Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

[

Thank you, the fact that some of the prisoners helped plan and lead the massacre is good evidence. Participation is not because there are always people who follow.

Teacher says, every time laughing dogs concedes a point an angel gets his wings.

There is nothing funny about the sociopathy in the defense of killing civilians by anyone,

And we're back. Civilians getting killed is a tragic consequence of war. Especially in an urban setting. And triply so when fighting an enemy that sees death of their own civilians as a strategic advantage because dead Gazans influence the useful idiots abroad (for example on university campuses or in Dearborn, MI).

And the sociopathy goes on.

If you are speaking from your personal experience, that recommendation is garbage.

Not from personal experience, but at this point it might be worth it for you to try.

Nah, you go first and we'll see if there is an improvement.

 

[laughing dog]

Unlike you, I have not denied anyone's culpability,

No? ...

[/QUOTE]
Culpability is your bag, not mine.

Just trying to understand why the IDF doesn't warn civilians in a safe zone that a strike is coming.
Because that would also have warned Deif and Salama, as well as all the Hamas fighters with them.

But the IDF does warn civilians in an effort to minimize civilian causalities. So why not rescind the safe zone designation? It requires no change in tactics unless you think they are deliberating trying to lure Hamas into safe zones in order to attack them.

So far, all I've seen from the "only good Gazan is a dead Gazan" crow

A safe zone means no striking. So, by designating an area as a safe zone, they are saying they will not strike.

That is your interpretation. Israel is not bound by it.

No, it is not my interpretation

Israel has designated a small slice of mostly undeveloped land along Gaza’s Mediterranean coast as a safe zone — a place where waves of people fleeing the war can find protection from airstrikes and receive humanitarian supplies for their families....

Israel has offered Muwasi as a solution for protecting people uprooted from their homes and seeking safety from the heavy fighting between its troops and Hamas militants.

Israel designates a safe zone

Isreal is not bound by their word. But false advertising is false advertising. All Isreal has to do is rescind the safe zone designation to avoid looking deceptive and inhumane. It costs them nothing and makes their word more trustworthy. I'll admit that won't count for much. But IMO it is something an attacking force that is serious about reducing civilian causalties would do.

 

[Arctish]

I have been paying attentionto this thread. You have said that Hamas should not be a part of any Gazan future but you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim. Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.

It was multiple posts.

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region. We have no reason to think the same won't hold true for the Middle East, only racist nonsense about the character of Semitic people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

How many lives on both sides of WWII could have been saved, if only the Marshall Plan had begun in 1944 instead of 1948! But the Allies just kept on shooting and bombing Germans, no doubt because Americans believed racist nonsense about the character of German people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Did you miss the point I was making, or are you trying to drag the conversation away from it?

If Israelis want the Gazan Palestinians to disavow violence and choose to pursue peaceful negotiations and reconciliation with Israel then they should ensure that the PA's efforts to do just that result in positive things for Palestinians in the West Bank. Things like recognizing the Right of the indigenous people of Palestine to remain in their homeland and participate in the government that rules over it regardless of their religious beliefs. Also, their government receiving royalties on the natural resources being extracted from their land, like what happens in nearly every other country in the world. And being able to enforce their laws within their borders, and being able to receive assistance (without imperiling their sovereignty) when confronted with criminal gangs and terrorist organizations beyond their ability to combat.

It's easy to radicalize people enduring grinding poverty, especially when there is a government or organizations that made them poor and continues to take everything of value they still have. It's much more difficult to get prosperous people living peaceful lives to take the inherent risk of upsetting the current order, even if they dislike their government and their neighbors.

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box. When I was challenged over what Rules of Engagement I believed the IDF should follow, I provided them. When I was asked if I thought the Nazis should have been allowed to enter into formal agreements with the victorious allies, I provided links to the information demonstrating that that's what actually happened when Donitz took over following Hitler's suicide.

