Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously?

Tigers!, is that true? That Instagram post is what you were calling the equivalent of telling Israel to "lie back and think of England"?

Look at the time.

It is in effect telling Israel to abandon it's hostages. Don't defend yourself when attacked. Sounds an awful lot like lie back and think of England--when you're being raped.

I didn’t get that sense at all. One what textual basis do you base your interpretation?

Yeah, you're not supposed to see the antisemitism. The thing is it's not in the letter. It's in the letter compared to the situation on the ground. It's all about Israeli restraint, while not a peep about why they are at war.

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously?

Tigers!, is that true? That Instagram post is what you were calling the equivalent of telling Israel to "lie back and think of England"?

Look at the time.

It is in effect telling Israel to abandon it's hostages. Don't defend yourself when attacked. Sounds an awful lot like lie back and think of England--when you're being raped.

I didn’t get that sense at all. One what textual basis do you base your interpretation?

Yeah, you're not supposed to see the antisemitism. The thing is it's not in the letter. It's in the letter compared to the situation on the ground. It's all about Israeli restraint, while not a peep about why they are at war.

If it is not in the letter, then it is insane to impute it.

 

[Arctish]

Seriously?

Tigers!, is that true? That Instagram post is what you were calling the equivalent of telling Israel to "lie back and think of England"?

Look at the time.

It is in effect telling Israel to abandon it's hostages. Don't defend yourself when attacked. Sounds an awful lot like lie back and think of England--when you're being raped.

I didn’t get that sense at all. One what textual basis do you base your interpretation?

Yeah, you're not supposed to see the antisemitism. The thing is it's not in the letter. It's in the letter compared to the situation on the ground. It's all about Israeli restraint, while not a peep about why they are at war.

If it is not in the letter, then it is insane dishonest to impute it.

Without a letter that contains the alleged antisemitism, the allegation is a baseless claim at best. More likely, it's a deliberate exaggeration being used as a smear.

 

[Arctish]

I feel like you're looking at this through a pretty extreme lens. A lot of people fiercely oppose Hamas, felt sickened by October 7, and stand with Iranian protestors, yet they still believe Palestinians have a right to their own future and that Israel's government isn't above criticism. You seem to be reducing this to a binary choice between supporting human rights and condemning terrorism, when it's entirely possible to do both.

No. You are looking at a fantasy of peaceful coexistence, but the Palestinian Hamas cause is and always has been one of genocide.

FTFY

1948 was about genocide.

1948 was about the genocide in Europe. It was about hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing oppression and murder in Europe and hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing murder and terrorism in Palestine. It was about European immigrants taking a huge bite out of the homeland of the Palestinian people and claiming it for a Jewish ethno-state. It was about who was going to be in charge of what now that the British Mandate was ending, the French had been rendered toothless, and the US and Soviet Union were squaring off over the region.

Trying to recast the origins of the conflict into a childish "Arabs hate Jews" just-so story is ridiculous. Who do you think you're fooling? Not anyone who knows even a little bit of the history, that's for sure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On the other hand, ignoring collateral consequences of the attacks on Hamas... Israel bombed and targeted Hamas for how long... and Hamas still exists. You keep supporting actions that you have admitted won't work. The only action that will is the defanging of Hamas via Iran.

You continue to ignore the hostages.

 

[Gospel]

With respect to future deterrence, It's impossible to say what will prevent future violence. Hamas, unlike Egypt and Jordan cannot and should not be counted on to act in good faith.

I think one solution would be to create DMZ several kilometers wide. It's worked in Korea for 70 years.

At some point it needs to be accepted that radical Islamists will never be willing to make peace with Israel.

This is exactly the kind of conversation I'd rather see more of. These are the discussions people who genuinely care about the safety, security, and long-term future of Israelis and Palestinians should be having.

Frankly, people who spend more time hurling accusations than discussing actual solutions don't strike me as particularly concerned with Israel at all. Israel is a nation of real people facing real security issues being used as a rhetorical shield to attack anyone who doesn't fall in line with a particular viewpoint.

The problem is that discussing "solutions" while ignoring the Islamists doesn't produce useful answers. You're after an end point that won't exist.

