Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[pood]

Once again, half the story. The point about radicalization being about perception is that it doesn't need any actual oppression. Simple example: the Incel movement. Men who can't find a romantic partner + radicalization. There's no oppressor.

So now Palestinians whose land has been stolen, who have been blockaded and bombed, who have been kept in an open-air prison in Gaza, aren’t being oppressed at all — they’re just like incels! And just like incels who have the temerity to think they are entitled to have sex, the Palestinians have the temerity to feel they are entitled to food, water, and secure living conditions. Imagine the gall!

<Thawack with a clue-by-4!>
He was using the perception of wrong as proof of wrong. I'm pointing to the incels as evidence that perception of wrong does not require actual wrong. I'm not comparing them to incels.

Of course you are! Else why make the comparison at all?

It’s inane. Incels can’t get laid so they have an incorrect perception that they are being wronged. Gazans can’t get food, housing, sanitation, safety, etc., and they have a correct perception that they are being wronged. And yes, wronged, by Israel, not just Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where does it impose any alternative obligation if 23a is violated?? And note that Hamas is also violating the 4th and 5th paragraphs.

Loren, your argument is a textbook case of weaponizing legal gray areas to justify moral failure. Yes, Article 23 allows for restrictions if there's a risk of diversion or military advantage. But what you’re conveniently ignoring is that the Geneva Conventions don’t exist in isolationm they’re part of a broader framework designed to protect civilians, not to give cover to those who want to starve them legally.

It's not "restrictions", 23a completely removes the obligations of 23.

You cite the clause that permits withholding aid, but not the absolute prohibition against using starvation as a method of warfare (see: Additional Protocol I, Article 54, and Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). Blocking aid to 2+ million people, most of them children, elderly, or uninvolved civilians, under vague suspicions of diversion is not compliance, it’s calculated cruelty dressed up as legal nuance. And dragging Hamas into this is a transparent dodge. The Geneva Conventions still apply to Israel regardless of Hamas's violations. That’s like a police officer saying, “Well, the other guy broke the law too, so I get to ignore due process.”

Key: As a method of warfare.

You just blindly blame Israel when Hamas intercepts the aid.

You asked: “Where does it impose any alternative obligation?”
Try Common Article 1: all parties must ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances. That includes upholding humanitarian access and protecting civilians even when it’s inconvenient or politically unpopular. So no, citing a carve-out doesn’t absolve responsibility. It just shows you're more interested in legalistic excuses than genuine humanitarian principles. Stop pretending legality and morality are the same thing, they're not.

I've already shown 23 doesn't apply. Thus you are not establishing any violation, and thus "in all circumstances" isn't relevant. There is no matter of inconvenient or politically unpopular, it's about diversion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize the biggest threat is to Saudi Arabia?

Loren, the point wasn’t about who Iran’s biggest regional rival is. It was about how Israeli-aligned media, like the JPost, frames Iran’s nuclear program in a way that overstates the threat to justify preemptive or escalatory actions, something ZiprHead clearly pointed out. Even if Saudi Arabia feels threatened, that doesn't magically validate Bibi’s PR campaign or erase the very real skepticism around how dire the situation actually is. That’s the discussion. Not who feels the most uncomfortable.

And while we’re at it, if Saudi Arabia is the one most at risk, then why is the West endlessly enabling Israel’s aggression under the premise that Iran is targeting them? Unless, of course, we're just using fear of Iran as a one-size-fits-all cover for broader power plays, in which case, thank you for proving that point I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nonresponsive.

Everyone is seriously hurt if Riyadh goes boom.

Is the world going to do anything meaningful to Iran if that happens? No.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pretty simple really. You and your ilk keep complaining Hamas et al use Gazans as human shields. What do you expect to happen when you support them all being locked up together in a tiny area with one of the highest population densities in the world? Let the innocent Gazans go free to Israel proper. Then no more human shields.

And when the war is over what happens? They would be executed if they were to return to Gaza.