Rather than repeat for the millionth time that the Oslo Accords provided a useful framework that got the Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace than any other effort, I perhaps wrongfully assumed you and he might remember enough about my many posts on the subject that I could skip over most of it and go straight to the official recognition of the PA as the governing body of the Palestinian people and pointing out for the hundredth time that the PA is seeking a diplomatic solution through the international community and how sensible it would be for Israel to allow it to succeed in improving the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank in order to strengthen its position as the go-to party for improving the lives of people who live in Gaza, because having a party pursuing a diplomatic resolution in charge there is better for Israel than having one that's still following the path of destruction and murder as means to an end.

Do I really have to keep repeating the same things over and over again?

If you want to repeat the Marshall Plan, the first step is to remove Hamas.

I agree. The first step is to remove Hamas, whether it's to follow the Marshall Plan, or resume following the Oslo Accords, or to follow another plan that leads towards peace.

Everyone posting in this thread agrees that Hamas must be removed from power.

We're all in agreement here.

All of us.

Showering defeated enemies with money comes after that. And if you're suggesting the Gazans will throw off their oppressors when they see the advantages people who make peace get, they've seen us showering Jordan with money.

They've seen us funding Israel as Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank. They've seen us back Netanyahu as he stood in front of the delegates at the UN and said that Gaza and the West Bank have been part of Israel since 1948, after having openly declared that Israel is a State for Jewish people only.

They've seen who Netanyahu has serving as his Minister of National Security and Minister of Finance. They've seen who is backing Netanyahu in the Knesset. They've seen the would-be settlers celebrating their planned colonization and take over of Gaza. They've seen Jared Kushner's plan to bulldoze part of the Negev Desert to create a 'relocation area' for Gazans and how he plans to develop Gaza's waterfront once the Palestinians have been removed.

What they haven't seen is Palestinians in the West Bank having their Rights to remain in their homeland respected, or their prospects rise above 'grim'. They haven't seen the diplomatic approach succeed any better than the violence and terrorism approach. All they've seen is the Israeli takeover of the West Bank happening slowly through colonization and ethnic cleansing, and the murders of Palestinians happening a few at a time rather than in sporadic bombing and drone strikes.

IMO that has to change for peace to be attainable. It's simply not realistic to expect Palestinians to passively accept losing their livelihoods and their lives in Palestine.

Moreover, "the PA" is another name for the PLO, Hamas's predecessor in the terrorism office. We didn't correct the errors of WWI at the end of WWII by handing all that money to the Kaiser. If you want to repeat the Marshall Plan, the second step is to install a new government of our own choosing over the enemy. The Marshall Plan would not have been the success it was if Konrad Adenaur had simply pocketed the money, which is what the kleptocrats in the PA currently do with U.S. aid. Gazans didn't vote for Hamas because they wanted to make their whole lives be all about killing Jews; they voted for them because they were fed up with the PA's corruption. If you want to end grinding poverty and make positive things happen for Palestinians, it's not clear how yet more aid to the PA will accomplish that.

Nothing about the future is ever perfectly clear, but we can still learn enough from the past to make good outcomes more likely to happen. Or bad ones, if we're evil bastards.

 

[Gospel]

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

How about this. You know where the Führerbunker is. You command a Superfortress capable of reaching it and striking it with a bomb capable of taking it out. Do you give the go ahead even though you know there are children in the bunker?

Yes. I understand and agree that difficult choices need to be made. However, my issue lies with rhetoric suggesting that the children deserve such outcomes. I genuinely cannot understand what’s wrong with some of you.

 

[Derec]

Yes. I understand and agree that difficult choices need to be made. However, my issue lies with rhetoric suggesting that the children deserve such outcomes. I genuinely cannot understand what’s wrong with some of you.

Who says that children deserve such outcomes?

 

[Derec]

And the sociopathy goes on.

What is "sociopathic" about recognizing that
- civilians get harmed in every war
- Hamas desires more dead/wounded civilians for propaganda purposes?

