Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

Your skepticism isn't relevant. Radicalism arises from this.

Gaza is already thoroughly radicalized.
Both through Hamas and also through UNRWA schools.

Tens (hundreds?) of thousands more.

Elaborate. I have shown that Hamas et al already had a significant percentage of military age males recruited.
Recruiting even enough more to replace the losses from this war would require either recruiting 2nd rate fighters or wait for more kids to turn 15.
And recruiting is just the beginning. You have to train and equip them.

It doesn't matter if Hamas was the cause of Israel's reaction.

Of course it matters. Just like it matters that Germany started WWII.

You and LP just refuse to accept this. I'm not making a moral condemnation (*shifty eyes*) here. I'm making an empirical observation. The type of observation that was made in Europe between 1946-1950.

For that to work out it necessitated Germany profoundly changing. So you are admitting that Gaza (and West Bank as well) must change?

Sure did after the Great War. The Marshall Plan was enacted and post WWII plans were developed in light of the radicalization and Fascism that grew out of the Treaty of Versailles consequences.

That is more complicated than that. Gaza with Hamas is not like the Kaiserreich, it is like Nazi Germany. And while Versailles imposed tough conditions on Germany, it existed in a Europe that was already susceptible to extremist movements. Russia fell to the Bolsheviks, Italy to the Fascists, and fascist movements existed elsewhere, including the UK (British Union of Fascists).
In any case, had the Allies consequently enforced Germany's demilitarization, WWII might never have happened. After all, Hitler illegally reoccupied Rhineland in 1936, three years before WWII started.

Hamas can't be left in power. I've been clear about that in this thread. There is no place for Hamas on this planet.

So we agree on that. But Hamas can only be removed with military force. Or else, what would be your strategy to remove Hamas?

However, the military will not be who sees to that. LP thinks Hamas can be beaten down and put distance between atrocities. Myself, I want to see the atrocities end. I see this as a multi-national political struggle that can only have a political solution.

Please explain how you expect that to work in practice. Hamas is not going to give up power voluntarily. They won't even negotiate hostage release in good faith.
Hamas raises new demands in ceasefire talks, refusing to provide lists of hostages, i24NEWS understands
And they, together with Islamic Jihad, are even taking over cities in the West Bank. That's why even the PA is fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters now.
Why Palestinian Authority forces are cracking down on Palestinian militants in the occupied West Bank

Again, how do you see Gaza turning into something stable enough for a kind of Marshall Plan to work without defeating the Islamofascists militarily?

 

[Arctish]

Again, how do you see Gaza turning into something stable enough for a kind of Marshall Plan to work without defeating the Islamofascists militarily?

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.

The question has been asked of the posters here of what they envision for the future of Gaza once Hamas has been defeated.

You've been advocated ethnic cleansing and genocide for years. TomC is willing to greenlight the effective ethnic cleansing or genocide or the deaths of half the civilian population if Gaza. Loren Pechtel holds similar views regarding ethnic cleansing and claims Israel would use nuclear weapons on the capital cities of neighboring countries to ensure no Palestinians are repatriated to land claimed by Zionists. If I am understanding DrZoidberg's position correctly, he is also advocating for ethnic cleansing and would countenance genocide to achieve it.

Everyone else who has been active in this thread has been arguing for reconstruction (not by Jared Kushner and not to build Jews Only settlements) and reconciliation, with an emphasis on overcoming the social issues that breed radicalism, through a peace deal and reconstruction plan designed to avoid the mistakes made by the others when they imposed such harsh conditions on defeated peoples that further strife and radicalism were predictable, if not inevitable, consequences.

This disagreement over the future of Gaza is about what happens after Hamas has been defeated militarily and removed from political power.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except me, as I don't think you can defeat Hamas militarily. Neither does LP.

 

[Arctish]

Except me, as I don't think you can defeat Hamas militarily. Neither does LP.

