Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

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"?

Why do you think Hamas aren't freeing the hostages?

Because that is the only thing holding Mossad back from clinical strikes against the top tier of Hamas in Qatar.

You think the Mossad can hit them?

And do you think they would react by killing hostages, thus making themselves even more of a target?

Could it be that what is happening is what Hamas was hoping would happen?

I wouldn't use the word "hope". But pretty certain they expected a lot of reprisals. Hence, why they took hostages in the first place, because the scope of the October 7th attack was so over the top, they knew the response would be without mercy against the upper powers of Hamas, unless they had leverage. That is why all this killing by the IDF against Hamas is almost smack one's forehead frustrating. The IDF is eliminating the easiest part of the Hamas system to replace.

Hostages have historically proven to be how to get concessions out of Israel. Israel has now realized that negotiating for them is a negative-value option so the only solution is by force. The Israeli electorate is used to the reality of war and isn't going to go airhead at having to make a hard choice.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Is that part of the lullaby you need to sleep at night?

 

[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.

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.

I apologize. There is no straw, just unmitigated horseshit. I did not say anything about the "right side of combat" or who is considered on which side.

Interestingly, in post 3,266 of this thread TomC pointed out how evil my comment was, and you liked it. I responded to that post in 3267 saying that I meant "not equally". So, your entire horseshit argument is based on a misunderstanding that you could have avoided with basic reading comprehension.

 

[TomC]

Is that part of the lullaby you need to sleep at night?

Didn't you copy that from Barbos?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Is that part of the lullaby you need to sleep at night?

Didn't you copy that from Barbos?
Tom

Isn't it hard to type when you are goosestepping?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

1) They are Jews.
2) They are the side with the most power.

Therefore they are wrong, all that's left is figuring out how to blame them.

 

[TomC]

Is that part of the lullaby you need to sleep at night?

Didn't you copy that from Barbos?
Tom

Isn't it hard to type when you are goosestepping?

That sounds like a yes, I did copy it from Barbos.
Tom

 

[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.

This would be you equating Hamas with Gaza again.

Hamas has complete control of Gaza. They are functionally equivalent.

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...

Sorry, but real-world military experience is the degradation is more than the losses.

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?

Note the bombing rate is dropping off--they're running out of things to hit. Now it's a ground force.

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.

No, they ask about specific things. Stuff we would consider war crimes.

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.

The attitude I'm talking about is far more widespread than just Gaza.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So they should have flung an H-tipped missile at Doha?

 

[Tigers!]

"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.Geneva conventions

You really think that those who spent some much time and effort on drafting, implementing and maintaining these conventions were not interesting in legitimate combat? They were engaging in moral figmentation?

 

[laughing dog]

"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.Geneva conventions

You really think that those who spent some much time and effort on drafting, implementing and maintaining these conventions were not interesting in legitimate combat? They were engaging in moral figmentation?

I think they spent much time and effort in making rules that 1) would keep their enemies hopefully in check, and 2) minimize blowback on themselves when they acted.

"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder or the maker of the rules.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that Hamas is not interested in negotiation. They only want the destruction of Israel.
What now should Israel do and why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The money that funds it is not driven by Israeli action. However, Israeli actions and spin on Israeli actions / inactions / non-actions / made up shit can and does.

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

It will be longer before they hit Israel again.

Well, it was a while before the 10/7 attack. I'm not seeing that as being a relevant metric.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Oh, yes, yes they can. That is why Hamas got the hostages, so Mossad wouldn't end the people up top. Mossad wouldn't use a bomber or missile, but more likely a rifle or drone.

 

[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.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that Hamas is not interested in negotiation.

Your conclusion about my acknowledgement is delusional.

They only want the destruction of Israel.

Your conclusion is inane There is no reason for Hamas to take hostages if all they care about is the destruction of Israel.

 

[Arctish]

I usually start at the beginning of the 20th century. Things were quiet under Ottoman rule. Sure, there had been murderers, thieves, land swindlers, corrupt officials, bigoted assholes, organized crime, etc., but for four centuries the society was as peaceful as we human beings can usually manage. The millet system the Ottomans employed made their empire very egalitarian. The problems associated with it, namely that it fostered separatism, had been addressed by the reforms of the 19th century. All subjects of the Empire were equal in status, and all were equally protected. And since Palestine had been peaceful for centuries up to that point, I think it's sensible to start with the question "what changed?", and to seek the answer to the question " what can we learn from that time to help people living in Palestine find peace again?".

Start wherever you like. But if you find that the things you are discussing appear to have come out of nothing and nowhere, you are probably ignoring something important about the initial conditions.

Jim Crow as also basically peaceful.

What sources did you use to inform your opinion of Palestine under Ottoman rule?

 

[Arctish]

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.

The same way it disengaged from Jordan and Egypt. Not all at once, not blindly, and not without strengthening Israel's defenses.

The first step is for you to be sincere about wanting peace more than you want conquest, or revenge, or to exploit the situation for your own benefit. Then comes the negotiation, then the implementation of the negotiated deal. Then comes the hard part: upholding your end of the deal even if there's pressure to resume the war coming from the haters and exploiters.

The Oslo Accords fell apart when the haters in Israel murdered the Prime Minister backing the plan and the people who wanted the deal to go through stopped fighting for it. It's time to try again.

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.

Okay, I'm going to say this again, in color:

IMO Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box. There are too many violent bigoted assholes in the organization for it to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I also think Likud and the faction Netanyahu leads must also be defeated or at least sidelined. There are too many violent bigoted assholes in his coalition for anyone to trust them to be sincere about honoring a negotiated peace. It's much more likely they'd be calling for the death of the Prime Minister who negotiated the deal, just like they did the last time.

The people of Gaza are not Hamas and the Palestinians are more than just the people of Gaza, in the same way that Israelis are not all Zionists living the West Bank settlements. Hamas and militant Zionists are a huge part of the problem, but not a huge part of the general public. They should not be allowed to destroy the peace that most people want just because they want land, or revenge, or power.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Wikipedia lists some what? Some pogroms that happened in different places at different times under different governing authorities? Which ones are relevant to this discussion? Remember, we're talking about Jews living under Ottoman rule in Palestine. If you think the pogroms carried out by Cossacks in Ukraine are relevant, you'll have to explain the relevance.

Also, if you don't have access to direct sources, what are you using as a source and what makes you think it's reliable? What informs your opinion of life for Jews under Ottoman rule?

 

[ZiprHead]

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%??

Last report I saw was over 28 thousand dead Gazans.

 

[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.

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

Israel has often used targeted assassination, including in Iran.