Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

Why should Israel take in enemy population?

Children are not Israel's enemies.

I have already said why Israel should relocate the imperiled children to Ashkelon. A great many of them are from families that were forced out of Ashkelon by Zionists when Israel was founded. It makes more sense, and is far more just and fair, for their families to be repatriated rather than being forced into another country at gunpoint.

Children without their parents? Not going to happen. Children with their parents? Expect a city full of booby traps.

Besides, you're still assuming Hamas would permit it--and given their pattern of shooting anyone who resists being a human shield I see no reason to think your proposal has a snowball's chance in hell of working.

I understand that you support the ethnic cleansing of any part of Palestine that Zionists desire, and are onboard with genocide if that's the only way to accomplish that goal. I don't expect you to have any other suggestions. But I do expect even you to hesitate to call babies the enemies of Israel.

I don't support ethnic cleansing. It's just I don't support caving to Hamas because they are using their people as human shields. They already bend over backwards to get civilians off the X which is as good as can reasonably be attained. I would prefer nobody dead but deaths on the side that chose war are a lesser evil than deaths on the side that didn't.

I proposed something similar - evacuate children under 14 and one adult caretaker per family. But it was Sinai that I proposed, not Ashkelon. Why are you demanding Israel must be the one to take them in? Especially given the Palestinian ideology of so-called "return", which sees demographics as a weapon to destroy Israel from within, I do not see why Israel should do so.

Of course you don't.

In the view you constantly espouse, Israel is a religious ethno-state where only the 'right sort' of person should be allowed to live. You support ethnic cleansing and vociferously oppose undoing the effects of Plan Dalet or stopping the on-going seizing of Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories.

Of course you don't want non-Jews or their families returning to their former communities in the Jewish State.

If they were allowed anywhere in Israel there is no way Hamas would permit their return to Gaza. To return would be to be killed for betraying the cause.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas wants to destroy the "Zionist entity".

You mean Israel. Why do you use the language of the islamofascists?

I use the term because it's the term Hamas used in their Charter, and I was talking about Hamas. They say that Jews are not their enemy but the "Zionist entity" is. I'm not entirely sure what the definition is in the original text. It's clear from their actions that they are against Israel remaining a Jewish State for Jews only but it's not clear they would oppose Israel becoming a secular, multicultural State.

It's not clear to you because you don't want to see it. Hamas did not change their intent, they just watered down the words to make them more palatable to western ears.

I think some of the more zealous Hamas members would stick with the position that Israel must be disbanded and destroyed, but I believe that the more pragmatic members would see Israel becoming secular and allowing Muslim and Christian Palestinians to reclaim their former homes, farms, businesses, etc., or be fairly compensated for their loss, as a win.

And I see someone bending over backwards to avoid seeing the reality.

Had Gazans decided in 2005 to live in peace there would be no need for any of this. Instead, they chose war. You think Israel should give in no matter how Gazans behave.

You are making my point: Israel did not disengage from Gaza, it continued to interfere with Gazan affairs.

Interfere only in stopping weapons imports. If their intent had been peaceful that would have amounted to no interference.

That's what peace is for.

Far more easier said than done. In any case, there is no peace possible as long as Hamas is in charge and it (and terrorist groups like it) enjoy strong support among Palestinians.

Peace with the Palestinian Authority is not only possible, it's on offer right now. And if peace between Israel and the PA results in more prosperity and better prospects for Palestinians in the West Bank, Hamas would lose both support and credibility.

Peace is on offer? The only peace offer I'm aware of is Israel props them up forever and ceases to enforce the border between the nations, giving them free ability to raid.

If what you're calling peace is the total subjugation or eradication of your 'enemies', you're bullshitting someone, possibly yourself. That's not peace, that's all out war. And if your enemies are literally babies, wtf is wrong with you?

Yeah, you are. That's exactly what you're calling for--total subjugation or eradication of the Jews. You pretend it's going to be all light and rainbows when you reimpose Jim Crow but that's not going to happen.

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

I do not see why the 1967 should be regarded as permanent borders. It was merely the state when the fighting stopped in 1949. It has no other significance. They can be basis for negotiation, but should not be considered sacrosanct.

Whether or not you see it doesn't matter.

The Israeli government and the PLO agreed that Israel's border would be there when the Oslo Accords were signed, with the possibility of adjustments made via land swaps.

Oslo specifically did not define the borders.

Also, Gaza needs a way to export its products, import goods, sell its natural gas, and fish in Gazan territorial waters without Israeli interference.

That is not going to be possible in the near or even medium term.

Then there will be no peace.

