No. I don't think it is unacceptable for anyone to want revenge. Not even Israelis or Palestinians.

But there is a big difference between "wanting" and "doing". Yet there are posters here who villify Palestinians when they voice their desire for revenge while they defend the massive killing of civilians in Gazan.

Got a better solution, that you're willing to discuss the ramifications of?

Been there, done that in this thread.

 

[TomC]

But there is a big difference between "wanting" and "doing". Yet there are posters here who villify Palestinians when they voice their desire for revenge while they defend the massive killing of civilians in Gazan.

I don't remember that.
Pointing out that wanting revenge against Israel, when Hamas is responsible for the disaster, is psychotic isn't the same.

Been there, done that in this thread.

I don't remember that. Could you refresh my memory?
I do remember vague possibilities put forward. But none were feasible or at all likely to be tried again by Israel, given the history. The current history in particular.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

But there is a big difference between "wanting" and "doing". Yet there are posters here who villify Palestinians when they voice their desire for revenge while they defend the massive killing of civilians in Gazan.

I don't remember that.
Pointing out that wanting revenge against Israel, when Hamas is responsible for the disaster, is psychotic isn't the same.

Hamas engaged in terrorism which prompted the gov't of Israel to make a choice on how to react. None is forcing the gov't of Israel to enact their revenge in this method. The IDF is killing magnitudes more civilians than Hamas and engaging in magnitudes more destruction than Hamas. It is psychotic to claim that Hamas is responsible for this tragedy - Hamas and Israel share responsibility, but equally.

Been there, done that in this thread.

I don't remember that. Could you refresh my memory?
I do remember vague possibilities put forward. But none were feasible or at all likely to be tried again by Israel, given the history. The current history in particular.
Tom

I could, but what would be the point. Handwaved dismissals as "infeasible" are boring.

 

[TomC]

. It is psychotic to claim that Hamas is responsible for this tragedy - Hamas and Israel share responsibility, but equally.

I find this bizarrely irrational and disconnected from reality.
Gazans, lead by Hamas, launched the attack on October 7.
The claim that there is equal blame there worse than unsupportable. I see it as flat out psychotic. It's like blaming the crowd when a shooter starts firing at them and the cops open fire on him. "Well, the crowd didn't have to be there and bring security. They're equally to blame."
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

. It is psychotic to claim that Hamas is responsible for this tragedy - Hamas and Israel share responsibility, but equally.

I find this bizarrely irrational and disconnected from reality.

Sorry, the "not" disappeared. I meant not equally. But I don't find that much difference between the two. What Israel lacks in intent, it more than makes up in disproportionate effects in destruction and death.

 

[TomC]

But I don't find that much difference between the two. What Israel lacks in intent, it more than makes up in disproportionate effects in destruction and death.

I don't understand why you think that.
Israel is responding to yet another violent attack. Those go back for many centuries.

But unlike previous centuries, Jewish folks don't have to just take it, in Israel, at this time. They used to, but that was then and this is now.

And I don't see the current Israeli response as disproportionate. It's quite measured, given the circumstances.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

But I don't find that much difference between the two. What Israel lacks in intent, it more than makes up in disproportionate effects in destruction and death.

I don't understand why you think that.
Israel is responding to yet another violent attack. Those go back for many centuries.

WTF are you going on about? Israel has not been around for centuries. And bringing in ancient history is truly pointless.

But unlike previous centuries, Jewish folks don't have to just take it, in Israel, at this time. They used to, but that was then and this is now.

And I don't see the current Israeli response as disproportionate. It's quite measured, given the circumstances.
Tom

Depending on the estimates, the Gazan civilian to Israeli civilian toll falls between 5 and 10. And that ignores the destruction of homes and displacement of people.

I admire your view of "proportionate" but I reject.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ah, a tacit admission there is much more than simple defense of Israel in the war in Gaza. Revenge is an integral part of the human nature component.

Tacit hell.
I pointed it out up thread somewhere. More than once.
I'm sure revenge is one of the many motivations. It's an unfortunate part of human nature.
But not the only one, or even in the top three for the defense forces.

Do you think it's unacceptable for Israeli victims of Islamic violence to want revenge?
Tom

No. I don't think it is unacceptable for anyone to want revenge. Not even Israelis or Palestinians.

But there is a big difference between "wanting" and "doing". Yet there are posters here who villify Palestinians when they voice their desire for revenge while they defend the massive killing of civilians in Gazan.

Got a better solution, that you're willing to discuss the ramifications of?

Been there, done that in this thread.

I don’t think that most Israelis want revenge. Most just want the hostages back; and the perpetrators killed.

 

[TomC]

WTF are you going on about? Israel has not been around for centuries. And bringing in ancient history is truly pointless.

No, but anti-jewish bigotry has been and that's why there are Zionists and Israel.
So where do you want to start history? May 1948?
Last October 7?

Here's the thing. Israel and Zionists are a product of the centuries of anti-jewish bigotry, especially the mid 20th century. That aspect of their culture isn't going away just because you now think that they're European intruders. Zionists aren't a representative sample of Jewish people, much less humans over all. They're, by and large, the fight or die because surrender or flight aren't options anymore types.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Depending on the estimates, the Gazan civilian to Israeli civilian toll falls between 5 and 10. And that ignores the destruction of homes and displacement of people.

I admire your view of "proportionate" but I reject

Could you explain a broad strokes version of a plan to eliminate the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism from Gaza with a lower death toll? I don't know of one.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

OK. Thanks. It seemed like some were unwilling to state the obvious ramifications of their stances.