Why would they need to be returned to Gaza?

So what becomes of them? Give them citizenship and Hamas gets it's genocide after all?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying the barriers were built in response to suicide bombings is just plain ignorant. Those attacks happened more than 20 years after the first 60 km of fencing went up, and more than 40 years after Gazans attempting to return to their former homes or harvest food from their farms were routinely shot.

All you are showing it that it wasn't perfect.

And while I'm not aware of the specifics you're referring to about harvesting,

And right here you prove beyond a reasonable doubt you didn't read the linked article and don't have a frigging clue what is being referenced, but you're more than willing to bullshit and bluster about it.

Learn some history, Loren.

I know Hamas engineered many situations to get civilians shot near the border. Exactly how they framed it doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you have fallen for the Hamas line. "Amount of civilian suffering" as a yardstick is surrender to whoever is the most evil. Make your own people suffer to deceive the world is right out of the playbook.

You're misrepresenting the argument. As usual. Acknowledging the scale of civilian suffering doesn't mean falling for Hamas propaganda, it means recognizing the real-world consequences of military actions. The idea that prioritizing civilian lives is "surrender" is all in your imagination.

Yes, avoiding civilian casualties does make it harder to root out Hamas, but that’s the burden of fighting asymmetric warfare while claiming moral high ground. You can wage war with restraint without falling for your enemy's narrative. Pretending those goals are mutually exclusive is how atrocities get normalized.

Completely nonresponsive.

Goodhart's law. In practice you reward bad acts on the part of Hamas.

Loren, quoting Goodhart’s Law like it's some mic-drop moment doesn’t change the reality on the ground, it just gives your apathy a vocabulary. Civilian suffering isn’t a manipulated metric; it’s a moral alarm. The idea that we should ignore that alarm because “bad people might exploit it” is the same logic white supremacists use when they dismiss racism statistics by saying, “Well, anyone can fake oppression for attention.” It’s a way to invalidate real harm by accusing the harmed of weaponizing their pain.

If someone burns down your house, and you scream for help, this line of thinking would say, “They’re just using their victimhood to control the narrative.” That’s not analysis, that’s deflection. You don’t get to pretend to care about truth and justice while treating actual human lives as disposable noise in your ideological spreadsheet.

Calling it moral alarm is not a rebuttal at all.

You are using dead bodies as a metric of wrong. Therefore they respond by making more dead bodies so you'll apply pressure to Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

Prove it using reason.

Prove what?
That Loren didn't say or claim the things you assert?

You're making the assertions, and you didn't back them up.
Tom

You are handwaving your denial. That is not proving it with reason.

Try explaining why you think each one of those statements does not back up my assertion that LP denied there were starving children.

Without a reasoned rational, your denial cannot be taken seriously.

All of those come down to saying the evidence for starvation is extremely iffy.

But, much more important to me is that Hamas isn't finding them. Last I knew they were up to 60 which is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been projected. I do not trust the Hamas data, but I do consider it a pretty good upper bound. Remember, there are medical reasons for malnutrition deaths. Sometimes it's direct (the body turns upon food badly enough--you still haven't answered about what to do if you're anaphylactic to one of the items I indicated), sometimes it's because someone can't digest food for some reason. I've already pointed out there are 40k (probably actually higher) TPN patients in the US. Virtually all of them would be malnutrition deaths in Gaza.

The expected malnutrition death rate is not zero, thus showing that it is not zero is not proving anything. (Not that it has actually been shown, anyway.)

You realize you are spewing implausible reasons without regard to a single fact.

 

[laughing dog]

They either prefer to stay or they can not leave because they are not allowed to, by Egypt and Hamas and Hamas' supporters.

I honestly believe that a bunch of them would rather escape Hamas. Israel would rather that they did. So, why is there not a big bunch of Gazans fleeing Gaza?

Because the GWM and their international supporters don't want to lose them. Those people need human shields to use for the media.
Tom

Yeah, remember that stupid floating pier?