What you fail to understand is that Israel isn't limiting commerce, it's limiting weapons.

Gaza has to do its part. That means that after Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers, Gaza should not have responded by shooting hundreds of rockets into Israel.

You make it sound like that was the immediate response. It wasn't. There were years of issues and scores of dead civilians before hundreds of rockets were fired. As you well know.

And you fail to see the pattern that it's poke, poke, poke, STOMP. Just quit poking, there will be peace.

It's just that their job is poking. No poking, no money. Like dictators everywhere it's very dangerous for them to give up the reigns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Hamas always finds some pretext. Even when it's completely fake. (They have attacked Israel because a Gaza beachgoer hit a Hamas land mine.)

But we aren't talking Hamas, we are talking about Hamas being able to convince young males to kill themselves for the cause. Israeli actions do impact that part of the calculus. I'm not saying Israel is responsible for Hamas' desires, but that Israeli military actions make it easier for Hamas to get young people to do awful things.

Hamas convinces young males by giving them no other options. While it is a "choice" it is one of desperation.

Your remark is ridiculous to the point of insulting. Obviously targeting tunnels would be a wise thing. I'm asking just how many tunnels are there. It has been four months. This is Gaza, not Texas!

Gaza has a more extensive tunnel network than any subway system in the world. And the bombing pace has dropped considerably--they're obviously running low on identifiable targets and are going with a ground invasion. But remember that in modern warfare the infantry locates strong points but calls in fire from above to actually take them out.

Furthermore, my specific remark that you quoted was questioning how important the duration is between attacks, when the duration was decent before the October 7th atrocities. The magnitudes of the attacks matters quite a bit.

Destroying Hamas infrastructure will both delay and reduce the size of the next attack.

And finally, my questions have always been about the security of Israel and these attacks providing little towards it. Destroy some tunnels, kill a bunch of foot soldiers. What is the gain for Israeli security verses what is lost in the PR war that matters a lot more than you are willing to give credit? If you kill 20% of Hamas, but recruitment skyrockets, have you accomplished much of anything?

If Israel listened to the PR they would be dead. The world is always calling on them to be good Jews and accept being slaughtered.

And I think the tunnels are more important than the foot soldiers. The tunnels are how Hamas hides from Israel.

As for recruitment--that's entirely a function of money, not Israeli actions. People join Hamas because it's the only path out of total poverty both for them and their families.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas does not want peace, Hamas continues to be funded/armed for war. Thus there will not be peace.

Unfortunately, it's not just Hamas. If Israel killed every leader of Hamas, other people would take their place.
It's Islamic culture.
Tom

Agreed. Hamas is simply the head of the hydra that Israel is currently fighting. You can't kill a hydra by chopping off it's heads.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody's coherent claims put the civilian death rate above 1%, nor put the Hamas death rate below 20%.

If there are 28,000 dead and 9,000 are Hamas, then 19,000 are noncombatants. Hamas killed less than 2000 noncombatants. So ratio of Gazan to Israeli civilian death rate is more than 9 to 1.

If you were interested in discussion rather than derailing you would have seen I was talking about Palestinian civilians.

Specifically, that Israel has killed at least 20% of the combatants but less than 1% of the civilians.

Your comparison to Israeli civilians is falling straight into the dictator's deception of killing their own people to make the enemy look bad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas does not want peace, Hamas continues to be funded/armed for war. Thus there will not be peace.

Unfortunately, it's not just Hamas. If Israel killed every leader of Hamas, other people would take their place.
It's Islamic culture.

Do you mean it is extremism in Islam culture? Otherwise, your observation is hogwash.

I have repeatedly pointed out that it's Iran.

 

[TomC]

Hamas does not want peace, Hamas continues to be funded/armed for war. Thus there will not be peace.

Unfortunately, it's not just Hamas. If Israel killed every leader of Hamas, other people would take their place.
It's Islamic culture.

Do you mean it is extremism in Islam culture? Otherwise, your observation is hogwash.

I have repeatedly pointed out that it's Iran.

I agree that Iran is a big problem.
But Egypt could save a bunch of innocent children by opening their border with Gaza. They won't do it.

I see the problem as Islamic culture.

It's not only Islamic culture. Western culture and christian culture are also pretty horrible on that score. Communist culture is also dreadful, there's just no end to human Immorality.
But Muslim violence is the problem in this particular instance, and the intransigence of Muslim entitlement.

The Zionists have no choice but fight or die. Muslims do have other choices.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody's coherent claims put the civilian death rate above 1%, nor put the Hamas death rate below 20%.