So you think the only way to overcome Hamas is through political power plays, negotiation, and bribery, or do you think Hamas cannot be defeated?

It has been widely acknowledged by multiple posters in this thread that you can't kill an ideology. I am one of them. IMO you can't eradicate the ideology of Hamas, anymore than you can eradicate the ideology of Zionism, or Environmentalism, or Adventurism, or any other -ism.

However, it has been widely agreed that organizations espousing ideologies can be defeated and dismantled. This is implicit in Loren's position regarding the future of Israel. He fears Israel could be defeated and the Israeli Jews will be "dead or fled'", therefore he argues that the Palestinians must be rendered utterly powerless and removed from Palestine to prevent it. He fears the military defeat of the political parties and organizations upholding Israel's Right to exist, hence his fears if Hamas should ever defeat the IDF.

The comparison to the defeat of Nazi Germany and the removal of Nazi Party members from positions of power is IMO apt. There were still Nazis in Germany after WWII, and the ideology espoused by Nazis persists to this day, but Germany is no longer run by Nazis and it is possible for the foes of Nazi Germany to work cooperatively with Germans towards a peaceful and prosperous future.

 

[ZiprHead]

I do not consider the deaths "deserved", but I recognize that they're going to happen and blaming Israel every time they happen isn't useful. You're playing right into Hamas' hands. Their track record is extremely good, I don't see how any of us are qualified to second guess their actions. But Hamas parades the dead kids before the cameras and the facts get ignored.

You keep repeating the above yet never provide any proof it it whatsoever.

I've given the numbers, both for Israel and the general result. You provided an article that pretended to say otherwise but didn't actually support it's claim. It recognized the very bloody nature of urban combat, though.

You have never provided a comparison which is required to make your statement correct.

Once you posted that article that claimed it didn't have to be that way but then utterly failed to provide any evidence I figured the issue was moot.

Of course you did. You think it bought you cover for your unsourced statement. I am now officially asking for the evidence you used to make that statement.

 

[TomC]

The question has been asked of the posters here of what they envision for the future of Gaza once Hamas has been defeated.

You've been advocated ethnic cleansing and genocide for years. TomC is willing to greenlight the effective ethnic cleansing or genocide or the deaths of half the civilian population if Gaza.

That's not quite what I said.
What I was really referring to is the fact that nobody has described a feasible plan to get rid of the Islamic authoritarian ideology driving the violent conflicts.

I don't believe it's possible to defeat Hamas militarily because they have so much support. I believe Israel has given up on that and is now engaged in the more feasible plan to destroy the military installations and fortifications in Gaza. It would not result in so much death and destruction if Gazan leadership stopped using Gazans as human shields. But I don't think that they care about that.
That's the big problem here, the elephant in the room as it were. Gazan leadership doesn't care how many Gazans die as long as they stay in power. They will stay in power as long as they have so much support, domestic and international.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

Netanyahu has said what the future of Gaza is. Occupation and control by Israel.

 

[TomC]

Netanyahu has said what the future of Gaza is. Occupation and control by Israel.

Based on the news,
That looks like a mutual decision between the Israeli and Gazan leadership.

Gazans won't stop attacking their neighbor until Israelis take control and occupy Gaza.
Tom

 

[Derec]

The question has been asked of the posters here of what they envision for the future of Gaza once Hamas has been defeated.

That is one question, indeed.
But the other question is how to defeat Hamas in the first place. And, unless I misunderstood Jimmy, he does not think that can be done militarily. If not that way, then how? Depopulating Gaza would be one surefire way, but it would be draconian and difficult to accomplish, especially since nobody wants to take them in, least of all Egypt.

You've been advocated ethnic cleansing and genocide for years.

