Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Subjecting someone to a punishment for an act done by someone else is by definition collective punishment.

But you've already accepted the Hamas narrative of "punishment".

You’ve swallowed the Israeli narrative of “self defense “.

 

[TomC]

Subjecting someone to a punishment for an act done by someone else is by definition collective punishment.

But you've already accepted the Hamas narrative of "punishment".

You’ve swallowed the Israeli narrative of “self defense “.

You're unaware of October 7th, 2023?
Yeah, bottom line is that there's blame to spread around, the fundamental crisis for the Gazans is their leadership and it's international supporters.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No I’m not. And there is no defence for terrorism of any kind from anyone for any reason.

The inability to distinguish between calls for moderation in Israel’s prosecution of its war on Hamas and apologia for Hamas or antisemitism is what is truly pathetic. I’d ask that it stop, but to paraphrase King Crimson
“I talk to the wind. My words are all carried away, The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear”.

You call it a call for moderation--but you have never given a sensible answer for what would be acceptable. Nor has anyone else.

And we see blind acceptance of all Hamas claims about the situation. You do not believe you support Hamas but in letting them feed you "reality" you end up doing what they want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's important is why it exists. If that reason went away there'd be no reason for the defense against the reason.

The excessive "defense" is a big part of the reason the problem exists.

The reason why the Gazans Who Don't Matter are being held hostage for use as human shields?
Tom

I have no idea what that means since it doesn't seem to address the statement before it.

Sure it does. He's pointing out that the problem stems from Hamas human shield tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tom writes:

Sure.
What is stopping Gazans from crossing the border with Egypt?
Egypt and Hamas and Iran, that's who. Not IDF.
Tom

Hmm. Leave or die. What word should I used for such an ultimatum?

Ethnic cleansing?

Gazans have at least a couple of choices.
Move a few miles south to Egypt (at least temporarily). Or remain human shields for the GWM.

That's the "leave or die" options you are referring to, only put into the context with a dose of reality.
Tom

That context needs a dose of reality because the Rafah crossing on the Gaza side is controlled by Israel now, as are all the other exits from Gaza. Post #8471 contains a link to an Israeli newspaper report on who Israel lets leave. The numbers are miniscule.

At this time, leaving is not an option for the vast majority of civilian Gazans because Israel won't let them leave.

Notably missing from that article is any attempt to identify where the actual limits are. Israel is demanding documentation of permission for onward passage which is unfortunately reasonable as otherwise Hamas would play border games, get people stuck in Israel and then not allow them back into Gaza.

And:

When the Rafah crossing was open from November 2023 to May 2024, foreign nationals used it to reach Egypt. Most were asked to pay between $2,000 and $5,000 per person to Egyptian companies managing the crossing.

Note: Egyptian companies, not any limit imposed by Israel. How many are stuck because they can't come up with the bribe money?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Iran was "a few weeks away" from a nuclear bomb according to Donald Trump.

If you are a few weeks away... doesn't that mean it is mostly done, and you'd be pre-emptively targeting wherever that bomb was? Then you could drop bombs on nuclear facilities.

But not TV stations and police stations.

So take Trump's claim with as much salt as can be ingested safely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My point was that a 2000# bomb in a tunnel was not too destructive for the environment it was used in.

‘Not seen since Vietnam’: Israel dropped hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza, analysis shows

And that's supposed to be relevant?

If it's "unclear" whether the blast caused significant damage why even ask the question? The answer is no.

This is extremely biased reporting. Note the dodge of quoting someone, thus making even a false statement "true". ("Bob said X", yeah, he said that. Doesn't mean X is true.)

Yeah, 2000 lb bombs are harmless.

A 2000 lb bomb, like the Mark 84, has a lethal blast and fragmentation radius that can extend to hundreds of meters. The blast itself can destroy buildings and kill within a certain radius, while fragments can travel even further, causing injury or death. Specifically, the lethal fragmentation radius can extend to 365 meters (about 1,198 feet), and some fragments can travel even further. The blast effect can cause severe damage to infrastructure and casualties up to 800 meters from the point of detonation, according to a study.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Lethal Blast Radius:
  The blast from a 2000 lb bomb can be devastating. At approximately 30 meters from the point of detonation, the blast pressure can reach 11.5 psi, which is likely to kill people and demolish even reinforced concrete structures.
  