One of the objections to it was that people might escape via it. Hamas objection, not Israel.

If you are talking about this floating pier - The rise and fall of the US aid pier for Gaza -

The pier was dismantled last week after delivering less aid than hoped due to fire, weather and distribution struggles​

No mention in the article of Hamas at all.

So, do you have a source that indicates the pier was removed at Hamas's request?

Can you present something other than strawmen?

I was simply saying Hamas objected to it because people might escape. I did not say that's why it was abandoned.

I do not know why it was abandoned, but I suspect Israel pointing out reality to them caused it: Hamas shelled the pier. A very light attack but it's an indication that if they don't stop there will be heavy shelling.

The article says why the pier was abandoned and none of the reasons were due to objections from Hamas or Israel. So their concerns were irrelevant to its disappearance.

Which leads to the question as to the relevance of your still unsubstantiated claim of fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That was a BBC reporter and photog who got into that hospital. BBC does not print fraudulent photos or stories. It’s absolutely pathetic to deny the reality staring you in the face because for you criticizing Israel is off limits, period..

Sure they do. You print what Hamas wants you to print, or you don't get access. And:

https://camera-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/BBC-ISRAEL-GAZA-BIAS-06b.pdf

And watch out for the eternal "X says Y", as a way of being "truthful" while actually repeating preposterous lies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Read it and weep.

Absolutely pathetic and outrageous that anyone defends this monstrous Israeli behavior.

That's just the thing... there are bustling cafès in Gaza. There is plenty of food in Gaza. Those unlucky enough to be caught in a shitty situation are starving. But most aren't.

It refers to her needing special formula. But note what the reporter actually says:

Under the conditions of war and an Israeli blockade on aid arrivals, there is a severe shortage of the formula she needs.

Be on the lookout for malicious reporting as we most likely have an example of it here.

Is the formula problem because of the Israeli blockade? Or is it because of the war? We can't tell from this, but given the usual hostility of the BBC I very much doubt it's only the second.

And note the unaddressed elephant: Hamas seizing stuff.

Trivially simple for Hamas to simply not distribute enough of it, get starving babies to parade in front of the camera. Hypoallergenic formulas tend to be expensive, are they reselling it elsewhere?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Under normal conditions the actions of the soldier who fired would be in the insane category. But everyone on the Israeli side seems to regard it as an understandable mistake--which only makes sense if this was a rare real one amongst a sea of fakes. In other situations Israel has definitely condemned misdeeds, so it's not a coverup.

Translation:

"It's not a coverup; We know this from the fact that the people who might be covering it up, and their allies and supporters, all seem to think it's fine and dandy".

The point is they have a history of admitting when their people fuck up. Your argument would be valid if they had a history of covering things up, but they don't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As with so much of the world, look for the answer that is the least surprising.

That's not sound advice in ANY situation; It is just an appeal to let ones biases have full reign.

Worded poorly.

Look for the answer that requires adding the fewest, the least strange expectations.

Consider a previous example I've given on here: "redlining", as reported in the local paper.

A) Banks are discriminating against black neighborhoods. But why in the world are they only doing so on low-down mortgages?? Not a hint of why.

or

B) Banks don't like underwater mortgages and are avoiding issuing ones that are likely to remain underwater for some time.

We know banks don't like underwater mortgages, it's not remotely surprising that they might be looking at it. Much, much simpler than explaining why many people are behaving in the same inexplicable (why only on low-down??) way.

It's just an extension of Occam's Razor, I'm adding in least surprising to simplest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you find a news report of "man gets speeding ticket"?

Took less than a second:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06...-for-driving-100kph-in-an-100kph-zone/6513868

Extreme speed, yes. I'm talking about the ordinary things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Hamas actually were trying to feed the people why this:

Sada News - The Ministry of Interior in the Gaza Strip and the National Security warned on Thursday against dealing or cooperating, directly or indirectly, with the American organization called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) or with any of its local or foreign agents, under any name or circumstance

Lots of ominous words but the penalty isn't spelled out.