I have not.
TomC is willing to greenlight the effective ethnic cleansing or genocide or the deaths of half the civilian population if Gaza. Loren Pechtel holds similar views regarding ethnic cleansing and claims Israel would use nuclear weapons on the capital cities of neighboring countries to ensure no Palestinians are repatriated to land claimed by Zionists.[/quote]
"Land claimed by Zionists" you mean Israel proper? And by Loren's views you presumably mean something like Israel using nukes if invaded by said "neighboring countries" in order to effect Palestinians settling inside invaded Israel?

Everyone else who has been active in this thread has been arguing for reconstruction

I have also advocated for reconstruction, but it would be futile to reconstruct if Gaza is likely to start another war.

and reconciliation, with an emphasis on overcoming the social issues that breed radicalism,

What breeds radicalism is a) Islamist ideology and b) desire to conquer Israel and establish "Palestine" "from the River to the Sea".

In 2005 Gaza was given a great chance. Israel dismantled all settlements and withdrew all forces. Had Gaza chosen peace and coexistence, they could have had something very like Jared Kushner's vision, but owned and controlled by Gazans themselves, by now. Instead they chose to attack Israel through incessant rocket strikes and sporadic cross-border attacks, by far the biggest being the one in October 2023.
And success of Gaza would have made something similar in the West Bank possible too, as Palestinians would have shown they were willing and capable to coexist beside Israel. By now we would have had a Palestinian State.
What happened is the opposite. Gaza used their autonomy to wage war against Israel and that made it untenable to give West Bank Palestinians more autonomy. Especially since Hamas and Islamic Jihad are active there too.

through a peace deal and reconstruction plan designed to avoid the mistakes made by the others when they imposed such harsh conditions on defeated peoples that further strife and radicalism were predictable, if not inevitable, consequences.

How should that look like in practice, in your opinion?

 

[steve_bank]

Netanyahu has said what the future of Gaza is. Occupation and control by Israel.

Based on the news,
That looks like a mutual decision between the Israeli and Gazan leadership.

Gazans won't stop attacking their neighbor until Israelis take control and occupy Gaza.
Tom

Israel has had to deal with terrorism because of the occupation and seizure of Palestinian land going back to the founding.

Now that Syria is weak Netanyahu has said there will be occupation and colonization of what is now Syrian border land.

He did it before in Gaza. Border farmland in Gaza was taken over by Israelis. His response when questioned was 'It is only a small piece of land". Tell that to the family who had been on it for over 100 years. They were interviewed.

A marked press van with foreign reporters in it is destroyed, there were terrorists in it.
A hospital is destroyed, there were terrorists i it.
A school is destroyed, there were terrorists in it.

F9r all practical purposes Gaza and its people have been destroyed. The amount of ordinance that has been expended on such a small area is staggering.

There are Israeli soldiers who are beginning to question the poi8nt of it all.

My guess when it is over whatever Palestinians who are left will be herded into an enclave and Israel wit colonize Gaza. It is what Israel did in the West Bank.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My concern is about what is left of Gaza. And the cesspool being created that is going to put Israel at greater risk. Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants. No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in. Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term. Your moral indifference to the Palestinians doesn't make them any less real and susceptible to what impoverished and marginalized people tend to be susceptible to (frustration, anger, radicalization).

"Breeding militants" is a distraction. The war exists because of Islamist money, not because of Israel's actions.

I'd have figured you'd be the last to call the future murder of Israelis a "distraction". You sound like W and the Neocons with 9/11 and Iraq.

There are several different ways Israel could have managed a military response to the October attack. What their response has been doesn't have to be what it was, without it being effective.

What are the several different ways that Israel could have managed a military response to the October attack? Quite a few posters keep repeating that but no one has ever bothered to actually list them.

Clearly you are not paying attention. Several posters have given alternatives. At least one answered that direct question of yours.

Nobody has given a realistic alternative.

Either the plans are just handwaved or they are based on buying the terrorist propaganda that Israel is the cause. (Yes, Israel is the cause--Islam can't stand the existence of Israel.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My concern is about what is left of Gaza. And the cesspool being created that is going to put Israel at greater risk.