Nah, you go first and we'll see if there is an improvement.

I am not the one with a problem.

 

[Derec]

Culpability is your bag, not mine.

Culpability is about assigning blame. You assign blame to Israel.

But the IDF does warn civilians in an effort to minimize civilian causalities.

When feasible. Less often in this conflict because Hamas upped the ante on 10/7.

So why not rescind the safe zone designation?

Because they are still much safer than the evacuation zones.
This notion that if they are not 100% safe we should get rid of it is baffling.

No, it is not my interpretation

It literally is. You wrote what you understand under the term "safe zone". Or can you point to where IDF defined it as such?

Israel has offered Muwasi as a solution for protecting people uprooted from their homes and seeking safety from the heavy fighting between its troops and Hamas militants.

And it's largely working. Civilians are much less at risk in Al Mawasi than they would be had they stayed in Khan Yunis or Gaza City etc.
It's not perfect, but again, blame Hamas for it.

Isreal is not bound by their word. But false advertising is false advertising.

According to your interpretation of "their word". They are not bound by your interpretation, and neither is it false advertising.

All Isreal has to do is rescind the safe zone designation to avoid looking deceptive and inhumane.

Are you misspelling Israel deliberately?
Do you want Israel to rescind Al Mawasi even if that would mean many more civilians dying or getting injured?

But IMO it is something an attacking force that is serious about reducing civilian causalties would do.

It would do the opposite.

 

[laughing dog]

And the sociopathy goes on.

What is "sociopathic" about recognizing that
- civilians get harmed in every war
- Hamas desires more dead/wounded civilians for propaganda purposes?

Nothing. Defending needless civilian deaths is.

 

[laughing dog]

Culpability is your bag, not mine.

Culpability is about assigning blame. You assign blame to Israel.

Prove it,.

But the IDF does warn civilians in an effort to minimize civilian causalities.

When feasible. Less often in this conflict because Hamas upped the ante on 10/7.

Explain how it is not feasible to rescind a designation of a safe zone.

So why not rescind the safe zone designation?

Because they are still much safer than the evacuation zones.
This notion that if they are not 100% safe we should get rid of it is baffling.

Not to anyone who actually thinks. People are told to go to safe zones where they will not be bombed or attacked.

No, it is not my interpretation

It literally is.

It is not. I even provided an AP report with that interpretation that you conveinetly omitted in your response.

You wrote what you understand under the term "safe zone". Or can you point to where IDF defined it as such?

I provided a link to the AP quote in my previous response. . Do you have any links that support your claim. If not, you are literally making stuff up.

But IMO it is something an attacking force that is serious about reducing civilian causalties would do.

It would do the opposite.

Explain how telling civilians they are not safe increases civilian casualties?

 

[Derec]

Try reading what I posted again.
I said "I thought it was determined..."
In other words, "If I recall correctly" which includes the admission I might be wrong.

Fair enough.
In any case, it does not make sense for it to be propane tanks and if anybody claimed it, they either have no idea what they are talking about or are deliberately deceptive.
Propane will give you a nice fireball but will not explode like high explosives would. See this video:

- You can get an impressive fireball but not much of a shockwave. The tire wall was not disturbed.
- You need a heat source to ignite propane.
- It is not that easy to ignite it - you need to be between ~2-10%V/V.

I then asked about who did the investigation and where I could find the report so I could read them.
I did not make a positive claim about whether the reports I might or might not have read were/are accurate.

I do not know of any investigation. I was going by what the secondary explosion looks like. It looks like a high explosive detonation triggered by the first explosion, not propane igniting.

 

[Derec]

Nothing. Defending needless civilian deaths is.

Who is doing that?

 

[Derec]

Prove it,.

Just read through your posts.

Explain how it is not feasible to rescind a designation of a safe zone.

It is not feasible to have a 100% safe zone unless your enemy respects it as well, which they do not.
It would be feasible to rescind the zone, sure, but a mostly safe zone is still far better than none at all.