For my part, I largely agree with Israel's stated position on what Gaza should look like after Hamas is removed from power. Given the events of October 7th and the decades of rocket attacks, terrorism, and failed peace efforts that preceded it, I think it is entirely reasonable for Israelis to prioritize security above all else.

This makes sense to me:

• Hamas should be dismantled and disarmed.
• Hamas should not be permitted to govern Gaza in any form.
• Israel should maintain security responsibility for the foreseeable future to prevent another October 7th-style attack.
• Gaza should eventually be administered by Palestinian actors who are not affiliated with Hamas or other terrorist organizations.
• Any future governing structure should demonstrate both the ability and willingness to coexist peacefully before being entrusted with greater autonomy

And you think there's actually a path to accomplishing anything on this list?!

• .

It's worth noting that "coexist peacefully" was apparently meant as an insult when Loren accused me of using the term.

The problem is with the notion that if you remove Israeli provocations you'll have peace.

That said, I would hope the first and last points evolve over time. Ideally, as trust is built, violence decreases, and stable institutions emerge, Israel's direct security involvement could gradually diminish and Palestinians could move toward greater self-governance and, under the right conditions, eventual independence. But expecting Israel to simply hand over control immediately after the deadliest attack in its history seems detached from political and security realities.

And what do you propose to do to stop the rise of a new Hamas? The money Iran pours into terror will simply overwhelm them.

These are the conversations worth having. Could a DMZ work? What security guarantees would be required? How should reconstruction be handled? What incentives would encourage peace? What would a realistic pathway toward Palestinian self-government look like? How do you prevent Hamas 2.0 from emerging a decade from now?

DMZ? Israel tried that last time. Defined a zone on the border that nobody would enter. Hamas forced families into it until Israel stopped shooting them, effectively removing the DMZ.

And there's no way Israel is going to accept anyone's security guarantees. Once again, tried and failed--UNIFIL. They do absolutely nothing about Hezbollah, in times of conflict their cameras are used by Hezbollah and they've kept their people out there as human shields.

Those questions are infinitely more productive than the endless purity tests and ideological witch hunts that dominate these threads from just two members.

I have no interest in supporting Hamas. I also have no interest in pretending Israel's security concerns are imaginary. What I am interested in is discussing practical ways to reduce future violence, improve security, and create conditions where fewer people die on both sides.

That seems infinitely more worthwhile than watching Loren and DrZoidberg spend another hundred posts arguing over who possesses the correct ideological membership card this week.

And every time you scream about supposed war crimes in Gaza you're aiding Hamas.

Loren, if you have to keep explaining what I "really mean" instead of quoting what I actually wrote, you've abandoned the argument. All I'm seeing is "you," "you," "you," and more "you." You've spent more time inventing motives than the argument. As we say in the hood: can you get off my dick and get back on the topic?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary goal was to get the hostages back. The war ended when that was accomplished, but Hamas keeps skirmishing.

The "primary goal" was never the only goal. From the outset, Israel's stated objectives included securing the release of the hostages, dismantling Hamas's military and governing capabilities, demilitarizing Gaza, and ultimately enabling an alternative Palestinian leadership to take its place.

What I don't understand is why you keep invoking Israel and the Jewish people to support arguments that neither the Israeli government, nor much of the Israeli public, is actually making. You're arguing here as though Israel's position is simply "get the hostages back and call it a day," when that has not been the stated position throughout this conflict.

Sure, they wanted more. But reality is they got the hostages and quit fighting. But, as always, Hamas didn't actually quit so there's still conflict.

 

[Gospel]

And since Loren seems determined to ignore this point: yes, Israel's stated position is that peaceful coexistence is possible without regimes like Hamas and Hezbollah in power. I happen to agree with that objective. Do I personally think achieving it will be easy, or even likely? No. But I support the effort to try.

And you think there's actually a path to accomplishing anything on this list?!

Does the quote above answer your question?

Because I can do this all day with virtually every claim you've made about me. The difference is that I have a life outside this forum and don't consider your arguments compelling enough to spend hours dismantling them one by one.