  
• Infrastructure Damage:
  The blast effect can cause significant damage to buildings and structures up to 800 meters away, including the collapse of residential buildings and shattering of windows.
  
  
• Fragment Range:
  Fragments from the bomb casing can travel much further than the blast radius. One study indicates that fragments can be lethal up to 365 meters away, with some fragments traveling as far as 1,150 meters.
  
  
• Specific Example:
  A study analyzing the impact of 2000lb bombs in Gaza found that 25% of hospitals had at least one bomb crater within the lethal range (360m) and 83.3% had at least one within the infrastructure damage range (800m).

Your desparation to absolve Israel is showing.

Nothing in your response is relevant.

I'm pointing out deception. You can see if a bomb did significant damage--if you can't see it it almost certainly didn't. That reporter is being very dishonest.

And your data isn't relevant. Your info describes what happens from a surface detonation--but when Israel is dropping 2000# bombs they are penetrators, hitting stuff underground. None if your numbers have any relevance to that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who is hoarding the food.

Then let’s answer that too: the same party that controls what comes in.

That's not an answer.

It is literally an answer.

Sheesh, Loren, this is like earlier in this thread when you posted a drawing of a terrorist with a baby strapped to his body armor and claimed, more than once, that no one had answered your question about it even though multiple posters already had, more than once, answered it directly in posts quoting you. My opinion of what's going on here, based on decades of discussions with you, is that you have not heard the answer you want to hear so you are ignoring the answers you do get.

First, I was asking who was hoarding the food. I have yet to see any allegations that Israel is hoarding it, thus his answer is a complete miss.

As for the baby--no, I have received several evasions, no actual answers. Remember, it's a metaphor, answers like "sniper" aren't answers.

Yes, Hamas hoards. That’s a fact. But here’s the difference: Hamas doesn’t control the flow of aid into Gaza. Israel does. Hamas doesn’t bomb the crossings. Israel does. Hamas doesn’t decide how many trucks are allowed in. Israel does. Hamas doesn’t control the buffer zones, the border surveillance, or the conditions under which humanitarian agencies operate. Israel does.

Reality check time!

It's Hamas that hits the crossings. Israel has no reason to hit their own facilities!

Link to reports of Hamas hitting the crossings where humanitarian aid is coming in, deciding how many trucks to let into Gaza, controlling the buffer zone, etc.

Support your claims, Loren.

His claim was that Israel was bombing the crossings. I am saying that that makes no sense, that only Hamas hits the crossings--but I am not saying there have been any recent hits on crossings. Thus there's nothing to support, ask him for evidence Israel hit them. Or are you denying that Hamas has ever hit crossings?

And Hamas most certainly controls the conditions under which the humanitarian agencies operate.

So even if Hamas hoards some aid—and they do—that does not absolve Israel of its legal and moral responsibility as the power controlling access to essential goods. Under international law, the obligation to ensure civilian survival doesn’t vanish because the enemy is corrupt. In fact, it becomes more urgent—because innocent people are caught between two forces, and the one with control has the duty not to use it as leverage for starvation.

1) They take most.

2) Reread Geneva. They are under no obligation to permit it if it's being diverted.

What part of the Geneva Convention allows an Occupying power to absolve itself of its responsibility to ensure the well being of civilians in the areas it controls? Quote that part for us.

And, once again, an utter failure to understand the situation. Anything about "occupying power" is irrelevant as the dispute is over areas which are not occupied. Geneva requires permitting supplies through provided they are not diverted. But they are being diverted, that doesn't apply.

You would have a point if there was an issue in the area Israel controls--but there isn't.

3) Once again, your argument amounts to we must do what Hamas wants because anything else is terrible for those in Gaza.

So no—you don’t get to say “they’re hoarding” as a free pass to bomb bakeries, block fuel, or collapse hospitals. That’s not law. That’s not strategy. That’s just collective punishment, dressed up as moral arithmetic. And it fails the only test that matters: who suffers, and who had the power to prevent it.

Your argument amounts to 2 + 2 = purple.

You keep throwing out accusations about Israel that aren't relevant to what's being discussed.

NHC's argument amounts to: evidence of an act having been committed by a particular party + international law identifying that act as a war crime = evidence that particular party committed a war crime.

Except he's not establishing either of these.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you pretending that the media and demonstrators aren't blaming Israel?

No. But “the media “ mostly reports the facts. So how does that make it a conspiracy?