Not to anyone who actually thinks. People are told to go to safe zones where they will not be bombed or attacked.

And they most likely will not be. Far less likely than if they stayed in the evacuation zones.

It is not. I even provided an AP report with that interpretation that you conveinetly omitted in your response.

The AP article does not say that Israel promised absolute safety in Al Mawasi.
What it did do, is quote some people laboring under the same binary fallacy as you - that if a "safe zone" is not absolutely safe, then it must not be worthwhile. I disagree.

You wrote what you understand under the term "safe zone". Or can you point to where IDF defined it as such?

I provided a link to the AP quote in my previous response. . Do you have any links that support your claim. If not, you are literally making stuff up.

The AP quote does not say that Israel said the zone would be absolutely safe. They cannot guarantee that unilaterally, as it requires Hamas having a shred of human decency, which they do not.

Explain how telling civilians they are not safe increases civilian casualties?

Because then they are more likely to stay put in the far more dangerous areas.

 

[DrZoidberg]

How could the IDF possibly be more cautious? While also keeping their own troops alive?

Ukraine is doing quite well with small drone based explosives that don't destroy half a city block and its inhabitants.

Russians aren't actively trying to look like Ukrainian civilians. Nor embedding themselves within civilians to use them as protection.

My problem with your attitude is that it places absurd demands on IDF

I've just demonstrated the demands are not absurd. Your lack of vision of the possibilities of other interventions is not a good argument.

Stop living in fantasy land. Reality isn't what you think it should be.

Hamas have absolutely no regard for any human lives. They don't respect the dignity of any human. They’re a barbaric organisation

 

[laughing dog]

Prove it,.

Just read through your posts.

No surprise, no evidence.

Explain how it is not feasible to rescind a designation of a safe zone.

It is not feasible to have a 100% safe zone unless your enemy respects it as well, which they do not.
It would be feasible to rescind the zone, sure, but a mostly safe zone is still far better than none at all.

So why not rescind it or accurately name it?

Not to anyone who actually thinks. People are told to go to safe zones where they will not be bombed or attacked.

And they most likely will not be. Far less likely than if they stayed in the evacuation zones.

You fall back on the safer argument which is neither in dispute nor relevant to the issue under discussion.

The AP quote does not say that Israel said the zone would be absolutely safe. They cannot guarantee that unilaterally, as it requires Hamas having a shred of human decency, which they do not.

You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim about what the IDF said about safe zones. Please stop with the straw man about absolute safety.

Explain how telling civilians they are not safe increases civilian casualties?

Because then they are more likely to stay put in the far more dangerous areas.

A debatable conclusion based on what is actually more likely.

 

[Bomb#20]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"Hamas must be militarily defeated. It must be politically defeated, too." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's a Monty-Pythonesque circular prescription: "Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him."

"The new interim government of Gaza should be run by the PA until new elections are held ASAP." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza if Israel wants the PA to rig the elections and steal the foreign aid or wants Hamas or some other gang of terrorists to win the elections and restart the war.

When I was challenged over what Rules of Engagement I believed the IDF should follow, I provided them.

That might have been a useful post to link to in response to Tigers!'s "Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.", if you have reason to think Israel following those Rules of Engagement would actually cause Hamas to surrender.

When I was asked if I thought the Nazis should have been allowed to enter into formal agreements with the victorious allies, I provided links to the information demonstrating that that's what actually happened when Donitz took over following Hitler's suicide.

The Allies believed Donitz could be trusted to end the fighting, and not resume it later, and shut down other Nazis attempting to resume it. Do you think there's someone in Hamas Israel can similarly trust?

Rather than repeat for the millionth time that the Oslo Accords <snip>

Not interested in relitigating the entire history of grievance and counter-grievance; just wanted to point out the incongruity of advocating the Marshall Plan while the war is still on and calling it "remembering the lessons of history".