 

[scombrid]

The massive floodplain marsh where I do a lot of work has become a monoculture of Salix caroliniana. This is largely due to hydrological changes stemming from flood control water management in the headwaters. Ecologists don’t like this invasive shrub swamp monoculture because it has displaced a thriving heterogeneous herbaceous marsh. Water managers are mad the the willow use too much water.

The water managers think the solution is to just bring in the crop dusters and kill all the willow. Guess what happens if don’t fix the degraded hydrologic condition that made the willow a problem in the first place? You have to keep killing the willow in perpetuity.

Unless the bullshit going back to the mid 20th century is fixed the whackamole will continue. And right now Israel is doing the human equivalent of using a non selective herbicide that kills the willow and everything else trying to hang on and survive around it.

 

[Gospel]

That's actually a pretty good analogy. I think it does a good job of illustrating the argument that eliminating a problem without addressing the conditions that created it can lead to the problem reappearing later.

If I'm being pedantic, though, the analogy starts to break down because willow shrubs don't make conscious decisions like members of Hamas and the Iranian leadership does..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary goal was to get the hostages back. The war ended when that was accomplished, but Hamas keeps skirmishing.

Do you actually believe the "primary goal" of the bombings was to get the hostages back?

The primary goal was retribution. I get it. Nothing particularly wrong there. All the western world got it too. And looked the other way as Israel did what they felt was necessary. Mossad enacted the Hezbollah communication plot as well. But none of that was going to get hostages returned. And the bombings went on longer than needed to effect the return of the remaining hostages. The attacks could have ended at 12 months with the same result.

Ended at 12 months with the same result? And you have a magic wand that would make Hamas agree??

How about a few hundred words saying this is what needs to be done to stop Hamas doing another Oct 7th? Or what needs to be done to stop Hezbollah shelling northern Israel?

Getting Iran to stop funding it. And oddly enough, there is an agreement that could have involved that. Of which the GOP and Trump have not put a dyne of pressure on Iran to do that! laughing dog is a red herring. What laughing dog says here is irrelevant. The GOP and Trump have a moment in which they could press for this, and they aren't touching it with a 1000 meter long pole. All this bullshit about how the liberals are anti-Semites, and we see where the GOP actually stands on Israel!

There has never been an agreement that would have involved not funding Hamas. Nothing even close.

Sure and Jordan and Egypt would always be at war with Israel too.

The Islamists do not need everyone at war with Israel. They need someone at war with Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a few hundred words saying this is what needs to be done to stop Hamas doing another Oct 7th?

Do you really think you could stop another October 7th? It was done with small arms and motorcycles. It could easily be repeated.

The problem is that Israel is held to a standard that Hamas/Hezbollah et. al are not.
When Hamas/Hezbollah do what they do there is sighing, clutching of pearls, attack of vapours etc. but nothing is done.
When Israel responds we get calls of possible war crimes, disproportionate response, 'haul them to the Hague', sanctions etc. Why the difference?

Hamas is dog bites man. Israel is man bites dog.

So? The fact that evil is normal doesn't make it not evil.

Never said it wasn't.

The problem is you are basically saying that Israel must not defend itself from evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a few hundred words saying this is what needs to be done to stop Hamas doing another Oct 7th? Or what needs to be done to stop Hezbollah shelling northern Israel?

Getting Iran to stop funding it.

That is the 1st step.

It would probably be sufficient by itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about a few hundred words saying this is what needs to be done to stop Hamas doing another Oct 7th?

Do you really think you could stop another October 7th? It was done with small arms and motorcycles. It could easily be repeated.

So Israel just has to put up with the possibility of such attacks forever?

What's your alternative?

Act so as to minimize such attacks.

It's that Hamas ensures any such actions will kill civilians, so you oppose them. Which has the end result of you doing what Hamas wants you to despite objecting to Hamas.

 

[ZiprHead]

How about a few hundred words saying this is what needs to be done to stop Hamas doing another Oct 7th?

Do you really think you could stop another October 7th? It was done with small arms and motorcycles. It could easily be repeated.

The problem is that Israel is held to a standard that Hamas/Hezbollah et. al are not.
When Hamas/Hezbollah do what they do there is sighing, clutching of pearls, attack of vapours etc. but nothing is done.
When Israel responds we get calls of possible war crimes, disproportionate response, 'haul them to the Hague', sanctions etc. Why the difference?