Oh, come off it. Nobody is this naive. Certainly not you. Media reports facts. But those facts are framed. Put in a context. Arranged into a narrative. Tells a story. A news article is a story. The facts are arranged to serve the story. The opposite of science. By design. It's not a flaw. It's a feature. Facts that don't serve the story, or muddy the narrative, are routinely left out. But you know this. Reality has always been more nuanced than what you find in a news article. If you are interested in the truth, then you read about an event a couple of years down the road by combining a bunch of academic works analysing the event from a multitude of angles. Again... I am sure you know this.

You can generally learn a lot by comparing what both sides say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fun fact, I am organising a bit art project this summer. Its a big team. In Sweden. I won't go into details. But a fifth of the team is Israelis or Palestinian. This is not by design. I just picked the best people available. This was it. They get on fine with eachother. Its the Swedes who are in hysterics about the politics. The Israelis and Palestinians talk about it very matter of factly. Its about navigating around it to get on with life. They don't get caught up in talk about ideology

I just thought I'd mention it. It's just a snapshot of my life at the moment

I'm happy you found some Palestinians not deserving of death because of their leadership.

Why did you make that comment? What are you implying?

Because there's innocent Palestinians who didn't deserve getting bombed by Israel, therefore we should let Hamas stay in power indefinitely. Is that your logic?

The fact that Hamas uses human shields will inevitably lead to Palestinian civilian casualities. A lot of them. This, BTW, is one of the main motivations with getting rid of them. Or rather why I'm such a supporter of the Israeli invasion.

Anyone opposing Israel right now, I think, is enabling Hamas (and Iran). They're on the wrong side of history.

Oh, come on now! Since we won't accept the terrorist's story we must be demons incapable of doing non-evil acts!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn’t about taking sides , it’s about demanding better from all leadership. If I can criticize Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for corruption and violence, I can damn well hold Israeli leadership to the same standard. That’s not antisemitism you're seeing, it's consistency. It’s not my fault that some of you are so blinded by partisanship that you’ve lost the ability to recognize it.

You talk of partisanship, but you're missing what's really happening. You are taking an entirely reasonable position based on false assumptions. You let Hamas dictate "reality", you arrive at a reasonable answer based on that "reality" and you think you're being neutral. No, the real error is accepting Hamas' deceptions as truth. Turn around, look at what's happening to our government. Same thing, people accepted Faux Noise's depiction of "reality" and made reasonable decisions based on that false reality.

Once you accept stage sets as reality you've already lost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ve spent this entire thread doing two things: dismissing evidence and demanding proof from others you never hold yourself to. That’s not skepticism—it’s insulation. When every credible human rights organization, every UN body, every journalistic investigation, and even Israeli NGOs like B’Tselem all say the same thing—and your response is “none of them are credible”—you’re not uncovering bias. You’re choosing willful blindness.

Simple test: Nobody but Israel caught the bogus data. Some is blatantly wrong, little better than ^c^v while incrementing the ID number. That's an absolute red flag, their ID numbers have a check digit and sequential numbers can never happen. Anybody who was actually verifying the data would have caught it--but none did. Ergo, nobody is actually checking.

You say I haven’t offered solutions—yet every suggestion of ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, or international monitoring gets dismissed as “fantasy.” What you actually mean is: any response short of total domination is unacceptable. You confuse difficulty with impossibility, and impossibility with moral license. That’s not realism—it’s despair weaponized.

And once again you are throwing out random stuff.

The assertion before was about ceasefire guarantees. I asked how that was supposed to work. Now you simply say ceasefire--but that's actually a total victory for Hamas as they still have the hostages.

And I pointed out the reality of international monitoring. You did not address it.

You are falling into the standard leftist failure of taking it on faith that there is a good answer. You speak of difficulty--when there's no evidence of possibility. Of course you are not expected to know the solution--but when nobody proposes a viable solution that says a lot. This is on the world stage, our previous government did not like Israel--why didn't they propose something better? (Hint: Israel rejected our ideas as killing too many civilians in Gaza.)

 

[laughing dog]

No I’m not. And there is no defence for terrorism of any kind from anyone for any reason.

The inability to distinguish between calls for moderation in Israel’s prosecution of its war on Hamas and apologia for Hamas or antisemitism is what is truly pathetic. I’d ask that it stop, but to paraphrase King Crimson
“I talk to the wind. My words are all carried away, The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear”.

You call it a call for moderation--but you have never given a sensible answer for what would be acceptable. Nor has anyone else.