Depending on the town or neighborhood, not much is left. While some parts are relatively unscathed, others look like this:

But yes, there is a widespread destruction throughout the Strip. And sometimes "cesspool" is quite literal, as over a million of people in tents still produce a thousand tons of human waste each day, without adequate sewers.

I am skeptical that this will put Israel at "greater risk".

Your skepticism isn't relevant. Radicalism arises from this.

Only if you have drunk the Hamas kool-aid.

The threat is related to the money going to terrorism and the combat capability Hamas has. Period.

Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants.

How many more militants could possibly be bred now vs. the militants already bred on 10/6/2023?

Tens (hundreds?) of thousands more.

Zero more. The limit is funding.

No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in.

I wonder why. And it should make pollyannaish Americans and Europeans who want to take a bunch of Gazans in think twice.
Biden considers allowing some Palestinians from Gaza to come to the U.S. as refugees
Yeah, no. Dearbornistan and Hamtramckabad are more than enough.

Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term.

You mean Israel's reaction to the action (10/7/2023) by Hamas et al?

It doesn't matter if Hamas was the cause of Israel's reaction. You and LP just refuse to accept this. I'm not making a moral condemnation (*shifty eyes*) here. I'm making an empirical observation. The type of observation that was made in Europe between 1946-1950.

We are refusing the Hamas kool-aid.

The Marshall Plan worked because nobody was pouring a fair portion of Germany's GDP into continuing the war. Fundamentally, Gaza lives on the terror money.

However, the military will not be who sees to that. LP thinks Hamas can be beaten down and put distance between atrocities. Myself, I want to see the atrocities end. I see this as a multi-national political struggle that can only have a political solution.

No, I recognize that Hamas can't be defeated. There are two things Israel can do:

1) Recover the hostages. (Note that Hamas is refusing to consider releasing 12 of them. Makes me suspicious they aren't the ones holding those 12.)

2) Minimize the rate at which Hamas can rebuild. There was clearly massive smuggling from Egypt to Gaza, Israel wants to control a strip of land along there to avoid a repeat.

Beyond that, it's simply a horrible situation that will continue until either it goes WMD or the nations who are funding it quit doing so. A revolution in Iran would go a long way towards making things better.

 

[laughing dog]

My concern is about what is left of Gaza. And the cesspool being created that is going to put Israel at greater risk. Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants. No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in. Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term. Your moral indifference to the Palestinians doesn't make them any less real and susceptible to what impoverished and marginalized people tend to be susceptible to (frustration, anger, radicalization).

"Breeding militants" is a distraction. The war exists because of Islamist money, not because of Israel's actions.

I'd have figured you'd be the last to call the future murder of Israelis a "distraction". You sound like W and the Neocons with 9/11 and Iraq.

There are several different ways Israel could have managed a military response to the October attack. What their response has been doesn't have to be what it was, without it being effective.

What are the several different ways that Israel could have managed a military response to the October attack? Quite a few posters keep repeating that but no one has ever bothered to actually list them.

Clearly you are not paying attention. Several posters have given alternatives. At least one answered that direct question of yours.

Nobody has given a realistic alternative.

You’re saying so doesn’t make it so.

Either the plans are just handwaved or they are based on buying the terrorist propaganda that Israel is the cause. (Yes, Israel is the cause--Islam can't stand the existence of Israel.)

The irony of your handwaved excuse is
epic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your skepticism isn't relevant. Radicalism arises from this.

Only if you have drunk the Hamas kool-aid.

The threat is related to the money going to terrorism and the combat capability Hamas has. Period.

Money and funding is one important aspect. It is not the only.

Saying Israel "isn't wrong" doesn't undo the instability in Gaza at the moment, which is going to be breeding militants.

How many more militants could possibly be bred now vs. the militants already bred on 10/6/2023?

Tens (hundreds?) of thousands more.

