Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

If you admit that killing 1000s of civilians doesn’t solve the problem, why do you defend such a policy?

I don't. I just said I am pro Israel. They're not tryning to kill civilians. Hamas is.

While the IDF is not trying to kill civilians, they are much more proficient and prolific in that regard than Hamas has ever been.

But you do defend that policy. Every time you post the functional equivalent of "It's Hamas's fault", you defend a policy you admit will not solve the problem.

The problem here is that you assume it's a policy rather than an undesirable side effect of a policy being done for other reasons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not making any sense. Stop posting antisemetic propaganda. It IS Hamas fault. Only Hamas can fix this, by stopping with doing what they're doing. IDF has a right to defend themselves. And if Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, then Hamas is to be blamed for Palestinian civilians dying. Israel has a right to defend itself.

If you actually thought about it, instead of making these emotional rhetorical accusations, you'd avoid these straw men and see that it makes sense.

The primary problem is Hamas. No doubt. They are awful human beings. But the issue is how to get peace. If you think killing 1000s of civilians will not achieve it, then why engage in such a policy.

Peace will require that some bad actors go insufficiently punished. It grates on people's sense of justice. But that is the way of the world. There is no such thing as perfect justice, especially since justice is in the eye of the beholders.

Which means you've already bought into Hamas propaganda.

This isn't about punishment. This is about making them take longer to rebuild before they can attack Israel again.

Your argument is basically, "Unless you do what I say I will drown my own children". If I did that, would you feel guilty for killing my children? Of course not. You'd think I was a loony. And you'd think anyone accusing you, was a loony. But here you are.

I suppose a loony might understand that psychobabble. But I do not.

Your inability to comprehend says nothing about the accuracy of the position. It is a completely reasonable analogy to what's going on but it's blasphemy to your position and people in general have a hard time comprehending blasphemy. That's a you failure, not a him failure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel has tried being nice to the Palestinians. Super nice and patient. They’re not getting their act together. For reasons. But those reasons are an explanation. Not excuses.

So basically, they tried not killing civilians. Didn’t work. So now they’re trying this.

Its also funny how you think my side is using emotional rhetoric. Sir, that's the crime you are guilty of, imho.

Exactly. And when one side is arguing emotion while rejecting looking at the facts you can be almost certain they're in the wrong. All the Hamas stuff refuses to look at the context--it's emotional.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Middle East problem needs to be resolved based on the current situation, not based on whose ancestors did what to whom.

True, which is why the issues there appear so intractable. Like it or not, people tend to want "fair" outcomes which tends to make who did what to whom seem important.

People champion fairness until they gain from the inequity. With Israel and Palestine, it's deemed acceptable to ask Palestinians to overlook their heritage, yet suggesting that Israel forget its roots makes you a supporter of children being beheaded, missiles being lobbed at innocent civilians and all sorts of self projecting rubbish.

The heck are you talking about? Everybody who says the Israelis should shut down their illegal settlements, pull back to the 1967 borders, give up on "Judea and Samaria" once and for all, and get serious about implementing a 2-state solution, is suggesting that Israel overlook its heritage and forget its roots. That's pretty much the entire U.S. population except the extremists who think Israel should just surrender.

Except an awful lot of the US population has fallen down the rabbit hole and thinks that Israel shouldn't do anything about Hamas which is a default surrender.

And also note in the other direction: While I would prefer 67 borders I recognize the political reality that that's not a viable option. Pulling out of Gaza made things worse, I can see no reason the Israeli electorate would agree with pulling out of the West Bank. There's also the little detail that land swaps are unacceptable to the Muslims living in Israel--they don't want to become part of Palestine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This cycle of violence was going on long before Hamas even existed. Everything you say about Hamas was once equally true of the PLO. Then the PLO just stopped being horrible people and stopped trying to get civilians killed. This did not lead to no civilians getting killed; it led to the rise of Hamas as the new face of extremism. If Hamas just stop being horrible people and stop trying to get civilians killed then some new gang of thugs will take over the mission of murdering Jews. That's not a solution.

I wouldn't say the PLO stopped being horrible. It's just they aren't being paid so much to be horrible anymore so the degree of horror is way down. Otherwise, I agree, the problem stems from the money, the face of the organization doing it doesn't matter.

