Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Politesse]

No, I don't think I will bother to hunt down the URL. The pro-Netanyahu ilk wouldn't be bothered to read it.

How do you distinguish between pro-Netanyahu ilk and the pro-multi ethnic and democracy ilk?
Tom

Since the Netanyahu ilk is neither pro-multi ethnic, it isn't hard at all.

You believe that why, exactly?

Ever looked at stats on Israeli citizens? Last I saw on Wikipedia,
Practicing Jews 50%
Ethnic non practicing Jews 20%
Arabic Muslim 20%
Other 10%

Compare that to the violent terrorist people they are surrounded by and have been under assault or threat of assault since May 1948.
Tom

So, if its that bad an environment why did they choose to live there? Indeed, why did they establish Israel there instead of a more hospitable place such as in the USA?

IIRC, it's because 1) Israel is the historic homeland of the jews from which they were chased out over eons of persecution by damned near the entire world and 2) it was owned by the brits at the time and the brits gave it to them.

It's not like a platoon of heavily armed jewish folks stormed the beaches and wrested the land from the noble indiginous people.

That is an incredibly inaccurate account of a five year long war in which 30,000 people were killed.

 

[Emily Lake]

Just because there wasn't the degree of trouble here as there doesn't mean they would feel safe. History is full of times of temporary safety for the Jews that in a generation or two became unsafe. We had a track record of being bad to them, they would have no reason to trust that times would be forever good going forward.

Let's be real here... there was NO place that had a track record of being good to the jews.

 

[Emily Lake]

Israeli action do not breed terrorists, Iranian money breeds terrorists.

How is slaughtering 17,000 children supposed to stop Iranian money? It's had quite the opposite effect in practice. The inhuman actions you endorse with so little thought are practically printing their propaganda for them, and the fundraising is pouring in by the billions. When shocked parents are stumbling through the streets with their children's disembodied heads, they don't even have to write the words "No solution but jihad" below the photo, the caption is just situationally implied. You're just doing free recruiting for the enemy at that point. Those kind of images don't make people scared, they make them furious. That's exactly why the Palestinian Authority did what they did, they knew it would provoke a usedul overreaction and both fund and motivate the next century of pointless, bloody war.

Where's your compassion for the Israeli women and children raped and tortured throughout this?

I think their deaths are an unthinkable tragedy.

I don't believe most of them had any part in this political struggle being waged around them, that took their lives so suddenly and unjustly. Nor that they would wish for thousands more children to be killed in their name. You have a funny way of honoring their memory, if you think providing capital to fund the killing of more innocents grants any peace at all to their souls.

I think fighting terrorists is a reasonable objective. I'd rather that not involve killing civilians, but terrorists rarely seem to give a fuck about that.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I don't think I will bother to hunt down the URL. The pro-Netanyahu ilk wouldn't be bothered to read it.

How do you distinguish between pro-Netanyahu ilk and the pro-multi ethnic and democracy ilk?
Tom

Since the Netanyahu ilk is neither pro-multi ethnic, it isn't hard at all.

You believe that why, exactly?

Ever looked at stats on Israeli citizens? Last I saw on Wikipedia,
Practicing Jews 50%
Ethnic non practicing Jews 20%
Arabic Muslim 20%
Other 10%

Compare that to the violent terrorist people they are surrounded by and have been under assault or threat of assault since May 1948.
Tom

So, if its that bad an environment why did they choose to live there? Indeed, why did they establish Israel there instead of a more hospitable place such as in the USA?

IIRC, it's because 1) Israel is the historic homeland of the jews from which they were chased out over eons of persecution by damned near the entire world and 2) it was owned by the brits at the time and the brits gave it to them.

It's not like a platoon of heavily armed jewish folks stormed the beaches and wrested the land from the noble indiginous people.

That is an incredibly inaccurate account of a five year long war in which 30,000 people were killed.

Feel free to elaborate and provide a history lesson on why jews ended up with Israel.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Were you there? How do you define "well accepted"? My grandfather felt compelled to change his last name from an obviously Jewish one to a more neutral one because of how well accepted he was in the 1930s USA. Maybe in the "late 1940s" it was substantially better, but I doubt it.