Zero more. The limit is funding.

Zero? Really? I suppose that is the consequences of what happens in one's mind when they dehumanize a subset of people.

No other Arab nation is taking these Palestinians in.

I wonder why. And it should make pollyannaish Americans and Europeans who want to take a bunch of Gazans in think twice.
Biden considers allowing some Palestinians from Gaza to come to the U.S. as refugees
Yeah, no. Dearbornistan and Hamtramckabad are more than enough.

Israel's actions have had a reaction, that will make things worse, unless addressed in the short and long term.

You mean Israel's reaction to the action (10/7/2023) by Hamas et al?

It doesn't matter if Hamas was the cause of Israel's reaction. You and LP just refuse to accept this. I'm not making a moral condemnation (*shifty eyes*) here. I'm making an empirical observation. The type of observation that was made in Europe between 1946-1950.

We are refusing the Hamas kool-aid.

The Marshall Plan worked because nobody was pouring a fair portion of Germany's GDP into continuing the war. Fundamentally, Gaza lives on the terror money.

I don't think one could look at the post WWII history in a less than one dimensional way than that. The Marshall Plan wasn't what "worked", it was a means to an end. IE, taking more responsibility for post-war rebuilding, in order to reduce the chances of future radicalism from coming forth. You bitch about Hamas and Iran, but no one was even funding the hate in Germany after the Great War, and we saw what could come from that. The post WWII mindset was an evolutionary step, where we saw that it was in our best interests to make our enemies our friends. There was a good deal of executions in between, but it was achieved because we realized that we could no longer use the Old Europe view of a fragile balance being enough.

You keep running in circles about the money. Mainly because you think the problem in Israel is indeterminate and can't be solved. Yet, for some reason, you seem to forget that Egypt exists and the US managed to pull Egypt (and Jordan) out of the Middle East calamity. It wasn't empathy, it wasn't a sense of higher purpose that got us there... it was cut throat diplomacy and money.

However, the military will not be who sees to that. LP thinks Hamas can be beaten down and put distance between atrocities. Myself, I want to see the atrocities end. I see this as a multi-national political struggle that can only have a political solution.

No, I recognize that Hamas can't be defeated.

That is what I said, beaten down, not defeated.

There are two things Israel can do:

1) Recover the hostages. (Note that Hamas is refusing to consider releasing 12 of them. Makes me suspicious they aren't the ones holding those 12.)

2) Minimize the rate at which Hamas can rebuild. There was clearly massive smuggling from Egypt to Gaza, Israel wants to control a strip of land along there to avoid a repeat.

Beyond that, it's simply a horrible situation that will continue until either it goes WMD or the nations who are funding it quit doing so. A revolution in Iran would go a long way towards making things better.

Why are you pissing the wind about people not coming up with solutions for securing Israel, when you say there is no way to secure Israel?

I say we got Egypt and Jordan out of it. It is possible, but it take money and a good deal of shaming Saudi Arabia and the emrites.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Clearly you are not paying attention. Several posters have given alternatives. At least one answered that direct question of yours.

Really? I must have missed that particular post. If I could trouble you for the post number or the author I will go have a look.

Yes you did. There are lots of posts in this thread, so I can understand why you might have missed some of them, but not all of them. Posts #6,280 and #6,163 (which is a direct answer to a question you posed) are but 2 examples.

#6,280: Drones in place of bombs. I have already addressed this and my response was not rebutted. Yet you trot it out as if it's an answer.

#6,163: Respecting safety zones. You simply asserted without evidence that they did not change them. Evidence has been provided that they did. Yet you still pretend it's an answer. Nor did you address the fact that they were about bombing infrastructure and weren't meant to provide safety from Hamas activities.

Technically you are correct, "alternatives" have been provided. They are not meaningful alternatives, though. It shouldn't be necessary to specify "meaningful".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Perhaps you think I am a weak minded woman?

Not sure what was meant by this.

