Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

But all of the attacks being "defensive" are only so because you labeled them "defensive".

Do you think that the Russian attack on Ukraine was defensive?
I see a distinction between defensive and aggressive attacks. From the bombing of London to the Rape of Nanking to the USA Iraqi Invasion to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Oct 7 Islamic attack on Israel, I can see the difference between those violent assaults and the defensive responses to those aggressive attacks. Including the carpet bombing of Tokyo and Dresden.

I really don't want Israel to carpet bomb Gaza, but I'd understand if they did. I think that their response has, so far, been quite restrained and measured compared to what it could have been.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

How about coming down out of your ivory tower and paying a little attention to what actually is going on in the real world?

The price Hamas would demand for the hostages would no doubt end up killing more Israelis than there are hostages. The news reports of the time even mentioned that negotiation wasn't a realistic option.

Bullshit. Negotiations is not giving in to the first set of demands. It is about coming to terms. Negotiations were not a realistic option when neither side wants to negotiate.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not privy to Hamas decision-making and neither are you. Your response makes no sense. Historically, Hamas takes hostages to trade for people they wish released from Israeli custody. It makes no sense for them to release them without getting anything that they value. Hamas does not value the lives of their citizens. Hamas only values the lives of their hostages in so far as those hostages are tradable. And in the past, Israel has made such trades.

Yeah--at ratios of like 5000:1. Israel has learned better--dealing with Hamas just gets more Israelis killed. (Some of the people released last time were part of the 10/7 attack.) Bombing, however, got a lot of hostages released.

Why in the world should you expect Israel to engage in a strategy shown to have negative value rather than a strategy shown to have positive value?

What positive value do you think is happening now? Certainly you don't see 1000s of noncombatant deaths, massive destruction of infrastructure, IDF deaths, a slowdown in the Israeli economy and a dimming of Israel's standing within the international community a positive value?

You seem unable to grasp reality here. If Israel wants to get hostages back alive, they need to deal with Hamas. Otherwise, they risk the hostages either being killed by Hamas or by IDF bombardment. Of course, if Israel does not really care about the hostages, then there is no incentive for Israel to deal with Hamas.

You seem unable to grasp reality here. Your "solution" is simply slow death for Israel.

Bullshit. But then again, I expect such bullshit from a proponent of violent ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

 

[laughing dog]

You can safely draw any wrong conclusions you wish. Hamas has made trades before.

If you bomb the shit out of the area where the hostages are held, can we safely assume you don't give a shit about getting the hostages back alive?

Hamas has made incredibly lopsided deals before. To make a deal 200x as big would destroy Israel.

Even now, look at what's being proposed as "peace"--basically, total Israeli capitulation. That's what Tehran thinks the hostages are worth.

There is no need for you to provide more evidence you have no idea what negotiation means or involves. It does not mean giving in to the first set of demands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are more than two options.

1) Co-exist with the Gazans in a mutually beneficial partnership
2) Slay all that breathe in Gaza and move Zionist settlers into the newly available real estate
3) Disengage entirely. Let the Gazans manage their own affairs and resources.

The choice isn't between Kill or Die.

'Let's find a way to work together' and MYOB are perfectly valid options, too.

The choice is between reality and delusion.

How do you propose Israel disengage entirely? Rockets can still fly over. Paragliders can still fly over. Children can plant bombs against the barrier fence and blow holes in it for infantry.

Hamas will not accept the existence of Israel. Thus the war will exist so long as both Israel and Hamas exist.

"Let's find a way to work together" assumes both parties are interested in working together and has no relevance to the current situation.

 

[TomC]

The IDF is not engaging in defensive combat.

You seem to really believe that.
I can't comprehend the mindset that gives you to believe that the current disaster in Gaza is anything but a defensive reaction to Palestinian behavior across decades.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have already been shown some of the pogroms and stuck your head in the sand.

Link to the posts, please. I remember you posting about French colonial Algeria, but nothing about Ottoman Turks or the provinces in their Empire.

Wikipedia lists some.

The problem is that direct sources are not likely to be online and not likely to be in English and thus are in the realm of historians, not Google.

Note that that article about Algeria treated it as if it were a normal thing--because that's how the world was back then. Jews got massacred now and then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many hundred IDF dead as part of the military response?

There are many different types of reality checks. For instance, the reality check that just because Netanyahu orders it, doesn't mean it is making Israel safer. The globe gave him a blank check and looked the other way... he didn't get anything done of value in that time... other than potentially set the path to taking Gaza in whole. Hamas has been weakened a little. Their infrastructure has been disturbed. But the losses for Hamas seemed disproportionately small relative to the damage in general. I don't see how Israel is significantly better off now than they were.

Reality check: Even Hamas admits 6,000 of it's people are dead. That's 20%. Are 20% of all Gazans dead? Even using Hamas numbers we are at about 1% of civilians dead. Last I saw Israel was saying 30% of Hamas was dead, but there do not seem to be decent reporting on the numbers anymore. In what world is 20% small relative to 1%??