It really heavily depends on WHERE in the US your grandfather lived. Kind of like it might depend on where in EUROPE someone lived as to how well accepted they were. Sometimes size really does matter.

I agree, which is why it would have been useful for Spacetime Inhabitant to define what he meant by "well accepted" as I requested, rather than just make a blanket statement that seemed to understate the potential amount of antisemitism that American Jews faced in the 1940s.

 

[Politesse]

No, I don't think I will bother to hunt down the URL. The pro-Netanyahu ilk wouldn't be bothered to read it.

How do you distinguish between pro-Netanyahu ilk and the pro-multi ethnic and democracy ilk?
Tom

Since the Netanyahu ilk is neither pro-multi ethnic, it isn't hard at all.

You believe that why, exactly?

Ever looked at stats on Israeli citizens? Last I saw on Wikipedia,
Practicing Jews 50%
Ethnic non practicing Jews 20%
Arabic Muslim 20%
Other 10%

Compare that to the violent terrorist people they are surrounded by and have been under assault or threat of assault since May 1948.
Tom

So, if its that bad an environment why did they choose to live there? Indeed, why did they establish Israel there instead of a more hospitable place such as in the USA?

IIRC, it's because 1) Israel is the historic homeland of the jews from which they were chased out over eons of persecution by damned near the entire world and 2) it was owned by the brits at the time and the brits gave it to them.

It's not like a platoon of heavily armed jewish folks stormed the beaches and wrested the land from the noble indiginous people.

That is an incredibly inaccurate account of a five year long war in which 30,000 people were killed.

Feel free to elaborate and provide a history lesson on why jews ended up with Israel.

I refuse to sit here writing an essay on a topic easily researched.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So these four female Israelis released after 476 days look to be in pretty good shape, smiling, waving. They all look like they're holding small goody bags from Hamas. I wonder what released Palestinian hostages look like coming from Israeli captivity.

Or is it Palestinians take hostages and Israelis have prisoners? Is that the proper phrasing?

 

[laughing dog]

I am more interested on the treatment during their captivity of those released than their appearance upon entering freedom.

 

[Politesse]

The push into Gaza did not achieve any of objectives, stated or unstated, and those in the know believe that this will continue to be the case indefinitely. From the NYT this morning:

What has all this war achieved? Hamas is degraded militarily but remains in charge and continues to hold Israeli hostages. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders for suspected war crimes. Thousands of Palestinian children are amputees, and 377 aid workers have been killed. And the holy grail of a sustainable peace in the Middle East seems no closer.

Today Hamas in Gaza appears under the control of Mohammed Sinwar, the hard-line younger brother of Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader killed by Israel in October. Hamas officers are again patrolling Gaza streets. “The appearance of the militants didn’t suggest they were on their last legs: They appeared to be wearing clean uniforms, in good shape and driving decent cars,” my Times colleagues wrote.

Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a farewell speech that “we assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost.” Blinken emphasized that Israel needs to outline a post-conflict future for Palestinians and that “Hamas cannot be defeated by a military campaign alone.”

Surprising no one who knows anything about history, because this pattern of initial success followed by unexistinguishable long term reprecussions and successful resistance eventually leading to withdrawal of troops has recurred thousands of times in thousands of conflicts over the last century. The age of successfully extinguishing an opponent by overwhelming military might alone died along with the invention of the radio, and even if it makes you sad not to have that option on the table anymore, nostalgia cannot unmake the radio, or the television, or the internet, or radar, or anti-aircraft guns, or roadside IEDs, or otherwise bring that era back.

 

[TomC]

Surprising no one who knows anything about history, because this pattern of initial success followed by unexistinguishable long term reprecussions and successful resistance eventually leading to withdrawal of troops has recurred thousands of times in thousands of conflicts over the last century.

I don't know of any situation in which violent invaders had near zero regard for their own people. Such as the Gazans Who Matter have nearly no regard for the other Gazans.

My take away from the current events is that the Israeli government needs to get over their attempts to be conciliatory and careful about civilian casualties. Gazans still prefer violence and poverty over peace and prosperity.

