Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Could you please cite Hamas source that says it is 20+x to 1? That number seems remarkably impossible. Areas would need to be void of civilians to manage that. I mean, it is possible we were talking 100 dead Hamas over a period of 1 year, but 10k to 15k in several months... and but a pittance is civilian casualties?

Please read more carefully.

I'm saying that by Hamas numbers Israel has killed 20% of the terrorists (6,000 of 30,000) but 1% of the population (30,000 of a bit over 3M) as a whole. That's being very selective and clearly refutes the "indiscriminate" claim.

 

[pood]

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Could you please cite Hamas source that says it is 20+x to 1? That number seems remarkably impossible. Areas would need to be void of civilians to manage that. I mean, it is possible we were talking 100 dead Hamas over a period of 1 year, but 10k to 15k in several months... and but a pittance is civilian casualties?

Please read more carefully.

I'm saying that by Hamas numbers Israel has killed 20% of the terrorists (6,000 of 30,000) but 1% of the population (30,000 of a bit over 3M) as a whole. That's being very selective and clearly refutes the "indiscriminate" claim.

That wasn't clear at all. It is also a bizarre metric to be comparing. It'd be like saying well, 300,000 Gazans were killed, but that is half of the rate of Hamas that was killed. It is a meaningless metric designed to mask quantities.

One thing that occurred to me that would be another reason Netanyahu doesn't want to stop the attacks is that if the fighting stops, Gazans can try and return home.

 

[TomC]

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

If the U.S. ever launches an attack comparable to October 7 I'd agree that the victims are justified in ending the threat, by whatever means necessary.

By comparable, I'm not talking about numbers. We(the US) have done plenty of horrible things.

Let's do another comparison of "proportional" response.
How many people did Israelis kill during the 5 months before October 7? Suppose it was 60. That would mean that the Gazan attack on Israel on Oct 7 was about 50-1. 1200 Israeli victims of the terrorist attack would make any number of civilians killed by IDF, below 60,000, less than proportionate.
Is that mathematically correct?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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?

By Hamas' own data the kill rate of terrorists is 20x the kill rate of civilians. That's an undisputed low value for the ratio. Reality is probably something like 40x but I don't think anyone knows for sure.

Could you please cite Hamas source that says it is 20+x to 1? That number seems remarkably impossible. Areas would need to be void of civilians to manage that. I mean, it is possible we were talking 100 dead Hamas over a period of 1 year, but 10k to 15k in several months... and but a pittance is civilian casualties?

Please read more carefully.

I'm saying that by Hamas numbers Israel has killed 20% of the terrorists (6,000 of 30,000) but 1% of the population (30,000 of a bit over 3M) as a whole. That's being very selective and clearly refutes the "indiscriminate" claim.

You realize your numbers are saying that for every Hamas terrorists killed, 4 civilians are killed. So according to your ghoulish metrics, since the IDF is only 1/5 of the way towards eliminating Hamas, about 5% of the civilian population of Gaza will be eliminated.

 

[Politesse]

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.

I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

We didn't care when it was a virus.

 

[TV and credit cards]

In Gaza, starving children fill hospital wards as famine looms
Whatever it takes, huh?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is a terrorist mouthpiece. They've historically been very level headed. Just because I support Israels attack on Gaza doesn't make me blind to the fact that any armed incursion anywhere doesn't come at a huge cost to those living there. Obviously the Palestinian people are suffering. Obviously many of them are innocent, and the fucking sucks.

Al Jazeera used to be a good source. But now they are controlled by Qatar--and Qatar has been funding Hamas.

And finally, in an enviroment where rockets and bombs are flying, some are not going to hit their intended targets. It's just going to happen. And that sucks.

Just because you support a side in a conflict, don't make the mistake of whitewashing whatever that side does. War is inherently problematic.

I'm not trying to ignore what is happening. I was pointing out the claim of "indiscriminate" is totally bogus. If it were truly indiscriminate you would see a lower percentage of terrorist dead (because they have the tunnels to hide in) than civilian dead. Instead, even by their own data the odds of a terrorist dying are 20x the odds of a civilian dying.

And note that the Palestinian dead count has problems. Partially from being bogus, partially from Hamas:

IDF says it did not open fire at aid convoy in Gaza but claims Palestinian gunmen were responsible

The first aid ship has reached Gaza since the beginning of the war, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office says it has approved "plans for action" in Rafah.

www.cnn.com

Which is far more consistent with what I would have expected to happen than the initial reports were. Hamas does not want aid reaching the people, shooting up those trying to get the aid is not at all unexpected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've been a 2 state solution guy for a long time. I'm leaning towards a no state solution these days. Neither has shown the ability to govern itself.

And how is Israel not governing itself?

 

[Derec]

So Israel has killed one percent of the Gazan population. In five months.
I wonder how the U.S. would feel if a foreign invader came here and killed 3.4 million people in five months. None too happy, I’d think.