Hamas is dog bites man. Israel is man bites dog.

So? The fact that evil is normal doesn't make it not evil.

Never said it wasn't.

The problem is you are basically saying that Israel must not defend itself from evil.

How in the world am I saying that??? Plot that out for me.

Tigers asked why Hamas doesn't get the attention that Israel gets. I answered him as to why. Everyone knows Hamas is evil. Evil organizations do evil shit. It's a tautology.

When Israel does evil shit, like leveling entire cities to get a few terrorists, that's unusual so it makes news.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is indeed reasonable to hold governments responsible, so why is Hamas held to no standard while Israel is held to impossible standards? I cannot help but see hypocrisy and antisemitism as core elements of this support.

I keep seeing the meme of “Hamas is not held accountable” but it is a fiction. It is designated as a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, Canada, and many other nations. There are sanctions, and continual assassinations. The US subsidizes Israel’s military.

What more is the world supposed to do? Stay mute regardless whatever the gov’t of Israel chooses to do?

But none of that meaningfully curtails Hamas. The only meaningful pressure is applied to Israel.

How would the world meaningfully pressure a terrorist group? Please reveal the secret so that the world can immediately and effectively deal with every terrorist group.

IIRC once the USA became serious about stopping funding to the IRA they began to discuss peace.
Stop Iran's funding of Hezbollah and Hams and let's see what happens.
Continued Military pressure on them is the other side of the vice.
But only Israel will do that. No one else will.

And how does the world stop Iran's funding of terrorists?

At present, it doesn't.

That's why we accept that Israel will periodically stomp on the terrorists around it.

BTW, how has world pressure meaningfully curtailed Israel in Gaza?

You think that the hardliners in the Israeli govt were not prepared to fling all the Gazans out? It did not happen due to world pressure.

Interesting, you are effectively saying that world pressure kept Israel from the complete ethnic cleansing of Gazans.

It's not ethnic cleansing to remove an attacker. Relative force doesn't matter, you can respond with lethal force to a deadly attack no matter how many opponents you must kill to end the threat.

 

[laughing dog]

And how does the world stop Iran's funding of terrorists?

At present, it doesn't.

That is non-responsive to the question of how to stop Iran’s funding of terrorists.

BTW, how has world pressure meaningfully curtailed Israel in Gaza?

You think that the hardliners in the Israeli govt were not prepared to fling all the Gazans out? It did not happen due to world pressure.

Interesting, you are effectively saying that world pressure kept Israel from the complete ethnic cleansing of Gazans.

It's not ethnic cleansing to remove an attacker. Relative force doesn't matter, you can respond with lethal force to a deadly attack no matter how many opponents you must kill to end the threat.

Also non-responsive to the context of that topic] (the bold-faced remarks) Please try reading the entire post before joining the conversation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you want genocide? Because that's what you get if you support the Palestinian cause but aren't after peaceful coexistence.

We didn't have peaceful coexistence with the USSR, but neither side was a victim of genocide. So, your conclusion seems a bit farfetched, unless you are fearful that Israel who clearly have the means to engage in genocide will be the one to be successful.

Russia had no interest in genocide, and also they knew they would also be destroyed in war.

But Iran is acting through Hamas and Hezbollah. That provides a firebreak, things will not spiral out of control. Thus there's no danger to Iran in supporting genocide.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Unlike most circumstances, I don't see this one as having many shades of grey. To me it's not a matter of Israel's government being above criticism. Rather, it's the right of a nation to exercise its right to defend itself against a relentless enemy that exercises the most hateful and violent policies over its own people and then extends that violence and hate towards a liberal democracy.

October 7 was unprovoked and shocking in its scope and execution. The response of the American left was and still is shocking. Everything that the left and atheists in particular are supposed to stand for has been ground down to hypocritical dust.

While I can appreciate truth in that there were some on the left that support Palestine and feel they have a right to self-defense, that was not the broad conclusion of The Left. My niece made some uncomfortable statements online and I did my best to correct her point of view, which is tainted by the fact that she isn't old enough to remember the Arab Wars, the suicide bombings. All she knows is what has happened recently, and that is a Palestine that has effectively gone feral politically in part due to Israeli and Iranian decisions. So I did my best to provide that broader understanding.

