Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The problem here is that you are setting up a situation that will not happen. Hamas' top leaders are outside Gaza and will never be eliminated. Nor will the terror money. Thus defeating Hamas is impossible and what to do when Hamas is defeated becomes a nonsense question.

Rather, some of us are trying to address what should actually be done.

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.

I said that they would use nuclear weapons rather than submit to genocide. You put it as "repatriation" and sticking your head in the sand about the fact that what you're actually asking for is genocide because the contested land is all of Israel.

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.

And you're assuming it's the social issues breeding radicalism. Once again, you're assuming contested things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

We know the only way a group like Hamas is defeated is by removing the source of funding. It can't be defeated on the battlefield, it can't be defeated by hearts and minds.

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.

It's not the ideology, it's the money.

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 government of Israel is in Israel. It can be defeated.

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.

And there was nobody pouring billions into the Nazi party to continue the fight.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

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

Israel is taking control of some mountains that they don't want in enemy hands. Syria was keeping them demilitarized, the Syrian army basically just went home so Israel stepped in. It's mountains, militarily useful but not very useful to the people.

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.

Israel declared a no-go zone. Hamas kept forcing families into it to get killed. The world press eventually made them stop. This was one of the important preparation steps of 10/7.

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

Putting "press" on a van doesn't make it not terrorists. "Press" in Gaza is pretty much an arm of Hamas. And note how the PA is now kicking out Al Jazeera because they're taking the Hamas line.

A hospital is destroyed, there were terrorists i it.

Note that the "destroyed" hospitals somehow are magically able to still treat patients.

A school is destroyed, there were terrorists in it.

Yes. Hamas basically admitted there were.

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.

Hamas wanted Gaza destroyed. Hamas got Gaza destroyed.

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.

Letting Gaza exist as a quasi-independent nation lead to 10/7. The reality over there is that when Israel is harsh they end up safer and when they are nice they end up hurt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nobody has given a realistic alternative.

You’re saying so doesn’t make it so.

You conveniently do not provide any support for your supposed alternatives.

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.

Hamas has admitted it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

It is the limiting factor.

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.

It's the natural consequence of any system which is bound by a constraint. You're installing hinges. You have 1,000 hinge plates and zero screws. Will adding any more hinge plates increase your output one iota?

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.

It wasn't nobody, it was the German government. With the collapse of the government the funding ceased.

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.

The money goes where it's most useful. It's not any particular player, it's the war itself they seek. Thus any given enemy can be removed but so long as the funding continues the war will go on.

I do focus on the money because it's the driving factor.

Name one terrorist war with large, untouchable funding that has been won.

Name one terrorist war without large external funding that hasn't been won.

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.

And they'll come back.

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.

The problem here is that you are treating it as a binary, it is not. Israel knows it can't be truly secure so long as the terror funding continues. All it can do is minimize the damage the terrorists cause.

Saudi Arabia was exporting radicals as a way to deal with domestic issues. In time they saw it coming home to roost and did an about face on it. Iran isn't trying to deal with domestic issues, they're trying to stir up radicalism as a means of obtaining power.

 

[ZiprHead]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

NY Times is hardly on honest on this. Besides, I don't need to look at how they have twisted things, the death toll says all that needs to be said. Incredibly low for this type of combat.

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.

And Amnesty International is worthless.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

NY Times is hardly on honest on this. Besides, I don't need to look at how they have twisted things, the death toll says all that needs to be said. Incredibly low for this type of combat.

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.

And Amnesty International is worthless.

Yay! Loren knows the Real Truth^(TM) about the Israel/Hamas conflict. Why should they send journalists and investigators into dangerous situations and report their findings when they can just ask Loren what's going on?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

NY Times is hardly on honest on this. Besides, I don't need to look at how they have twisted things, the death toll says all that needs to be said. Incredibly low for this type of combat.

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.

And Amnesty International is worthless.

Any source that disagrees with your biases is either dishonest or worthless. You are sounding more like Trump every day.

I don’t think you appreciate how such hand waved dismissals of respected sources affects your credibility.

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody has given a realistic alternative.

You’re saying so doesn’t make it so.

You conveniently do not provide any support for your supposed alternatives.

Your saying so does not make it so. And that is truly an ironic observation from you.

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.

Hamas has admitted it.
[/QUOTE] Hamas admitted your handwaved excuse is epic?

 

[Bomb#20]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

A lot of people appear to feel that anti-Israeli bigotry doesn't count as antisemitism as long as it's not directed against all Jews, just Israelis. I guess they're technically correct. But then, a guy who has nothing against black people from Africa and only despises African-Americans is still racist.

 

[Tigers!]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

Where will the Jews go once they have left the ME? Can they stay at your place?

 

[ZiprHead]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

Where will the Jews go once they have left the ME? Can they stay at your place?

They should go back where they came from. MAGA!

You have to admit that no one asked the Palestinians already living there if it was okay to give their country to foreigners.

You think it's a joke that Trump wants to take over Canada, Greenland, etc. You know it's absurd. But that was exactly what was done to the Palestinians that were already living there, including Jews and Christians.