Well, you've got us there. There is absolutely no possible reason to warn against cooperating with a foreign agency from a nation that is allied to your enemy during wartime.

No such agency has ever, in the history of warfare, been used to infiltrate spies or saboteurs, and the very idea that anyone might try to do that under cover of humanitarian assistance is unthinkable.

Geneva says the IDF gets to dictate how aid distribution works. And most people involved are locals.

But if the aid goes through the GHF rather than Hamas then Hamas can't use it to control the people and to make payroll.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prove it using reason.

Prove what?
That Loren didn't say or claim the things you assert?

You're making the assertions, and you didn't back them up.
Tom

You are handwaving your denial. That is not proving it with reason.

Try explaining why you think each one of those statements does not back up my assertion that LP denied there were starving children.

Without a reasoned rational, your denial cannot be taken seriously.

All of those come down to saying the evidence for starvation is extremely iffy.

But, much more important to me is that Hamas isn't finding them. Last I knew they were up to 60 which is a drop in the bucket compared to what has been projected. I do not trust the Hamas data, but I do consider it a pretty good upper bound. Remember, there are medical reasons for malnutrition deaths. Sometimes it's direct (the body turns upon food badly enough--you still haven't answered about what to do if you're anaphylactic to one of the items I indicated), sometimes it's because someone can't digest food for some reason. I've already pointed out there are 40k (probably actually higher) TPN patients in the US. Virtually all of them would be malnutrition deaths in Gaza.

The expected malnutrition death rate is not zero, thus showing that it is not zero is not proving anything. (Not that it has actually been shown, anyway.)

You realize you are spewing implausible reasons without regard to a single fact.

Are you saying any of those causes of malnutrition deaths are not real???

 

[laughing dog]

You realize you are spewing implausible reasons without regard to a single fact.

Are you saying any of those causes of malnutrition deaths are not real???

You spew conjectures.

 

[laughing dog]

Under normal conditions the actions of the soldier who fired would be in the insane category. But everyone on the Israeli side seems to regard it as an understandable mistake--which only makes sense if this was a rare real one amongst a sea of fakes. In other situations Israel has definitely condemned misdeeds, so it's not a coverup.

Translation:

"It's not a coverup; We know this from the fact that the people who might be covering it up, and their allies and supporters, all seem to think it's fine and dandy".

The point is they have a history of admitting when their people fuck up. Your argument would be valid if they had a history of covering things up, but they don't.

How would anyone know about successful coverups? They have a history of unsuccessful coverups because they only admit fuckups when they are caught.

 

[Swammerdami]

You have been reminded over and over and over again of oppressions that Palestinians have endured for decades. To remind you of just the most clear-cut example, there are a million Israelis illegally(*) settled in the West Bank at considerable loss to the Palestinians they have displaced. These settlements were NOT for Israel's security. Many of the settlers occupied the stolen land NOT because "God gave the land to" them but because the Israel government subsidized the settlements.

Have you ever told us how you would feel if an Army of Muslims arrived in your town with superior force, and kicked you out of your home so they could live there?

* - To state the obvious for Mr. Pechtel's benefit, in this context "illegal" obviously refers to International Law, and not to the hypocrisies of the criminal Tel Aviv regime.

As for the kicking out part--you have been repeatedly reminded that that basically didn't happen. Most of the departures were of their own free will before the fighting started.

You appear to be conflating two completely different issues -- two different displacements:

1. The displacement of Palestinians during 1947-49. This is obviously NOT what I was speaking of, but, pedictability, you get it wrong also. Many of the departures were voluntary; I'm not sure about "most" -- does it matter? Approximately 15,000 Palestinians, mostly civilian, were killed during that conflict and 750,000+ Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled.
   
   Benny Morris is a distinguished Professor of History and describes himself as a Zionist.
   