That's a big problem across the board and on this thread.
Lots of people seem to think that Israelis just need to learn to get along with their Islamic neighbors. Stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks. Without quite being willing to acknowledge the obvious ramifications of that stance.
Tom

Who here has suggested Israel stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks?

 

[laughing dog]

Depending on the estimates, the Gazan civilian to Israeli civilian toll falls between 5 and 10. And that ignores the destruction of homes and displacement of people.

I admire your view of "proportionate" but I reject

Could you explain a broad strokes version of a plan to eliminate the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism from Gaza with a lower death toll? I don't know of one.
Tom

Not bombing the shit out of Gaza in order to get hostages back.

 

[Tigers!]

Depending on the estimates, the Gazan civilian to Israeli civilian toll falls between 5 and 10. And that ignores the destruction of homes and displacement of people.

I admire your view of "proportionate" but I reject

Could you explain a broad strokes version of a plan to eliminate the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism from Gaza with a lower death toll? I don't know of one.
Tom

Not bombing the shit out of Gaza in order to get hostages back.

How will they get them (the hostages) back otherwise?

 

[Tigers!]

OK. Thanks. It seemed like some were unwilling to state the obvious ramifications of their stances.

That's a big problem across the board and on this thread.
Lots of people seem to think that Israelis just need to learn to get along with their Islamic neighbors. Stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks. Without quite being willing to acknowledge the obvious ramifications of that stance.
Tom

Who here has suggested Israel stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks?

Whenever someone here complains about anything Israel does in response to violent Islamic attacks then maybe they are telling Israel to stop responding to violent Islamic attacks?

 

[Arctish]

WTF are you going on about? Israel has not been around for centuries. And bringing in ancient history is truly pointless.

No, but anti-jewish bigotry has been and that's why there are Zionists and Israel.
So where do you want to start history? May 1948?
Last October 7?

This is a very important question. Where should we start in our discussion of current events, and the roots of the current bloodshed?

If you begin on October 7th of last year then the attack came out of nowhere and nothing. But obviously it did arise out of someplace and for some reason, which is why IMO divorcing the attack from the situation in the Occupied Territories is dishonest and foolish.

If you go back 4 months, to July 2023, then our discussion should include the rampage by Zionist settlers near Ramallah. But that, too, did not come out of nothing and nowhere. There are reasons it happened.

If you go back to May, that was when there was an exchange of fire between Israel and Gaza. The Israelis claimed to have assassinated a couple of people they claimed were militants, along with more than a dozen civilians. Apparently there were reasons the Israelis decided to commit multiple murders in a place outside Israel's borders. Obviously that sort of thing, and the deaths of ordinary people going about their everyday lives, fuels the fighting.

The question of where to begin a discussion of the conflict is going to heavily influence why we think it is happening, which will in turn affect how we think it might be resolved.

Here's the thing. Israel and Zionists are a product of the centuries of anti-jewish bigotry, especially the mid 20th century. That aspect of their culture isn't going away just because you now think that they're European intruders. Zionists aren't a representative sample of Jewish people, much less humans over all. They're, by and large, the fight or die because surrender or flight aren't options anymore types.
Tom

Then the path to peace leads through Israel having defensible borders and NOT continuing to put its people in harm's way in those illegal settlements. If the goal is security, then ffs Israel needs to keep its civilians inside the boundaries the Palestinians and Israelis agreed were the borders of the State of Israel, and get onboard with a Two State solution.

The path to peace takes everyone to a more secure and prosperous future. If you want peace, you have to be willing to share the prosperity, not just grab all the shit you can get your hands on. And you have to oppose those who seek to deny security and prosperity to others.

If you want peace, don't let the extremists and the assholes control the agenda.

 

[Arctish]

OK. Thanks. It seemed like some were unwilling to state the obvious ramifications of their stances.

That's a big problem across the board and on this thread.
Lots of people seem to think that Israelis just need to learn to get along with their Islamic neighbors. Stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks. Without quite being willing to acknowledge the obvious ramifications of that stance.
Tom

Who here has suggested Israel stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks?

Whenever someone here complains about anything Israel does in response to violent Islamic attacks then maybe they are telling Israel to stop responding to violent Islamic attacks?

I see people complaining about some of the things Israel has done in response to the attacks.

Israel must act to protect its citizens. That's why it exists. But that doesn't mean everything it does is automatically justified, especially when what it does kills so many civilians, most of whom are children.

Suppose the response to the Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians had been Hamas gassing Israelis in Tel Aviv the same way the Kurds were gassed by Saddam Hussein. Suppose for every Palestinian that was killed or injured, 10 Israelis were killed in exchange. Would you say that response was unjustifiable murder, or would you say something like 'all's fair in love and war'?

 

[TomC]

How will they get them (the hostages) back otherwise?

Honestly, I'm no tactical expert but it seems obvious to me that bombing reduces the likelihood of hostages surviving or returning.

I just don't think that they're a particularly high priority to IDF or the Israeli government. They've got bigger priorities.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Depending on the estimates, the Gazan civilian to Israeli civilian toll falls between 5 and 10. And that ignores the destruction of homes and displacement of people.

I admire your view of "proportionate" but I reject

Could you explain a broad strokes version of a plan to eliminate the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism from Gaza with a lower death toll? I don't know of one.
Tom

Not bombing the shit out of Gaza in order to get hostages back.

How will they get them (the hostages) back otherwise?

How about the old-fashioned way of negotiating? Bombing the shit out of the very place where the hostages are located is just as likely to get them killed as getting them released.