And that's why I say peace with Hamas or the Palestinians is impossible--because they're not the ones calling the shots. The money calls the shots--peace can only happen when the flow of terror money is cut off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO everybody who says the Israelis should shut down their illegal settlements, pull back to the 1967 borders, give up on annexing "Judea and Samaria" without the consent of the Palestinian people living there, and get serious about implementing a 2-state solution, is suggesting a pragmatic means to achieving a peaceful end to the conflict.

Also IMO, anyone who refuses to even consider Israel shutting down its illegal settlements, pulling its civilians back inside its internationally recognized borders, stop trying to annex "Judea and Samaria" without the consent of the Judeans and Samaritans, and get serious about a Two-State or Three-State or Any-Number-of-States solution, is far more interested in conquest than they are in peace, and are willing to sacrifice the safety of Jews today for the opportunity for Israel to grab even more land and resources tomorrow.

The problem here is your notion that giving in to the demands de jour would bring peace. Israel perfectly well knows it wouldn't, that's why they won't even consider it.

The idea that Hamas would stop at the 67 borders is about as sensible as thinking the QOP would stop at banning third trimester abortions. Iran and the QOP are just about the same, except one wants Christian theocracy and one wants Islamic theocracy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO a single state solution is the only option. to me, the Jewish people should have organically remerged in the region without the stupid wigs waving toilet paper around. Their butt wipes always leave a trail of poop.

This is genocide, if you don't see that you have your head in the sand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, you lost me.

(And what do you think "Zionism" means, anyway, "From the river to the sea for the Jews"? That's not what it means. Anybody who thinks Israel should continue to exist is a Zionist.)

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. If the state of Israel was formed organically I would be a Zionist. However since it's really just a European ham-fist sandwich I'm not. I'm all in for Jewish people though.

Dara Horn Official Website

Official website of Dara Horn, the award-winning author of Eternal Life.

www.darahorn.com

When I started reading her book I thought she was nuts.

I lost you. Who here accused others of being supporters of children being beheaded and missiles being lobbed at innocent civilians just because they suggested that Israel forget its roots? Who here among the unwavering supporters of the state of Israel does so on account of not overlooking Israelis' heritage rather than on account of not wanting Israelis to be murdered?

Individuals, motivated by Zionism who fail to recognize Palestinians as equals, instead labeling them universally as adversaries. The same folks whos narrative is any civilian casualties resulting from the conflict can be attributed to the actions of the victims themselves, rather than the complexities of the situation (including but not limited to the ham-fist sandwich).

They are adversaries because they choose to be adversaries. Israel isn't the one who chose the path of war.

 

[laughing dog]

If you admit that killing 1000s of civilians doesn’t solve the problem, why do you defend such a policy?

I don't. I just said I am pro Israel. They're not tryning to kill civilians. Hamas is.

While the IDF is not trying to kill civilians, they are much more proficient and prolific in that regard than Hamas has ever been.

But you do defend that policy. Every time you post the functional equivalent of "It's Hamas's fault", you defend a policy you admit will not solve the problem.

The problem here is that you assume it's a policy rather than an undesirable side effect of a policy being done for other reasons.

Stop projecting your MO onto others. It is a fact that the IDF is more prolific than Hamas in killing civilians.

And we know this policy of massive undesired killing of civilians does not make Israel safer in the longer run. So the question that rational pragmatists should ask is whether the shorter run improvement in safety and emotional satisfaction of revenge is worth the carnage, the longer run reduction in safety and international support?

 

[laughing dog]

Israel has tried being nice to the Palestinians. Super nice and patient. They’re not getting their act together. For reasons. But those reasons are an explanation. Not excuses.

So basically, they tried not killing civilians. Didn’t work. So now they’re trying this.

Its also funny how you think my side is using emotional rhetoric. Sir, that's the crime you are guilty of, imho.

Exactly. And when one side is arguing emotion while rejecting looking at the facts you can be almost certain they're in the wrong. All the Hamas stuff refuses to look at the context--it's emotional.

That one destroyed even irony machine that exists and will exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The early Zionists (Theoder Herzl for example) wasn't so much Jewish nationalists and just wanting to get the fuck out of Europe, due to the rising tide of antisemitism. If you want to know the background of this I can recommend Hannah Arendt's "The Origins of Totalitarianism". Zola's JAccuse is also good. Basically, there was a small group of Jewish bankers who allowed petty European kings borrow money to fight one another. Due to treacherous relatives, these same Jewish famiies were tasked with running the kingdoms. They were trusted by the kings, because there was no way an antisemetic populace would allow them to take power. So basically, Jews did the dirty work of European kings and allowed the kings to cling to power. As nationalism hit Europe in the aftermath of Napoleon and kings were replaced with presidents, Jews lost their royal protectors. Leading to unleashed pent up hatred from the rising, formerly oppressed, masses of Europe. This antisemitic hate was only partly irrational. This is a context that is often left out when people try to understand wtf happened during the Holocaust. Anyway... it's avoiding this rising unleashed hatred that motivated Zionists more than anything else. Herzl and Ben-Gurion could see where the wind was blowing and wanted to get the fuck out. Anywhere but Europe.