You seem to want to only do an apples to apples thing here. The destruction of Gaza goes far beyond the Gazan death toll.

Yeah, the place is a mess, just as Hamas wanted. I don't see that the world owes them anything.

Additionally, 20 to 30%? That means 70% to 80% aren't dead. Meaning the reduction in violence capacity has been reduced a relatively small amount, as far as its potential to impact Israelis. Which is supposed to be the whole purpose of the response, right?

A military force is degraded far more than simply the percentage of it's troops that are dead.

So excessive damage to an area that can't rebuild for the benefit of a small impact on Hamas numbers and infrastructure. And this is ignoring that Hamas likely shifted stuff before the attack.

Tunnels don't move.

So, I don't take those polls to mean that the participants necessarily are in favor of terrorism. Some or all may be, but they may be expressing their displeasure of what they perceive as grave injustice towards their group.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away. And note that very few consider such attacks wrongful.

You make that claim, but I feel as if you don't actually know the positions (you have made a great deal of presumptions based on anecdotes and flawed analogies), as they were, are, and will be. Excluding and including the IDF assault.

Poll after poll has shown that they consider terrorism to be legitimate combat. Since the terrorists have controlled the educational system for a lifetime this is not a surprising result.

Poll after poll... so there were statistically significant polls (one after the other) asking Gazans whether they felt the brutal murder of over 1000 Israeli civilians was "legitimate combat"?

No, there have been polls over the years whether they consider various things proper. And the idea that civilian Jews are valid targets of heinous acts gets widespread support. They have not been raised with our ideas on war crimes.

 

[TomC]

There is no need for you to provide more evidence you have no idea what negotiation means or involves. It does not mean giving in to the first set of demands.

I do know a bit about negotiations.
First thing you need is another party with credibility and authority.
There is no such party for Israel to negotiate with.
Israel can't negotiate, because there's nobody to negotiate with in Gaza.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The IDF is not engaging in defensive combat.

You seem to really believe that.
I can't comprehend the mindset that gives you to believe that the current disaster in Gaza is anything but a defensive reaction to Palestinian behavior across decades.
Tom

I am sorry to say that I can comprehend the mindset that says killing 1000s of noncombatants in an INVASTION is purely a defensive reaction. I've seen it enough that it barely nauseates me.

 

[laughing dog]

There is no need for you to provide more evidence you have no idea what negotiation means or involves. It does not mean giving in to the first set of demands.

I do know a bit about negotiations.
First thing you need is another party with credibility and authority.
There is no such party for Israel to negotiate with.
Israel can't negotiate, because there's nobody to negotiate with in Gaza.
Tom

You are mistaken. The first cease fire was due to negotiations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How many hundred IDF dead as part of the military response?

There are many different types of reality checks. For instance, the reality check that just because Netanyahu orders it, doesn't mean it is making Israel safer. The globe gave him a blank check and looked the other way... he didn't get anything done of value in that time... other than potentially set the path to taking Gaza in whole. Hamas has been weakened a little. Their infrastructure has been disturbed. But the losses for Hamas seemed disproportionately small relative to the damage in general. I don't see how Israel is significantly better off now than they were.

Reality check: Even Hamas admits 6,000 of it's people are dead. That's 20%. Are 20% of all Gazans dead? Even using Hamas numbers we are at about 1% of civilians dead. Last I saw Israel was saying 30% of Hamas was dead, but there do not seem to be decent reporting on the numbers anymore. In what world is 20% small relative to 1%??

You seem to want to only do an apples to apples thing here. The destruction of Gaza goes far beyond the Gazan death toll.

Yeah, the place is a mess, just as Hamas wanted. I don't see that the world owes them anything.

This would be you equating Hamas with Gaza again.

Additionally, 20 to 30%? That means 70% to 80% aren't dead. Meaning the reduction in violence capacity has been reduced a relatively small amount, as far as its potential to impact Israelis. Which is supposed to be the whole purpose of the response, right?

A military force is degraded far more than simply the percentage of it's troops that are dead.

Only if the force's ability to fight has been degraded. Munitions, explosives, etc...

So excessive damage to an area that can't rebuild for the benefit of a small impact on Hamas numbers and infrastructure. And this is ignoring that Hamas likely shifted stuff before the attack.

Tunnels don't move.

Yes, tunnels. Is every bomb for a tunnel? Is Gaza lacking any subgrade whatsoever because it is nothing but tunnels? We are well past four months now. How many more tunnels are there?

Poll after poll has shown that they consider terrorism to be legitimate combat. Since the terrorists have controlled the educational system for a lifetime this is not a surprising result.

Poll after poll... so there were statistically significant polls (one after the other) asking Gazans whether they felt the brutal murder of over 1000 Israeli civilians was "legitimate combat"?