   What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

   The term "ethnic cleansing" has been applied to much anti-Arab activity. Some of this dates back to the British conquest of Palestine in World War I, with the 1917 Balfour Declaration partly responsible for anti-Arab oppression.
   

   Aerial photographs taken by first world war German pilots are combined with mandate-era and Israeli maps supplemented by digitally enhanced satellite images that record old tribal boundaries, neighbourhoods and even individual buildings. Most striking are the hundreds of Arab villages that were destroyed or ploughed under fields, as well as postwar Jewish settlements and suburbs.

   
   I do NOT advocate tracing the conflict back into old history or ancient history. (Did it all start when Isaac' son Jacob cheated his older brother of his inheritance? ) BUT that is what you seem to do. You point to any item of bad Hamas or Palestinian behavior and use it to justify any of Netanyahu's war crimes after that date.

Satellite images that show stuff was ploughed under?? That requires before and after and I really don't think there were any birds up there to provide a before. Thus this is clearly wrong.

Wrong again. I enjoy reading articles about archaeology and I've often heard of buried tombs, etc. (e.g. at Stonehenge) being discovered with the help of satellite images. No "birds" when Stonehenge was constructed. And did you skip over the mention of "Aerial photographs taken by first world war German pilots"?

Anyway the claim isn't mine; I am quoting Benny Morris distinguished Israeli Professor of History and Zionist. You obviously view the entire debate as Us vs Them, black or white, so may be surprised to learn that this scientist is a Zionist and "on your side" I guess; Check out this interview:

I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
...
There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing.

And be aware that I am NOT saying Professor Morris is wrong in these quotes. I am saying YOU are wrong and, unlike Professor Morris, are incapable of grasping any nuance. The first Morris quote starts "What the new material shows ... To my surprise..." Unlike Morris YOU are incapable of escape from your tunnel vision.

1. 
   
2. But what I was obviously referring to was the illegal confiscation of Palestinian land in the West Bank. These settlements began in earnest in 1974 and continue until the present.
   
   Let me repeat the question you are unwilling to answer:
   Have you ever told us how you would feel if an Army of Muslims arrived in your town with superior force, and kicked you out of your home so they could live there?

And this is assuming people were kicked out.

I am not "assuming" anything. I am asking you a question, for the fifth or sixth time, and wondering why you are incapable of answering it.

But apparently they has some very good stealth technology that made their towns look like empty land in old pictures.

The Arab nations encouraged them to get out of the way of the coming war, they listened. Oops, the war didn't go as expected. And they wouldn't swear to be peaceful if they returned, thus they were not allowed to return.

And, once again, you bring up the settlements. I've already said I don't like them, but that they are a red herring. The war traces back to 1948, unless the Palestinians have a time machine the settlements have nothing to do with that.

Read your own words, please! Everything AFTER 1948 is irrelevant, of no moral consequence ... according to YOU. You think Palestinians who are long-since dead did something wrong in 1948 so any atrocities committed by Israel after that date are justified, but any reprisal against Israel is evil. By that logic the abuses of Britain in 1917 should be relevant. Or should we go back to Genesis Chapter 25? Hogwash! Gibberish!! Two wrongs do NOT make a right! Did you not learn this in 2nd grade??

I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm saying any claim that events after 1948 are the cause of the conflict is inherently wrong. But it's always actions after 1948 that are the supposed cause.

I know you're a smart guy, Mr. Pechtel. Calm down and think about what you're claiming. Off the top of my head, here are a few of the most blatant flaws in your attitude.