When their 15,000 new recruits launch their next episode of invasion, with missles and murder and rape and kidnapping, Israel needs to respond more forcefully. Or the cycle of violence will continue.
Tom

 

[pood]

Surprising no one who knows anything about history, because this pattern of initial success followed by unexistinguishable long term reprecussions and successful resistance eventually leading to withdrawal of troops has recurred thousands of times in thousands of conflicts over the last century.

I don't know of any situation in which violent invaders had near zero regard for their own people. Such as the Gazans Who Matter have nearly no regard for the other Gazans.

My take away from the current events is that the Israeli government needs to get over their attempts to be conciliatory and careful about civilian casualties. Gazans still prefer violence and poverty over peace and prosperity.

When their 15,000 new recruits launch their next episode of invasion, with missles and murder and rape and kidnapping, Israel needs to respond more forcefully. Or the cycle of violence will continue.
Tom

Gazans, or Palestinians, did not attack Israel. Hamas did.

Israel practically destroyed Gaza and killed tens of thousands of civilians. In doing so they firmed up support for Hamas and bred more terrorists — just as I and others predicted at the start of this horror.

Your analysis is exactly backward. Respond more forcefully? Sure, they could nuke Gaza — would that be OK?

Israel attacking Gaza is what increases the cycle of violence, and guarantees it will be worse next time.

 

[pood]

I wonder when Israel will figure out the definition of insanity.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know of any situation in which violent invaders had near zero regard for their own people. Such as the Gazans Who Matter have nearly no regard for the other Gazans.

Nonsense. No one who invades another country is thinking about the impact on their own people. It's always bad, and that never matters until it starts to hurt their electoral odds years down the line.

 

[Politesse]

more forcefully

I'm not sure how to respond to such a vaguely worded proposal without being accused of misquoting you, except to say that I think it is a bad idea to be "more forceful".

If you want a more meaningful answer, please outline in clear terms what actions you are criticizing and which you are advocating for as their replacements.

 

[bilby]

When their 15,000 new recruits launch their next episode of invasion, with missles and murder and rape and kidnapping, Israel needs to respond more forcefully. Or the cycle of violence will continue.

In what possible sense would Israel responding more forcefully in that scenario be anything other than the cycle of violence continuing??

The ONLY way to break the cycle of violence is for somebody to start responding LESS forcefully. Ideally, for everybody to start responding less forcefully.

Are you seriously expecting Hamas to be the adults in the room?

Or do you genuinely imagine that the reason for the increased Hamas recruitment is that Israel hasn't killed or injured enough Gazans yet?

 

[pood]

When their 15,000 new recruits launch their next episode of invasion, with missles and murder and rape and kidnapping, Israel needs to respond more forcefully. Or the cycle of violence will continue.

In what possible sense would Israel responding more forcefully in that scenario be anything other than the cycle of violence continuing??

The ONLY way to break the cycle of violence is for somebody to start responding LESS forcefully. Ideally, for everybody to start responding less forcefully.

Are you seriously expecting Hamas to be the adults in the room?

Or do you genuinely imagine that the reason for the increased Hamas recruitment is that Israel hasn't killed or injured enough Gazans yet?

I know, right? He’s calling for Israel to increase the cycle of violence to end the cycle of violence. It’s rather hard to understand how one writing this does not notice the glaring internal contradiction.

 

[Derec]

Over to you, all you supporters of Israel’s war in war in Gaza.

It is better described as Gaza's war against Israel. We do not call WWII "Allies' war in Germany" either. Gaza started this, not Israel. And I am still strongly convinced that Israel should not have agreed to this rotten ceasefire as it strongly favors Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups.

The rest of us can just sit back and say, “Told you so.” How hard is it to figure out that slaughtering a bunch of innocent Palestinians was only going to increase Hamas fighters and support for Hamas?

We do not really know how the support for Hamas changed within Gaza. Is Gallup doing polls there? As to recruiting new fighters, I am a bit skeptical of the numbers, but that is still not a "told you so" moment.

1. Enemy recruiting new fighters is not a reason to stop the war. Russia has been recruiting new fighters all the time, even from North Korea lately. Does that mean Ukrainians should just give up? Germany had been recruiting new fighters, including minors in the end stages. Was that a reason to end fighting before victory?
2. Hamas and other allied terror groups had perhaps 60k fighters at the beginning of the war. There were about ~500k military age males. That is a >10% recruitment rate already. Any new recruits would be very young, or second rate recruits from the age cohorts already recruited from.
3. These new recruits are untrained and poorly equipped. Easy to deal with now, but a prolonged ceasefire will only enable them to be better trained and equipped.