No,

Okay, you can just stop there then.

...there have been polls over the years whether they consider various things proper. And the idea that civilian Jews are valid targets of heinous acts gets widespread support.

The poll ask that? Are Civilian Israelis valid targets of "heinous acts"? I'm more than certain there are some that think likewise. And even more that think targeting Israel as a broader target isn't out of bounds. But we are talking about an atrocity. And you, and others, keep saying they'd support that atrocity. I know you understand the concepts of nuance and context. You should apply them better here.

They have not been raised with our ideas on war crimes.

Indeed, they've been raised in abject poverty, neglected by every single civilization on the planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the level of response by IDF is the best option, since there is clearly no other option ever presented by anyone anywhere, why isn’t the death toll acceptable? The opposite would be “unacceptable” and that clearly isn’t what you and Loren are portraying.

If this is what it takes for Israel to defend itself and to destroy Hamas then we must accept the level of death and destruction as a necessary, even if tragic, consequence, right?

Because people don't like it when the only answers are bad. It's a lot easier to pretend the facts are wrong than to accept what they say.

But this doesn't doesn't mean all options are equivalently bad. There are options that are bad ideas, there are options that are better ideas. The goal is Israeli security. Killing a few thousands Hamas isn't going to secure Israel. Killing 20,000 Hamas won't either. Destroying some tunnels will slow Hamas down, it won't end the conflict.

Yes, it will slow Hamas down. That's the best Israel can hope to accomplish without resorting to extreme measures.

Now the other side of the equation is what level of radicalization is being influenced by the Israeli military response.

None, because it's driven by the terror funding, not by Israeli actions.

What is the Net gain? Your responses hinge on Israeli Response = Only Viable Response.

It will be longer before they hit Israel again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Been there, done that in this thread.

You presented a pie-in-the-sky non-answer and are pretending you presented a solution.

Do you have any real solution? One that can pass the laugh test? Or is this just another misdirection to avoid discussing unpleasant reality?

Do you have any real solution? Other than "destroy Hamas".

Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza, they can't be destroyed.

The intent is to tear them up as much as possible to make it longer before they can launch another attack.

 

[jonatha]

Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza, they can't be destroyed

I think it would have been a far more effective response to have concentrated on finding them and destroying them.

 

[TomC]

The intent is to tear them up as much as possible to make it longer before they can launch another attack.

More precisely, tear up the military installation Hamas built with international funding.
And make sure Gazans understand that rebuilding those terrorist installations won't be in their best interests.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check: The support in Gaza is less than it is elsewhere. Seeing the destruction does the exact opposite of what you claim.

It disproves nothing I wrote to anyone who can reason properly. I was trying to show your "fact" has multiple reasonable interpretations, not the single bigoted one that you trumpet. Your response does not rebut my observation. In fact, in order your response to have any relevance whatsoever to your point, you'd have to show the support before 10/7 and after 10/7 in Gaza. As usual, you have handwaved your assertion of fact.

You continue to avoid addressing the point.

If the support is a reaction to the violence then why is it less in the area where the violence is happening?

And note that very few consider such attacks wrongful.

So what? I wouldn’t consider kicking Trump in the nuts wrongful but I wouldn’t condone it.

And once again you come up with a total irrelevancy.

The point is that they do not consider slaughtering civilians to be wrong.

As usual, your response misses the point. Whether or not someone does not consider X wrong does not mean they condone X. You are engaging in yet another one of your many logical fallacies. Stop it. It hinders discussion.

Once again, your argument is not connected to reality.

I do not say that not considering X wrong means they condone it. Rather, I said if they condone X then they do not consider it wrong.

if p then q does not mean if q then p.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So the side willing to act in the most evil way should automatically be given victory because opposing them will result in more deaths.

Do you realize how evil your position is?

I realize how fucking stupid your straw man is.

Find some straw, then.

Your approach means evil leaders can sacrifice their people to be considered on the right side of a combat.

It's part of dictator public relations 101 and well understood by the likes of Saddam and Hamas because the world is full of gullible idiots that fall for it.

 

[TomC]

Hamas leadership isn't in Gaza, they can't be destroyed

I think it would have been a far more effective response to have concentrated on finding them and destroying them.

How would IDF do that?
As has been pointed out, over and over, Gazans are radicalized. They're violent.

Killing Hamas leadership won't change that.

And how would IDF find and destroy Hamas without attacking Qatar? Might be better to attack Iran. Would you agree that bombing Iran is a good idea, from the standpoint of Israeli security?
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Poll after poll has shown that they consider terrorism to be legitimate combat.

"Legitimate combat" is a moral figment of your imagination used to dehumanize one side and defend another side. Claiming that bombing noncombatants is "legitimate combat" makes the term meaningless.

Pretending there isn't a difference is choosing to side with evil.