And add that the Catholic church prohibited usury--defined as charging interest. People don't lend money without being compensated for it's time value and the risk of the loan. (Although, admittedly, there was hand-waving that worked around this to a limited degree.) Thus bankers were non-Christian, which in effect meant Jew. Killing the banker and his heirs made the loans disappear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow bomb. Way to go bruh. EL15 , in order to solve a problem you ought to know what is causing it. That's all I'm saying. But you go ahead and do the usual Bomb thing and make way more out of what I'm saying than I actually said. I preferred it when you simply ignored my posts. It was more productive.

Yeah, you need to. Your answer appears to be the existence of the Jews.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Different fallacy, still a derail.

Are you going to continue to play word games?

Your disagreement with or incomprehension of a response does mot make it a fallacy or a derail.

And you continue the derail, now without even quoting what you're derailing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas ( or Hamas replacements) will always be the problem. So are ardent Zionists.

How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity solve those problems?

How do strawmen help matters?

What are you under the delusion is a straw man?

The only side that wants dead civilians is Hamas. But they're quite effective at ensuring some die if Israel defends itself.

Some? For a side that allegedly does not want dead civilians, the IDF manages to kill and injure magnitudes more than Hamas.

And you continue to stick your head in the sand and see that those civilian deaths are Hamas putting them in harm's way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you admit that killing 1000s of civilians doesn’t solve the problem, why do you defend such a policy?

I don't. I just said I am pro Israel. They're not tryning to kill civilians. Hamas is.

While the IDF is not trying to kill civilians, they are much more proficient and prolific in that regard than Hamas has ever been.

But you do defend that policy. Every time you post the functional equivalent of "It's Hamas's fault", you defend a policy you admit will not solve the problem.

The problem here is that you assume it's a policy rather than an undesirable side effect of a policy being done for other reasons.

Stop projecting your MO onto others. It is a fact that the IDF is more prolific than Hamas in killing civilians.

And we know this policy of massive undesired killing of civilians does not make Israel safer in the longer run. So the question that rational pragmatists should ask is whether the shorter run improvement in safety and emotional satisfaction of revenge is worth the carnage, the longer run reduction in safety and international support?

And once again you assume your conclusion in the argument because you don't want to address the reality.

 

[laughing dog]

Hamas ( or Hamas replacements) will always be the problem. So are ardent Zionists.

How does killing 1000s of civilians of any ethnicity solve those problems?

How do strawmen help matters?

What are you under the delusion is a straw man?

The only side that wants dead civilians is Hamas. But they're quite effective at ensuring some die if Israel defends itself.

Some? For a side that allegedly does not want dead civilians, the IDF manages to kill and injure magnitudes more than Hamas.

And you continue to stick your head in the sand and see that those civilian deaths are Hamas putting them in harm's way.

Is it possible for you to either provide evidence for your claim or even to address the actual content of a post instead of imputing motives on the part of the poster?

If you admit that killing 1000s of civilians doesn’t solve the problem, why do you defend such a policy?

I don't. I just said I am pro Israel. They're not tryning to kill civilians. Hamas is.

While the IDF is not trying to kill civilians, they are much more proficient and prolific in that regard than Hamas has ever been.

But you do defend that policy. Every time you post the functional equivalent of "It's Hamas's fault", you defend a policy you admit will not solve the problem.

The problem here is that you assume it's a policy rather than an undesirable side effect of a policy being done for other reasons.

Stop projecting your MO onto others. It is a fact that the IDF is more prolific than Hamas in killing civilians.

And we know this policy of massive undesired killing of civilians does not make Israel safer in the longer run. So the question that rational pragmatists should ask is whether the shorter run improvement in safety and emotional satisfaction of revenge is worth the carnage, the longer run reduction in safety and international support?

And once again you assume your conclusion in the argument because you don't want to address the reality.

Keep practicing "Every accusation is a a confession".