That is a falsehood. Not only have numerous posters done that, the IDF debated moderation.
I understand you disagree with those proposals but that does not make insensible, just less murderous.

And we see blind acceptance of all Hamas claims about the situation. You do not believe you support Hamas but in letting them feed you "reality" you end up doing what they want.

Coming from an inveterate swallower of Israeli propaganda, that is richly ironic on its own. Add that according to you and your ilk, the IDF policy you endorse is doing what Hamas wants, snd it is meta ironic.

 

[laughing dog]

Iran was "a few weeks away" from a nuclear bomb according to Donald Trump.

If you are a few weeks away... doesn't that mean it is mostly done, and you'd be pre-emptively targeting wherever that bomb was? Then you could drop bombs on nuclear facilities.

But not TV stations and police stations.

So take Trump's claim with as much salt as can be ingested safely.

One is usually safe in assuming Trump’s claims are fantasies.

 

[laughing dog]

Subjecting someone to a punishment for an act done by someone else is by definition collective punishment.

But you've already accepted the Hamas narrative of "punishment".

You’ve swallowed the Israeli narrative of “self defense “.

You're unaware of October 7th, 2023?
Yeah, bottom line is that there's blame to spread around, the fundamental crisis for the Gazans is their leadership and it's international supporters.
Tom

Another wholesale swallower of the Isrseli narrative of “self defense” spouts off.

 

[Arctish]

From your response it appears that you support collective punishment.

From your response it appears that you support violent Muslim terrorists.
Tom

No, you support collective punishment. No one here supports violent terrorists of any kind, including Netanyahu, whose violent terrorism you support.

There's no collective punishment.
Sorry to break it to you violent Muslim terrorists apologists but the Gazans are suffering because they are being used as human shields. No collective punishment.
Tom

No one here is a violent terrorist apologist, so you can knock off the slurs and slander right now.

Many on here claim that Hamas' actions are due to Israel's actions. Let's reframe that a bit: rape is due to women being immodest. (The Israeli action that's behind everything: existence.)

Instead of reframing things with an extremely stupid analogy, how about you support the end of the slurs and slander on this discussion board like a moderator should?

If you think someone here is a violent terrorist apologist, provide quotes with links to their post that support the allegation. Then we'll talk about what it means to be an apologist for a political party that kills people for their perceived religious affiliations and ethnicity, and/or an ethos that judges the rightness or wrongness of bombing gatherings of civilians based on what's in it for them, and who is doing it to whom.

The Gazans are suffering because of an ongoing war in which war crimes are being committed.

Eternally insisting there are war crimes doesn't make it so. I've already pointed out how Geneva is being misapplied.

No, you didn't.

You've already demonstrated you know even less about the Geneva Conventions than you do about UN conventions on the Rights of Refugees and the Rights of Indigenous people.

You're bullshitting.

Again.

 

[TomC]

Another wholesale swallower of the Isrseli narrative of “self defense” spouts off.

Lemme know when you figure out the difference between self defense and what Gazans did.

No collective punishment. No genocide.
At least not by the IDF defending the Israeli people.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, hostage recovery does not justify mass civilian death. That’s not idealism—that’s international law. The Geneva Conventions do not include an “unless it’s Hamas” clause. You don’t get to turn an entire population into collateral because your enemy is immoral. The rules exist for exactly that reason: to stop war from becoming unrestrained vengeance masquerading as defense.

And where exactly does it say that?

It requires proportionality, but provides no yardstick. Thus I am using the actions of the western powers as a yardstick--and seeing Israel doing far better.

Second, you claim “my solutions don’t work against evil.” That’s not a rebuttal—it’s a surrender. You’re not engaging with law or morality; you’re just declaring them irrelevant whenever they get in the way. If your strategy depends on suspending the rules the moment they’re inconvenient, then you’re not upholding civilization—you’re hollowing it out.

I'm saying your answers do not work against someone who is trying to subvert them.

Third, yes—Hamas embeds among civilians. And yes—it’s designed to provoke overreaction. But that’s not some groundbreaking insight. Everyone knows it. The question is what you do knowing that. If you walk into the trap with eyes open and detonate it anyway, you don’t get to turn around and blame the bait. You own the result.