Classic "reverse victim and offender". You are forgetting (or ignoring) that Gaza started this war by invading Israel and murdering >1,200 people and kidnaping 100s of others. To paraphrase Gov. Hochul, had Canada done that to us, there'd be no more Canada.

 

[Derec]

In Gaza, starving children fill hospital wards as famine looms
Whatever it takes, huh?

Cherry picking cases of children that were seriously ill before the war, I see.

Fadi suffers from cystic fibrosis. Before the conflict, he was taking medicine that his family can no longer find and eating a carefully balanced variety of food no longer available in the Palestinian enclave, according to his mother Shimaa al-Zant.

That access to medicines and special diets is difficult in any war zone should hardly come as a surprise.
Note that other war zones, like Congo, Sudan, even next door in Syria were not been gone through with a fine-toothed comb like that. No Jews, no news.

In better times, Fadi's favourite food was chicken shawarma, a Levantine grill dish, his mother said, and he ate a lot of fruit and drank a lot of milk.

Maybe the family should have evacuated south to Rafah as IDF has strongly urged civilians to do. Reportedly, shwarma is available there. Kamal Adwan Hospital, where he is right now, is in Beit Lahia, the very north of the Gaza Strip.
Also, I think ill children like him should be evacuated elsewhere. Rafah crossing has served that purpose before. Erez crossing I think has been significantly damaged due to Gazan aggression on 10/7 and is in any case not open currently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The purpose of international borders is to make it possible to end wars without waiting until one side or the other is completely crushed. Everybody who calls for a "single state solution" to the Palestine situation can be reasonably presumed to be okay with ethnic cleansing until proven otherwise. You appear to be generally siding with the Palestinians; therefore the presumption was the people you're okay with ethnic cleansing are the Jews. That is why you got accused of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments; it wasn't your critique of the Israeli government. I critique the Israeli government here on a regular basis and nobody accuses me of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.

So the question is, have you proven otherwise? Let's see what you've said about keeping Jews safe from ethnic cleansing in a hypothetical future single state solution...

How dare you bring unpleasant reality into a dream?

The world is good, therefore there's a good solution, therefore a bad outcome is the result of misdeeds by those with the power. A failure to produce a better answer simply means the side with the power doesn't care enough to find it.

To admit that there is not a good solution is blasphemy. And note that the concept that there must be a better answer is non-falsifiable.

In theory, that could work; but we already saw how ineffective UN peacekeepers were in Bosnia. When the Serbs made up their minds to exterminate all the males in Srebrenica, they did, and the outnumbered UN troops stood aside and let them. The problem with the UN is that the UN isn't actually a government and doesn't actually have troops of its own. It has to cobble together coalitions of the willing.

Bosnia? For a better example look at the "peacekeepers" in Lebanon. Obviously willfully blind to Hezbollah's actions so long as Hezbollah puts on a fig leaf. And look the other way if the fig leaf slips (munitions-handling oopses.) All they actually do is act as human shields. (And they have explicitly been used as such. I don't remember which spat with Hezbollah it was but Israel warned the UN that Hezbollah was using observers as shields, get them out of there! It ended up the UN wouldn't act, Israel dropped anyway, the observers were killed. Either someone in the UN command chain wanted that result or someone in the UN command chain is covering up an inability to get them out of there. Doesn't really matter which, they have to be considered compromised either way.)

So if you're advocating a one state solution but it isn't just yet another ethnostate where one side has the power to expel the other, then it's incumbent on you to nominate a specific foreign government to take control of the region and impose peace and respect for human rights on both sides, by force of arms. So who do you have in mind? What country do you think has the military power to do it, the willingness to spend the billions it would cost them, and the willingness to have its own troops be the ones Hamas or its successors would inevitably keep trying to kidnap and hold hostage in place of Israeli Jews? What is the nationality of all those boots on the ground?

Unless you can offer a plausible candidate, either make your peace with a two state solution, or else make your peace with being forever on the receiving end of accusations of endorsing Hamas and harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.

Quit it with the blasphemy!

Get off your ass and find the answer, quit claiming it doesn't exist!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Multiple people have described possible better ways. Please either learn to read or more accurately make your point.

Last I knew zero was not a valid value for "multiple".

Multiple people have described impossible better ways.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is becoming apparent to me that there are two options here, and only one likely outcome. Israeli permanent occupation of Gaza and bullets flying forever or this ceasefire is the Solution. The trouble we have here is that Hamas can't give up the last hostages. The leaders of Hamas know their lives are in imminent danger, and almost no one will care if they are iced. So Hamas needs insurance. And that insurance is that there is two-state solution that is enacted. But Israel (Netanyahu) won't go for a two-state solution now. That is gone. The Gazans will be lucky enough to have housing built for them in their new camp homes. Forget about territory and going back to their old homes.