IMO that has to change for peace to be attainable. It's simply not realistic to expect Palestinians to passively accept losing their livelihoods and their lives in Palestine.

Whereas it's presumably realistic to expect Israelis to accept whatever we think they ought to accept. Yes, we all understand that Israelis are free-willed moral agents and Palestinians are deterministic billiard balls.

 

[Derec]

No surprise, no evidence.

He complains about "evidence" about him blaming Israel in the same post he continues to place blame on Israel.

You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim about what the IDF said about safe zones.

You are the one who made a positive claim that "safe zone" means no strikes whatsoever inside it, no matter what Hamas et al do. So, the burden of proof is on you to show that what IDF said about the "safe zone" corresponds to your interpretation of it (i.e. no IDF strikes no matter what Hamas does).

Please stop with the straw man about absolute safety.

That is not a straw man, but what you are demanding by saying that IDF should not strike Hamas commanders and fighters inside Al Mawasi.
In reality, Al Mawasi is much safer than other parts of Gaza, despite almost half the population now residing inside it.
There is a reason why you brought up strikes from July and September, while deadly strikes are a daily occurrence in the rest of the Strip.

Because then they are more likely to stay put in the far more dangerous areas.

A debatable conclusion based on what is actually more likely.

The facts are pretty clear. There are far fewer strikes in Al Mawasi than elsewhere.

 

[laughing dog]

No surprise, no evidence.

He complains about "evidence" about him blaming Israel in the same post he continues to place blame on Israel.

Repeating unsourced claims of fact is not a convincing argument. You produced bupkus.
[quote+Derec]

You’ve provided no evidence to support your claim about what the IDF said about safe zones.

You are the one who made a positive claim that "safe zone" means no strikes whatsoever inside it, no matter what Hamas et al do. So, the burden of proof is on you to show that what IDF said about the "safe zone" corresponds to your interpretation of it (i.e. no IDF strikes no matter what Hamas does).[/quote] I produced the generally reported understanding. You dispute that understanding, but you’ve produced no evidence to support your claims.

Please stop with the straw man about absolute safety.

That is not a straw man, but what you are demanding by saying that IDF should not strike Hamas commanders and fighters inside Al Mawasi.

That is a falsehood. I’ve said safe zones are supposed to be safe from bombing and if the IDF is going to bomb them, it should rescind the designation. None of which has anything to do with absolute safety (which is impossible for anyone anywhere to insure)

In reality, Al Mawasi is much safer than other parts of Gaza, despite almost half the population now residing inside it.

Which means it is less dangerous, not safe.

 

[Arctish]

So was the point you were making, then, to miss the point Tigers! was making, or were you trying to drag the conversation away from it? He asked you how to remove Hamas from Gaza and you replied with a point about the West Bank?!?

He said I had never given any practical, achievable ways or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. He was wrong. I have repeatedly said that Hamas must be defeated militarily and politically, on the ground and at the ballot box.

"The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

"allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza.

Of course it's something to be done after the goal of removing Hamas from power has been achieved.

Everyone participating in this discussion thread has agreed that Hamas must be removed from power in Gaza, and kept from power in the West Bank, for there to be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Do I really have to say it every fucking time, over and over again, like I'm talking to a very slow-learning child, or can I just post as though I'm having a discussion with an average adult who is able to remember simple points of mutual agreement?

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history, not to just thoughtlessly charge in full speed ahead like a dumbass and keep making the same mistakes over and over again. The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to ensure that the peacemakers are successful, that diplomacy is a viable strategy for resolving conflicts and not an exercise in futility, that the human rights of all parties are respected, and that the assholes who keep inflaming the situation are sidelined.

The specific details are what negotiators and diplomats work out between parties.

"Hamas must be militarily defeated. It must be politically defeated, too." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza." It's a Monty-Pythonesque circular prescription: "Now, it's quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him."

Please review my posts in which I addressed the issue of Rules of Engagement and compared the hostage rescue mission in June to the Battle of Mogadishu before making any more silly analogies or strawman arguments.