 

[ZiprHead]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

A lot of people appear to feel that anti-Israeli bigotry doesn't count as antisemitism as long as it's not directed against all Jews, just Israelis. I guess they're technically correct. But then, a guy who has nothing against black people from Africa and only despises African-Americans is still racist.

Loren said there was no alternative. I provided one. There are many more.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

The main problem is that Hamas have made it as hard as possible for Israel to avoid hitting civilians. With that in mind Israel is doing an excellent job. It could have been a lot worse for the Palestinians. A lot worse

 

[Jarhyn]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

A lot of people appear to feel that anti-Israeli bigotry doesn't count as antisemitism as long as it's not directed against all Jews, just Israelis. I guess they're technically correct. But then, a guy who has nothing against black people from Africa and only despises African-Americans is still racist.

Loren said there was no alternative. I provided one. There are many more.

The false equivalences and bad analogies are false and bad, though, too.

It's more like... Not having a problem with Germans because Germans are just humans with historic ties to people who lived on German land, but having every problem with a fucking NAZI and every person in NAZI Germany who isn't acting in resistance against that regime.

Trying to label this kind of thing as "Anti-Semitic" is antisemitic for exactly the reasons I described earlier.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The main problem is that Hamas have made it as hard as possible for Israel to avoid hitting civilians. With that in mind Israel is doing an excellent job. It could have been a lot worse for the Palestinians. A lot worse

Israel has left countless without a place to go home to. So while Israel did an adequate job at not actively targeting Hamas with no thought of civilians, there is the issue of there is less and less of Gaza for Palestinians to call home.

Yes, this is more the fault of Hamas, but should there be no consideration for the Palestinians left homeless or shall we be resigned to accept that tens of thousands, hundreds or thousands of Gazans will live in refugee camps for several years? THe reconstruction of Gaza is an opportunity to minimize Hamas via a multi-lateral agreement among Iran, Saudi Arabia, the emirates, and the West, but no one seems to give a damn about the reconstruction (and there appears no one with the diplomatic Sauvé faire to make it happen). LP might disagree, but the longer Gaza is allowed to rot, the worse things will be for Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The main problem is that Hamas have made it as hard as possible for Israel to avoid hitting civilians. With that in mind Israel is doing an excellent job. It could have been a lot worse for the Palestinians. A lot worse.

True. It is also true it could have been less worse for the Palestinians as well.-

 

[TomC]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

Where will the Jews go once they have left the ME? Can they stay at your place?

Speaking for myself,
I'd be totally happy with them moving here to Indiana. I'm sure some are utter jerks, but my experience with Jewish people is that they are overwhelmingly excellent neighbors, parents, and coworkers. Great additions to the community.
The fact that they would help balance out the Christian theocrats who dominate the place would be a big plus.

I can also understand why they don't want that. They have centuries of experience living in places where they cannot trust the government. Given the recent rise in power of the Christians I totally understand why they wouldn't want to move here. As our government more and more resembles the Nazis in Germany, I wouldn't move here either.
And I am not Jewish.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

In other words, the only answer is the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews?

Or they could just leave and give the country back to the people they stole it from.

A lot of people appear to feel that anti-Israeli bigotry doesn't count as antisemitism as long as it's not directed against all Jews, just Israelis. I guess they're technically correct. But then, a guy who has nothing against black people from Africa and only despises African-Americans is still racist.

Loren said there was no alternative. I provided one.

No, in point of fact you didn't; but that's the least of your transgressions against truth and equity. You're so prejudiced you can't even reread your own sentence and spot the trumped-up anti-Israeli slur even when somebody points out it contains one.

The essence of bigotry is to divide people into categories and then treat the members of one of your categories as interchangeable parts. The Israelis who could leave and give the country up are not the same people as the Israelis who stole the country. You accused current Israelis of a wrongdoing they didn't commit based on whom they're related to. That's no different from calling Mexicans rapists because some Mexican raped a woman. If somebody did that to Mexicans you'd notice; but when somebody does that to Israelis you don't notice. That's having a double-standard. This is not rocket science.

The incessant accusations that the current generation of Israelis are guilty of stealing the country isn't just typical Abrahamic "Original Sin" ideology; it's an active element in the ongoing movement to incite violence against Israeli noncombatants.

There are many more.

No doubt. But there's no shortage of people talking about Loren's errors.

A lot of people appear to feel that anti-Israeli bigotry doesn't count as antisemitism as long as it's not directed against all Jews, just Israelis. I guess they're technically correct. But then, a guy who has nothing against black people from Africa and only despises African-Americans is still racist.

Loren said there was no alternative. I provided one. There are many more.

The false equivalences and bad analogies are false and bad, though, too.

It's more like... Not having a problem with Germans because Germans are just humans with historic ties to people who lived on German land, but having every problem with a ... NAZI and every person in NAZI Germany who isn't acting in resistance against that regime.

So "Israelis" is the same sort of category as "NAZIs". Got it. You guys convict yourselves out of your own mouths when you say the quiet parts out loud.

Trying to label this kind of thing as "Anti-Semitic" is antisemitic for exactly the reasons I described earlier.

Good thing I didn't do that then. I explicitly stipulated that this kind of thing is not antisemitic, and you quoted it back to me. And now here you are making believe I labeled it antisemitic. Why would you do that, other than prejudice?