All this means that new recruits are not a reason to stop fighting now, especially since it is clear that there will not be a lasting peace as long as Hamas is in power, or is able to continue as a "state within a state" like Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This ceasefire, in addition to freeing many Palestinian terrorists (including those serving life sentences for murder), allows Hamas et al to regroup and recover. But that is what Israel-haters on the far left want, isn't it?

 

[Politesse]

Most of the people who "started this" have been dead for several decades now. That is an utterly meaningless way to describe a 80 year long war with thirty-two century old roots, and an even less rational guide to further policy and conduct.

 

[Derec]

Gazans, or Palestinians, did not attack Israel. Hamas did.

Not that canard again!
Since you roundly ignored my rebuttal in the "Bitch about Biden" thread, here it is again.

That is bullshit. First of all, Hamas is a part of the Palestinian people, it is not apart from it. Second, Hamas was not the only group that was involved in the 10/7 attack. Look here:  October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel
Under "Units Involved" you will see "Palestinian Joint Operations Room" which coordinates operations between various factions. Then you have
the al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas
the al-Quds Brigades, Islamic Jihad
the al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades, Popular Resistance Committees
the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, PFLP
the National Resistance Brigades, DFLP
the al-Ansar Brigades, remnants of Fatah
the Mujahideen Brigades
So contrary to your claim that it's just Hamas, groups from all over the Palestinian society participated - even those ideologically diametrically opposed to Hamas such as PFLP and DFLP, two Marxist-Leninist groups.

As you can see, it is hardly only Hamas, but a broad swath of terrorists from across the Palestinian society.

Israel practically destroyed Gaza and killed tens of thousands of civilians.

Blame should be on those who started this war. And on those who are hiding among civilians and launching attacks from ostensibly civilian areas.

In doing so they firmed up support for Hamas and bred more terrorists — just as I and others predicted at the start of this horror.

I do not see much evidence for levels of support. As to breeding more terrorists, Hamas et al already had great success in propaganda against Israel (aided in no small part by UNRWA schools) and in recruitment of fighters. They are breeding terrorists no matter what!
At least this war also killed at least 20k terrorists. They have not recruited that many new ones, and those they have recruited are second rate, untrained and poorly equipped. They would have been relatively easy to deal with had Israel been allowed to fight on.

Your analysis is exactly backward. Respond more forcefully? Sure, they could nuke Gaza — would that be OK?

Israel should not have been pressured to end fighting terrorists before victory. And Israel should not be pressured to release thousands of imprisoned terrorists for a handful of hostages. I am happy for hostages that were released, but dismayed about the freed prisoners. Both because of the propaganda coup that gives Hamas - if there is higher support for them among Palestinians it is because they succeeded in freeing terror prisoners and not because they caused the destruction of much of Gaza - and because these prisoners are violent terrorists, many of whom will continue terror activities just like Yahya Sinwar and others freed in the disatrous Shalit deal went back to terror.
It also shows that hostage taking is a viable tactic for terrorists and it will thus encourage more hostage taking, endangering all Israeli civilians.

Israel attacking Gaza is what increases the cycle of violence, and guarantees it will be worse next time.

Reality check: Gaza attacked Israel, and Hamas leaders vowed to do so again and again until Israel is destroyed.
Why do you insist to frame this war in diametrical opposition to reality? It's like saying that Ukraine attacked Russia or that Poland attacked Germany (which Nazi Germany did claim).
You are reversing victim and offender. It's straight out of DARVO playbook.

 

[laughing dog]

Over to you, all you supporters of Israel’s war in war in Gaza.

It is better described as Gaza's war against Israel. We do not call WWII "Allies' war in Germany" either.

We don't call WWII, Allies vs Axis or something else, just WWII, so using your reasoning, the current conflict in that region should be AVI2? (Arabs vs Israel) not Gaza v Israel nor Israel v Gaza.

Personally, I would go for another WIME._ (Waste in the Middle East version _ with someone else figuring the number).