But her position clearly wasn't mine and I am quite to the left as it is.

It is indeed reasonable to hold governments responsible, so why is Hamas held to no standard while Israel is held to impossible standards? I cannot help but see hypocrisy and antisemitism as core elements of this support.

Hamas wasn't allowed to be a government, by anyone. I was suppose the only person that thought the UN, Israel, US, etc... messed up royally with Hamas winning the election. That was an opportunity and forcing Hamas to become inclusive with politics. Instead, everyone said 'feck off' and that was that.

The most important thing would be categorize who supports the rights of the Palestinians "to live" v. who supports the Palestinians right to "defend themselves" v. who support the actions of Hamas. This thing is an onion, and trying to lump this all into one group is ignorant. And then there is the history and understanding the history. The older someone is, the more they understand a broader story arc here. People who are 20... weren't even alive when the suicide bombings were happening in Israel. For the life of me, I don't know why you jump to anti-Semitism when ignorance of history is a more clear thing happening now. You label them all as anti-Semites, instead of trying to help them understand what in the heck has been going on.

So I'm supposed to teach 20th century history to young people online?

Yes. If you think the honest expression of ideas and trying to correct things you think are wrong is outside the scope of being on the Internet... what are you doing here?

Sorry, but it's incumbent on the individual to educate themselves; to ask the basic questions of when, where, who, and why.

Embrace the ignroance!

With respect to anti-semitism, there are hundreds of examples of Jewish students being harassed, threatened, and even assaulted on American college campuses directly due to the conflicts in the ME.

Sure, anti-Semitism is a thing. I didn't say it didn't exist. I said that automatically judging someone questioning Israeli military decisions or supporting a viable standard of living for the Palestinians isn't necessarily mired in anti-Semitism. There were people in America that cheered the attack on Israel, partied even. Those people, likely anti-Semitic.

Professors have conducted themselves similarly. Some students have gone so far as to hide their Jewish identity in order to avoid being singled out.

That sounds historically familiar to me. I don't know how else to see this thing as anything but anti-semitism being endorsed by a significant portion of the left.

That is your problem. I'm sorry you are incapable of understanding perspectives or even what another person thinks.

With respect to the DNC, they deserve credit for speaking out against this, but extremist dissent has unfortunately watered down any unified policy damning what's happening. The DNC needs to exorcise these voices from the party.

They should. Of course, it wouldn't require remotely as much as cleansing it from the GOP and their media empire.

1. This site is a small space and from being here 20+ years I expect better than Reddit-level opinions from those who have been here for such a long time. So when I think of trying to educate young people, I don't think of this place, I think of Reddit, which is the intellectual equivalent of a litter box that hasn't been changed in years.

2. I never said no one should judge Israel for any reason. What I do find absolutely puzzling is the pervasiveness of anti-Israel, pro Hamas on the left*. Couching it in terms of living standards for the Palestinian people is misguided at best. Hamas runs the show there, not Israel nor any other nation. If we agree that a government is responsible for the health and welfare of its people, then that government must be held responsible; and currently, the government governing Palestine is an oppressive and authoritarian theocracy. Most issues have a million shades of grey, but to me, this one doesn't. There are some, but not many.

*I don't bother with either recent and current opinions on the right. What they think at this moment could be different in an hour based on god knows what kind of auditory fecal matter Trump may shit out of his mouth on Truth Social. They're simply not worth spending time on.

 

[laughing dog]

So you want genocide? Because that's what you get if you support the Palestinian cause but aren't after peaceful coexistence.

We didn't have peaceful coexistence with the USSR, but neither side was a victim of genocide. So, your conclusion seems a bit farfetched, unless you are fearful that Israel who clearly have the means to engage in genocide will be the one to be successful.

Russia had no interest in genocide, and also they knew they would also be destroyed in war.

But Iran is acting through Hamas and Hezbollah. That provides a firebreak, things will not spiral out of control. Thus there's no danger to Iran in supporting genocide.

I think recent events rebut your conclusion.