Fourth, this whole “the IDF looks at behavior, not uniforms” dodge? It collapses under scrutiny. Because in Gaza, the “behavior” of a suspected militant is often indistinguishable from someone trying to survive in a war zone. If your standard for a threat is “moved too fast,” “looked the wrong way,” or “fit the age profile,” then you’re not fighting with precision—you’re rationalizing preemptive execution. And if your doctrine leads to that outcome predictably, repeatedly, and systemically, then that’s not collateral damage—it’s policy.

Their track record is excellent. You're throwing out hypotheticals.

If nothing else, look at all the videos shot at quite close ranges to Israeli airstrikes. Handheld and people who clearly know the target is about to be hit. Yet they are basically totally casual about it--the only way that makes sense is if they have considerable trust that the strike will hit exactly what was announced.

Fifth, the claim that calling out civilian slaughter equals being a “Hamas apologist” is not just dishonest—it’s cowardly. It’s a rhetorical shield for people who can’t defend the reality of what they’re excusing. I don’t support Hamas. I don’t excuse their crimes. I’ve condemned them clearly and repeatedly. But I also don’t believe that their evil grants moral immunity to anyone else.

The problem is you are doing a basically perfect job of parroting the Hamas deception, while almost never even trying to evaluate the facts.

You say, “It’s Hamas doing all these things.” Yes—they are committing atrocities. They are using civilians. They are violating every code of warfare. And yet—the law still binds you. That’s the burden of the party with the tanks, the drones, the surgical missiles, and the international legitimacy. You don’t get to torch an entire civilian population and call it “precision warfare” because the other side is cruel. That’s not justice. That’s a collapse of ethical responsibility under the weight of rage.

We don't see an entire civilian population torched.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you are talking shit. I don't believe your opinions are based on research. If they are you either haven’t understood them or taken them out of context

Then prove it. Show me the research I’ve misunderstood. Show me the context I’ve supposedly twisted. Because so far, all you’ve done is repeat “I don’t believe you” as if skepticism alone is an argument. It isn’t. It’s a substitute for one.

The problem here is that you think there's research to base your position on. We don't believe you because you are making a ridiculously improbable claim: that there is independent verification of the deaths and the status of the dead.

You keep accusing me of talking shit—but you haven’t once engaged with the actual evidence I’ve cited. FBI reports. RAND studies. UN assessments. Decades of peer-reviewed data on radicalization, terrorism, and conflict. You haven’t refuted a word of it. You’ve just declared it invalid because it doesn’t match your assumptions.

Relevant to terrorists in the US, not relevant to what's going on over there.

You keep moving the goalposts because you’re out of arguments.

No. I'm pointing out your data doesn't say what you think it does.

When I cite UN data, you say it’s Hamas propaganda. When I cite RAND, you say it only applies to the U.S. When I bring up Geneva law, you say it’s irrelevant to fighting evil. When I name every major human rights organization on Earth, you wave them off as biased. At some point, it’s not skepticism. It’s denialism in a moral panic costume.

I've already repeatedly said why I don't believe there's an accurate count.

And I'm not disagreeing with the study you are citing, I'm saying that it's only part of the picture, in this case irrelevant vs the power of the Iranian money. RAND is pointing to a match--and I'm saying that means something compared to the bonfire?

You’re not engaging with the evidence—I doubt you’ve even read most of it. You’re just insisting that the only “valid” data is whatever already confirms what you’ve chosen to believe. That’s not critical thinking. That’s a security blanket stitched out of double standards.

I didn't read RAND because I had no reason to--I'm not questioning it. I'm saying it's not relevant.

You claim there’s no independent verification in Gaza? Then who do you trust—only the side doing the bombing? Because that’s your logic: that unless the dead are personally verified by an entity you pre-approve, they don’t count. That’s not a demand for proof. That’s a rationalization for dismissing it. And it’s how war crimes get memory-holed in real time.

Overall death toll? Nobody.

You say what I’ve cited is “not relevant” because it’s based on radicalization in the West. But that’s just another dodge. The mechanisms of radicalization—trauma, humiliation, collective punishment, identity-based violence—are consistent across contexts. Pretending Gaza is some magical exception where none of that applies doesn’t make you sound informed. It makes you sound like someone allergic to introspection.

I'm not saying it doesn't apply to Gaza. I'm saying it's a trivial factor vs what's going on. And note that nothing about it requires that the blame be correct.

You don’t have to agree with me. But if your best counter to documented facts, legal frameworks, and years of field research is, “I don’t believe you,” then the only thing collapsing here is your credibility—not mine.