If there are 28,000 dead and 9,000 are Hamas, then 19,000 are noncombatants. Hamas killed less than 2000 noncombatants. So ratio of Gazan to Israeli civilian death rate is more than 9 to 1.

If you were interested in discussion rather than derailing you would have seen I was talking about Palestinian civilians.

As was I. So your derailment accusation is nonsense.

Specifically, that Israel has killed at least 20% of the combatants but less than 1% of the civilians.

Your comparison to Israeli civilians is falling straight into the dictator's deception of killing their own people to make the enemy look bad.

Your comparison comes right out of the “ How to Lie with Statistics” because it minimizes the relative extent of the attacks. Hamas killed less than 0.02 %of Israeli citizens.

 

[laughing dog]

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

WTF is wrong with anyone who defends killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you kill 20% of Hamas, but recruitment skyrockets, have you accomplished much of anything?

I was going to comment on that, too. Discussing percents of terrorist organizations that have been killed has an underlying assumption that the recruiting is 0. Not to mention, there's always a distribution with these things, a continuum or spectrum...so one day a person might not be Hamas and the next day, they may be sympathetic, a year later, they might be Hamas. Then, you may have some who were almost ready to join and then decide to join PA instead but still are sympathetic to Hamas goals. It's a giant clusterfuck of untrackable, changing opinion.

 

[TomC]

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

WTF is wrong with anyone who defends killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective?

Ask Hamas.
They are using human shields by the thousands.
Including babies.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

WTF is wrong with anyone who defends killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective?

Ask Hamas.
They are using human shields by the thousands.
Including babies.
Tom

Why would I ask them that? They’re not defending killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective? Your response is inane.

 

[TomC]

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

WTF is wrong with anyone who defends killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective?

Ask Hamas.
They are using human shields by the thousands.
Including babies.
Tom

i await their answer. And yours.

Using human shields, regardless of age, is a moral horror.
I don't think anyone should do it.

Now, tell me what Hamas has to say about human shields.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

And wtf is wrong with you that you can't comprehend Hamas use of babies as human shields?

WTF is wrong with anyone who defends killing babies as the only way to achieve their objective?

Ask Hamas.
They are using human shields by the thousands.
Including babies.
Tom

i await their answer. And yours.

Using human shields, regardless of age, is a moral horror.
I don't think anyone should do it.

Every country, to some degree, uses “human shields”, because none of the higher ups are out in the open as easy targets. Expecting Hamas to be out in the open is to expect them to be stupid.
Of course, it is cowardly and barbaric.

Now, tell me what Hamas has to say about human shields.
Tom

Ask them yourself. I noticed you didn’t answer my question.

 

[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?

Are you claiming that somehow Jews under the Ottomans had it much better than Jews on average?

I am asking you to link to your source of information. I am asking you to support your claims.

Your constant evasions when asked to back up your claims indicate you don't use reputable sources, you just post whatever Zionist dogma you find lying around or shit you made up.

I have already told you I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid or just a little kid. After 20+ years of discussions you should have something of substance to post on this topic.

 

[Arctish]

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?

Wikipedia lists some things in Palestine.

And it's more a case of the dog not barking. Read that report out of Algeria again--note the tone. Horrific, but not exactly abnormal. It reads about like we would expect to read of hurricane damage. And look at all the head-in-sand about the expulsion/extermination of Jews from Muslim lands. Doing bad things to Jews is the norm. Why should we believe that things were better under the Ottomans than they were elsewhere?

Are you asking why you should believe that different circumstances can result in different outcomes? Why simply believe when you can look into it and see if it ever happened?

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical as long as you're willing to take in information and learn something. I think the problem here is that you are defending a dogmatic belief and are unwilling to confront historical facts that might disprove it.

 

[Derec]

Some good news in the war:
IDF unearths underground network connecting north and south of Gaza Strip

IDF discovered a 10 km (~6.2 mile) long tunnel network connecting the north and south Gaza Strip. That conduit allowed Hamas and other Palestinian fighters to move between the two halves of the territory undetected.

 

[Tigers!]

Some good news in the war:
IDF unearths underground network connecting north and south of Gaza Strip

IDF discovered a 10 km (~6.2 mile) long tunnel network connecting the north and south Gaza Strip. That conduit allowed Hamas and other Palestinian fighters to move between the two halves of the territory undetected.

just think how many schools, hospitals, houses, roads etc. would have benefited from that money used.

 

[Derec]

just think how many schools, hospitals, houses, roads etc. would have benefited from that money used.

No kidding! It takes a lot of manhours to dig 10 km of tunnel, not to mention the construction materials go into reinforcing it and equipping it with electricity, ventilation and plumbing.