And a two-state "solution" is a solution how?? It just means another 10/7 down the road. It's worse than the status quo ante because it means Gaza would have more weapons for the next attack.

“Ceasefire Now”: The Left’s Outrage Over Gaza Is an Old Trick

Anyone who chants “Ceasefire Now!” masks a very real insecurity about his own willingness to engage with the complex dynamics of world affairs.

europeanconservative.com

Of course, on the other hand, the trouble we have with Hamas is that their covenant is one of disruption. Achieving the two-state solution isn't what they are there for. But they went so over the edge on October 7th, I don't see any other out for Hamas. I mean other than pussyfooting for the next decade.

They don't want an out. Peace means they have no reason for existence and no funding.

It is too bad Trump slammed the door on Iran, because any remotely small chance we had at peace in Israel was evaporated when he did that. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the key to this solution, and Saudi Arabia is led by a tyrannt and Trump stopped any chance of the US moderating its relationship with Iran... because of the short-sighted stupidity that seems to not understand why Egypt and Jordan don't bother Israel anymore.

There was no hope of peace with Iran before. They were playing us for fools and the left keeps gobbling it up. Iran was a case of the Orange Fool being a stopped clock.

 

[TomC]

In Gaza, starving children fill hospital wards as famine looms
Whatever it takes, huh?

That does appear to be Islamic terrorists motto.
Including Hamas and their many supporters.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

he purpose of international borders is to make it possible to end wars without waiting until one side or the other is completely crushed. Everybody who calls for a "single state solution" to the Palestine situation can be reasonably presumed to be okay with ethnic cleansing until proven otherwise. You appear to be generally siding with the Palestinians; therefore the presumption was the people you're okay with ethnic cleansing are the Jews. That is why you got accused of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments; it wasn't your critique of the Israeli government. I critique the Israeli government here on a regular basis and nobody accuses me of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.

So the question is, have you proven otherwise? Let's see what you've said about keeping Jews safe from ethnic cleansing in a hypothetical future single state solution...

The one-state solution is a proposal, not a call for ethnic cleansing. I'm talking about a shared state with equal rights, a far cry from ethnic cleansing.

Saying you're not calling for ethnic cleansing doesn't mean you're not calling for ethnic cleansing. You get Holocaust 2.0 while keeping your conscience clean.

Both Palestinians and Israel is fully capable to achieving this with current international aide & US support to keep outside forces at bay. Sure it won't bring absolute peace (nothing will) however it would remove the obvious Bloods VS Crips situation being perpetrated now. A situation that would only be exacerbated by a two-state solution. Wassup with the west bank? The PA seems to be doing a decent job using diplomacy (despite dealing with an Israeli government that has been taken over by Zionists extremists). Hamas is only a thing in Gaza right now because the Isreali government helped them get there.

The PA isn't using diplomacy. They just aren't radical enough to get much money for war.

What's your point? What's going on in Gaza isn't collective punishment; it's suppression of enemy military capability.

Your skills at misdirection is remarkable. My initial comment specifically addressed the narrative that "voting for Hamas equates to supporting terrorism,". If that narrative doesn't represent your viewpoint, my comment doesn't concern you.

That's not addressing the point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Moral equivalency got nothing to do with negotiation. No. I recognize the reality of negotiating. If both parties are serious, they will bargain which means ignoring the bluster and bigotry. If at least one is not, nothing will happen.
I have lots if experience negotiating. If course not as much was at stake, but the same basic principles apply - neither hide had much trust in the other, and one side was out to obliterate the other organization.

In my view, the report you cite is evidence someone is trying to scuttle any ceasefire negotiations.

The problem here is that the core demand of each side is effectively the death of the other side.

You're locked in a room with someone, there's a gun on the table. Negotiate who will eat a bullet.

You seem to feel it's possible, present how you will solve this?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Everyone here should say if they are or are married/dating people who are in a demographic on either side of this conflict. Belling the cat as it were.

I am not

Not only am I not involved with anyone on either side I never have been involved with anyone on either side.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bruh, your argument doesn't account for the evolution in international law and warfare ethics since then, yeah know, the herp derp Geneva Conventions. Equating the decisions made in a TOTAL WAR SCENERIO to the Israel/Palestine conflict adds an unreasonable amount of complexities to the discussion. I'm open to exploring that topic further with you, but it's guaranteed to extend beyond what we're both ready to tackle. Also, as I'm not an expert, my opinions will spark even more debate rather than offer clarity.

Hamas seeks genocide of Israel. How is that not a total war scenario?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I first learned of an airdrop of supplies onto a hospital in Gaza, I wondered if that was a one-off thing. Fortunately it wasn't.

Airdrops can't bring enough to matter. It's theater.

Besides, Hamas is grabbing most of what drops.