• Adults in 1948 are almost all dead by now. Do you honestly think that Palestinians seeking shelter and food for their children are focused on events from 77 years ago? Are Netanyahu's war crimes focused on taking 77-year old revenge? Surely you are well aware there have been wars and atrocities on BOTH sides since 1948.
• As I asked already, if you "need" to go back to ancient history to justify your obstinance, when not go back to 1917 when the Brits were persecuting Palestinians? Or why not claim that "any claim that events after Esau was swindled out of his birthright by his younger brother Jacob are the cause of the conflict are inherently wrong"?
• Oleg the Seer, Great Prince of Novgorod, moved the Rurikid capital to Kiev about 910 AD. Can we agree that events after that are irrelevant to the causes of the present-day Russia-Ukraine War?
• You write "THE cause." I am not a lawyer, and maybe you can find a legal opinion that conflicts are not allowed to have two or more causes. But even then, what gives you the authority to decide what that one and only one cause is?
• Somebody did something bad in 1948. So, if we take your strange opinion at face value, that gives the IDF the right, in 2025, to kill Palestinian children, and inflict other deprivations. I'm sure you don't think that is what you are claiming, but that is what your viewpoint seems like to neutral observers.

 

[Arctish]

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?

Calling it stupid does not refute it.

What is there to refute?

No one is saying women deserve to be raped. In fact, you are the only one I can recall who ever said that rape is sometimes justified.

And no one is saying people attending a music festival, working on farms, or just going about their daily lives deserve to be murdered or kidnapped, except for a few who think it's okay as long as the victims aren't Jewish.

When you keep pointing to Israeli actions to explain Hamas you are saying that 10/7 was justified and thus that all the horrors of it were justified.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest.

I have presented no argument that makes the case that the 10/7 terror attack was justified. I have said it was predictable that Hamas would use terrorism in an attempt to force Israel to make changes in policy. I said it was predictable that when Israel supported Hamas in order to weaken the PLO, that decision would eventually bite Israel in the ass. I have said it was predictable that Gazans would resent the State that built and maintains the walls surrounding them, the naval blockade that prevents aid from reaching them, and kills people on the street and children sleeping in their beds with impunity, and that the resentment makes it easier for Hamas to gather recruits.

I have repeatedly said that terrorism is never justified. I have said that peace comes from justice and fairness, and advocated for respecting the human rights of all persons.

Stop telling lies about me, Loren. I don't share your racist mentality, that criticism of specific Israelis means prejudice against Jews, or that criticizing a policy of Netanyahu and his political allies means supporting terrorism against the State of Israel. That utter stupidity is all yours. Own it, and stop projecting.

And you're the one that said "violent terrorist apologist". I simply pointed out an example of apologist behavior without naming anyone, you decided the shoe fit.

The shoe doesn't fit _anyone_ participating in this discussion.

That's the point, Loren.

It's just slander being used to deflect criticism.

You can't slander a nobody. I put no identification on it.

You weren't the one my comment had been in response to, but I guess you thought the shoe fit so you jumped in.

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.

Very few would dispute that Hamas will kill you for being Jewish. I see no examples of Israel killing someone for being Muslim.

And "bombing" is completely irrelevant, that's a means, not a result. Look at the results. 10/7--atrocities that Hamas crows about. The Gaza war--Israel bending over backwards to evacuate targets when they were aiming at things rather than people. The crowing about part is extremely damning.

I will repeat this with added emphasis:

If you think someone here is a violent terrorist apologist, provide quotes with links to their post that supports 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 affiliation, ethnicity, etc.

Support the allegation or stop making it.

Nobody here intends to be a terrorist apologist. But saying Israel caused 10/7 is being a terrorist apologist.

II'll say it again:

If you think someone here is a terrorist apologist provide quotes with links to their post that supports the allegation.

Don't be a passive-aggressive little shitposter, making allegations without support. Back up your claims.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pretty simple really. You and your ilk keep complaining Hamas et al use Gazans as human shields. What do you expect to happen when you support them all being locked up together in a tiny area with one of the highest population densities in the world? Let the innocent Gazans go free to Israel proper. Then no more human shields.

And when the war is over what happens? They would be executed if they were to return to Gaza.

Why would they need to be returned to Gaza?

So what becomes of them? Give them citizenship and Hamas gets it's genocide after all?

So you are assuming guilt therefore they belong in Gaza. You must be clairvoyant.