 

[TV and credit cards]

By Tsafrir Abayov, AP News

 

[Swammerdami]

The developed world -- and IIDB -- is mostly divided into two camps re: the Israel-Hamas conflict.

One camp soundly condemns Hamas terrorism and believes Israel's Defense Force should take the steps necessary to prevent further attacks. This camp has strong support in the U.S.A., throughout Europe, and in Israel itself.

The other camp also condemns Hamas terrorism but is intent on vengeance. The number of Palestinian deaths from Israel's rampages is already 20 times the Palestinian toll; huge numbers of homes in Gaza and vast infrastructure have been destroyed; the homeless toll is up to 2 million; and Israeli atrocities continue. Hospitals are without blood and other supplies. Children are literally starving to death or dying of thirst. Israeli soldiers fire on innocent women and children. Could they be taking their cue from the Old Testament where Yahweh commanded King Saul to destroy his enemies and not spare women or children? Defenders of these atrocities shrug their shoulders and say "Maybe those 2-year old babies were innocent; so what? If left to grow up they'd probably become terrorists: A stitch in time saves nine."

Rational observers understand that Israeli atrocities will just prolong and increase terrorism. The hate-filled anti-Palestinian ilk who support Israel's atrocities surely understand this. Perhaps this prospect pleases them: The more terrorists that Israel can breed, the more future massacres there can be to assuage this perverse blood-lust.

At least nine killed in Israeli attack on aid truck in Gaza: Report

At least nine people killed in attack on aid distribution vehicle, according to Palestinian media.

www.aljazeera.com

Many Jewish Israeli citizens now say that "Israel with Bibi now behaves exactly like Germany in the 1930's."

This, by now, familiar pantomime is playing out in the shocking residue of a massacre of more than 100 desperate Palestinians who surged at aid trucks carrying the stuff of life denied to them by a fanatical regime intent on killing them quickly or slowly. This time, the terror took place on al-Rashid Street in the southwest outskirts of what remains of Gaza City, where thousands of homeless Palestinians had gathered in the open night air. Cold. Sick. Thirsty. Starving.

What happened in that place and at that time was not an “incident” or a “chaotic scene”. It was, instead, more lethal evidence of the genocide that is being committed by a ruthless, occupying power against an imprisoned, powerless people with deliberate and malignant efficiency. “We went to get flour. The Israeli army shot at us. There are many martyrs on the ground and until this moment we are withdrawing them. There is no first aid,” one witness told Al Jazeera.

Another witness added that: “The Israelis just opened random fire on us as if it were a trap.”
Then, after strafing Palestinians, Israeli tanks moved forward and ran over the dead and injured, al-Ghoul said. What witnesses appear to be describing is the military tactic known as the “double tap”. The initial strike hits the intended target. A second strike is aimed at bystanders drawn to help the dead and injured. In any event, when the carnage was over, the breathtaking tally of dead and injured Palestinians had grown as it has every day for the past five months with unrelenting ferocity.

When daylight arrived, the true measure of the appalling slaughter had become apparent. Ambulances could not reach the dozens of dead and disfigured since roads, like much of Gaza, had been destroyed. The dead were loaded onto the flatbed portion of one of the aid trucks turned mobile mortuary, their limp, lifeless bodies intertwined in a grotesque heap of humanity.

The deluge of injured Palestinians who survived the attack descended on overwhelmed hospitals and the caregivers who still populate them. “Hospitals are no longer able to accommodate the huge number of patients because they lack fuel, let alone medicine. Hospitals have also run out of blood,” al-Ghoul said.

 

[Bomb#20]

The developed world -- and IIDB -- is mostly divided into two camps re: the Israel-Hamas conflict.

One camp soundly condemns Hamas terrorism and believes Israel's Defense Force should take the steps necessary to prevent further attacks. ...

The other camp also condemns Hamas terrorism but is intent on vengeance.

Whom are you referring to? Who on IIDB is intent on vengeance?

Defenders of these atrocities shrug their shoulders and say "Maybe those 2-year old babies were innocent; so what? If left to grow up they'd probably become terrorists: A stitch in time saves nine."

Quotation marks and everything. Whom are you quoting?

 

[Gospel]

Wow bomb. Way to go bruh. EL15 , in order to solve a problem you ought to know what is causing it. That's all I'm saying. But you go ahead and do the usual Bomb thing and make way more out of what I'm saying than I actually said. I preferred it when you simply ignored my posts. It was more productive.

Yeah, you need to. Your answer appears to be the existence of the Jews.

That's how you read it.