So here’s your last chance: either engage with the actual content—or stop pretending you’re in a serious conversation. Because right now, you’re not debating ideas. You’re just digging a deeper hole around your refusal to look reality in the face.

NHC

How about addressing why I should believe supposed verification that accepted clearly fake data as real.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You’ve spent this entire thread doing two things: dismissing evidence and demanding proof from others you never hold yourself to. That’s not skepticism—it’s insulation. When every credible human rights organization, every UN body, every journalistic investigation, and even Israeli NGOs like B’Tselem all say the same thing—and your response is “none of them are credible”—you’re not uncovering bias. You’re choosing willful blindness.

Simple test: Nobody but Israel caught the bogus data. Some is blatantly wrong, little better than ^c^v while incrementing the ID number. That's an absolute red flag, their ID numbers have a check digit and sequential numbers can never happen. Anybody who was actually verifying the data would have caught it--but none did. Ergo, nobody is actually checking.

You say I haven’t offered solutions—yet every suggestion of ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, or international monitoring gets dismissed as “fantasy.” What you actually mean is: any response short of total domination is unacceptable. You confuse difficulty with impossibility, and impossibility with moral license. That’s not realism—it’s despair weaponized.

And once again you are throwing out random stuff.

The assertion before was about ceasefire guarantees. I asked how that was supposed to work. Now you simply say ceasefire--but that's actually a total victory for Hamas as they still have the hostages.

And I pointed out the reality of international monitoring. You did not address it.

You are falling into the standard leftist failure of taking it on faith that there is a good answer. You speak of difficulty--when there's no evidence of possibility. Of course you are not expected to know the solution--but when nobody proposes a viable solution that says a lot. This is on the world stage, our previous government did not like Israel--why didn't they propose something better? (Hint: Israel rejected our ideas as killing too many civilians in Gaza.)

You’re not making an argument—you’re rehearsing a dodge. Over and over, you cling to the same circular shield: “Nobody caught this one anomaly, so everyone is lying.” That’s not a refutation of data. That’s a reflexive excuse to ignore it.

Let’s be absolutely clear: finding some duplicate or sequential ID entries doesn’t mean the entire dataset is fabricated. Errors in wartime reporting are common—not because of conspiracy, but because hospitals are bombed, communications are down, and people are burying children before logging stats. If your standard for legitimacy is zero error, then no war zone reporting will ever pass your test, and that’s precisely the point: you’ve set the bar so impossibly high that the only truth left is the one that serves your narrative. That’s not investigative rigor. That’s engineered doubt.

And your point about “check digits” in ID systems is utterly beside the point. You’re treating an administrative formatting glitch like it invalidates 35,000 corpses. It doesn’t. And pretending it does is a grotesque deflection from the actual human toll.

As for ceasefires and humanitarian solutions: yes, I’ve offered them, and no, you haven’t seriously engaged with any of them. You dismiss ceasefires because “Hamas still has hostages,” as if military occupation has ever been an effective rescue strategy. You scoff at UN monitoring because of what happened in Lebanon, ignoring that monitoring works when backed by teeth—as it has in dozens of other conflicts. And you scoff at international diplomacy without acknowledging that your own logic ensures nothing else can be tried.

You complain no one proposes viable solutions—then reject anything short of total war as unworkable. That’s not analysis. That’s ideological paralysis. Your whole worldview is a self-sealing loop: Israel is always right, every critic is compromised, and every solution is a fantasy. But the real fantasy is believing that infinite bombs will somehow bring finite peace.

You say past U.S. governments didn’t support better ideas. But that’s false: the Kerry peace framework, the Arab Peace Initiative, even internal Israeli proposals for demilitarized autonomy zones in Gaza were floated and shelved—not because they were too violent, but because they required restraint. You’re not interested in restraint. You’re interested in punishment with plausible deniability.

And let’s address the most telling line in your response: “Israel rejected our ideas as killing too many civilians.” That’s not a defense. That’s a confession. You just admitted that Israel chose the bloodier path. If that’s your gold standard, then stop pretending you care about minimizing harm. You care about victory, full stop. And your version of victory has no room for the civilians who happen to be in the way.

So no—you haven’t exposed bias. You’ve exposed the playbook: discredit the witnesses, redefine the law, deny the bodies, and claim the moral high ground while standing on the rubble. That’s not justice. That’s whitewash. And history has seen it before.

NHC