I mean that you come across as patronising.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In case you were wondering, receiving aid is big business for Palestinians. Palestinians have been extremely good at it since 1948. And since most of it has been embezzled tells us about the forces at play. Getting hold of foreign aid is the primary industry of Gaza.

Incentives shape culture.

International aid to Palestinians - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[laughing dog]

Clearly you are not paying attention. Several posters have given alternatives. At least one answered that direct question of yours.

Really? I must have missed that particular post. If I could trouble you for the post number or the author I will go have a look.

Yes you did. There are lots of posts in this thread, so I can understand why you might have missed some of them, but not all of them. Posts #6,280 and #6,163 (which is a direct answer to a question you posed) are but 2 examples.

#6,280: Drones in place of bombs. I have already addressed this and my response was not rebutted. Yet you trot it out as if it's an answer.

It is true that you have already addressed this. But your handwaving is not meaningful. Yet you treat it as if it were.

#6,163: Respecting safety zones. You simply asserted without evidence that they did not change them. Evidence has been provided that they did. Yet you still pretend it's an answer. Nor did you address the fact that they were about bombing infrastructure and weren't meant to provide safety from Hamas activities.

That is an outright fabrication. The IDF may have altered the zones, but it is still bombing areas designated as safe zones. You have provided no evidence that the IDF has rescinded safe zone status where it is bombing.

Technically you are correct, "alternatives" have been provided. They are not meaningful alternatives, though.

You saying so does not make it so.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not interested into getting involved in this discussion to any extent, but I read an article last week that gave a lot of evidence that Israel isn't doing much of anything to protect civilians. Maybe some of you don't care, but I'll gift the article and challenge those who claim Israel is trying to protect civilians to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.mE4.oQrk.kFdH_jntD16U&smid=url-share

Seems to me that Israel has really fucked things up and likely will end up causing more problems for the area. Some of the information in the investigation was given by members of the IDF, without using their names of course. Amnesty International among others have accused Israel of severe war crimes, but sadly some of you seem to think it's okay, as long as they keep trying to eliminate Hamas, which imo, is fucking stupid.

For those who continue this discussion and support Israel, please tell the rest of us if you think it's okay to break the so called rules of war by not giving a shit about how many kids, and innocent people you kill. That's all I want to know.

How Israel Weakened Civilian Protections When Bombing Hamas Fighters​

By Samuel Granados, Patrick Kingsley and Natan Odenheimer

• 
  
• 
  

An investigation by The New York Times has found that Israel, in the weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, severely undermined its system of safeguards to make it easier to strike Gaza, and used flawed methods to find targets and assess the risk to civilians.

The Israeli military acknowledged changes to its rules of engagement but said they were made in the context of an unprecedented military threat and always complied with the laws of war.

Here are some of the main takeaways from the investigation.

Raised threshold of civilian harm per pre-emptive strike​

In previous conflicts with Hamas, Israeli officers were usually only allowed to endanger fewer than 10 civilians in a given strike. In many cases the limit was five, or even zero.

At the start of this war, the Israeli military increased that threshold to 20, before reducing it in certain contexts a month later. Strikes that could harm more than 100 civilians would also be permitted on a case-by-case basis.

On rare occasions, senior commanders approved

one-off strikes on top Hamas leaders who planned

the Oct. 7 attack that they knew would each endanger

more than 100 civilians.
Level 0

0 civilians
Level 1

Up to 5
Level 2

Up to 10
Standard

Up to 20
With approval

More than 100

Expanded list of targets​

Israel vastly increased the number of military targets that it proactively sought to strike. Officers could now pursue not only the smaller pool of senior Hamas commanders, arms depots and rocket launchers that were the focus of earlier campaigns, but also thousands of low-ranking fighters as well as those indirectly involved in military matters.

 

[ZiprHead]

But Loren insisted that Isreal was the bestest ever at protecting civilians.

How can that be????