"The new interim government of Gaza should be run by the PA until new elections are held ASAP." is not a practical, achievable way or means to achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza. It's something Israel should do after achieving the end goal of Hamas being removed from power in Gaza if Israel wants the PA to rig the elections and steal the foreign aid or wants Hamas or some other gang of terrorists to win the elections and restart the war.

When I was challenged over what Rules of Engagement I believed the IDF should follow, I provided them.

That might have been a useful post to link to in response to Tigers!'s "Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.", if you have reason to think Israel following those Rules of Engagement would actually cause Hamas to surrender.

So I really do have to repost everything I have already said, even if I said it initially in response to the poster I'm responding to?

What a huge waste of time.

How about this instead: I provide links when I'm making new claims and you guys read them so you can follow the discussion, and if you forget something or want to review it, you use the Search feature. For example, you can search for the words "rules of engagement" or "Battle of Mogadishu" or "defeat Hamas" by the poster Arctish. That way neither one of us would be wasting their time.

When I was asked if I thought the Nazis should have been allowed to enter into formal agreements with the victorious allies, I provided links to the information demonstrating that that's what actually happened when Donitz took over following Hitler's suicide.

The Allies believed Donitz could be trusted to end the fighting, and not resume it later, and shut down other Nazis attempting to resume it. Do you think there's someone in Hamas Israel can similarly trust?

Tigers! had been expressing shock at the thought of Israel accepting a negotiated surrender from Hamas, and asked "Should the Nazis have been allowed to be at the negotiations to end WW2?" That's where Donitz became part of the discussion.

(I just used the Search feature ^there^ ).

Rather than repeat for the millionth time that the Oslo Accords <snip>

Not interested in relitigating the entire history of grievance and counter-grievance; just wanted to point out the incongruity of advocating the Marshall Plan while the war is still on and calling it "remembering the lessons of history".

I wasn't.

You assumed I was putting the cart in front of the horse. I assumed you had been following the discussion and that I didn't need to keep restating a basic point on which we all agree.

IMO that has to change for peace to be attainable. It's simply not realistic to expect Palestinians to passively accept losing their livelihoods and their lives in Palestine.

Whereas it's presumably realistic to expect Israelis to accept whatever we think they ought to accept. Yes, we all understand that Israelis are free-willed moral agents and Palestinians are deterministic billiard balls.

You should talk to DrZiodberg and Loren Pechtel about that.

 

[White Lightning]

How could the IDF possibly be more cautious? While also keeping their own troops alive?

Ukraine is doing quite well with small drone based explosives that don't destroy half a city block and its inhabitants.

My problem with your attitude is that it places absurd demands on IDF

I've just demonstrated the demands are not absurd. Your lack of vision of the possibilities of other interventions is not a good argument.

Well Israel is attacking Hamas. The innocents are part of the crossfire when Hamas hides in public places.

 

[ZiprHead]

How could the IDF possibly be more cautious? While also keeping their own troops alive?

Ukraine is doing quite well with small drone based explosives that don't destroy half a city block and its inhabitants.

Russians aren't actively trying to look like Ukrainian civilians. Nor embedding themselves within civilians to use them as protection.

They knew there was HAMAS in that building in the gif that was posted. A smaller explosive like used by drones in Ukraine that destroys tanks could have been used to kill those HAMAS members without destroying the surrounding buildings and killing the occupants

My problem with your attitude is that it places absurd demands on IDF

I've just demonstrated the demands are not absurd. Your lack of vision of the possibilities of other interventions is not a good argument.

Stop living in fantasy land. Reality isn't what you think it should be.

Reality is what is happening in Ukraine effectively stopping Russia, a major super power, from taking over their country using explosive kamikaze drones. You're lack of imagination is not reality.

Hamas have absolutely no regard for any human lives. They don't respect the dignity of any human. They’re a barbaric organisation

It appears that the IDF have that same lack of respect.