• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
Seeing the Trump Administration appears to be ignoring Israeli security concerns as they relate to the Iranian Agreement, this is off-topic.
No, bringing up Trump concerning a conflict going on since he was born is off topic.
Tom
Why? The Trump Administration (like every other US administration since WWII) has been involved in this conflict as a major ally of Israel. It would be ignorant/moronic/partisan to ignore the policy of the current US administration.
 
I'd say that's hairsplitting. If the Gazans won't be able to vote for their most popular policy, murdering all Jews, do they really have autonomy?

Then take it up with the Israeli government. I'm not sure why you're directing your frustration at me when I'm simply describing their stated policy.

You're the one claiming they've never said anything about Palestinians governing Gaza, even though Netanyahu, Gallant, and the Prime Minister's Office have all publicly discussed replacing Hamas with Palestinian civilian administration by local Palestinians not affiliated with Hamas, while Israel retains security control. That's been part of Israel's stated post-Hamas plan since after October 7.

They've also proposed maintaining security buffer zones, similar in concept to what Colonel Sanders brought up earlier. Yet somehow (VIA Loren) that was also shot down as if that was my proposal.

The two of you seem to derive an unhealthy amount of enjoyment from disagreeing with me. At this point I'm starting to wonder if I'm your kink. :rolleyes:

None of this is my idea. These are positions that have been publicly articulated by the Israeli government. If you disagree with them, your argument is with Israel's policy, not with me for accurately describing it.

Now, if this is just a difference of opinion about whether those policies would actually work, then we can have that conversation. And by "work," I don't mean some fucking kumbaya fantasy that you two keep pretending I'm advocating. I mean whether the end result leaves Israel a in a better position than it was before the invasion, with a lower likelihood of another October 7.
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.
 
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.
Israel is attempting to make their people safe by destroying the Gaza military apparatus. The fact that the Gaza leadership uses the Gazans as human shields is entirely a Muslim tactic.
Tom
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.
So long as they are not in schools, hospitals, press areas, markets ........
 
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.
Israel is attempting to make their people safe by destroying the Gaza military apparatus.
Does this look like Israel is destroying military apparatus?
1782436936199.png

The fact that the Gaza leadership uses the Gazans as human shields is entirely a Muslim tactic.
Tom
Blah blah blah. The same rhetoric that always comes out. Not even trying to address what was said.
 
Does this look like Israel is destroying military apparatus?
Yes.
When Israel's enemies are using their own people as human shields. Like Gazans are doing.
Tom
You do realize you are painting a big fat target on every building in Israel, right? Because in Israel the chances of IDF soldiers and Active Reservists being in apartment buildings, grocery stores, coffee shops, offices, restaurants, etc., and intermingling with civilians out in public are pretty high.

You might want to set the bar a little higher than "there might have been a combatant inside" when deciding how much destruction of an entire neighborhood or a city is reasonable.
 

And as I pointed out in multiple posts over the years, there was no problem with migration during the First and Second Aliyah when the Jewish immigrants were applying to become citizens and their applications were granted.
No pogroms on the front page, that is.
The problems arose later when some of the recently arrived immigrants came bearing arms and declaring their intentions to create an ethno-state in which 70-90% of the resident population would be excluded and/or forcibly removed.
Except there was no intent to exclude or remove them. Israel invited them to stay, the Arab neighbors told them to get out so they weren't caught in the fighting.
The change in government would not have hurt anyone other than in their feelings.

Pure bullshit. Also a flat out lie.

You know better. Even your best efforts at remaining ignorant of history have failed to keep you from learning about the reason the Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine was created and what it accomplished.
The Palestinians that are there now have full citizenship.
2) 1948 was about the Arab armies committing genocide against the Jews.
Bullshit squared.

The Arab armies did not engage in genocide against Jews. Not in their own countries, and not in other countries, either.
The whole intent of the war was genocide! The genocide of driving them out rather than the genocide of death, but it's still considered genocide.
Anyone who has participated in these discussions for at least a year has come across information on Plan Dalet and the deliberate, premeditated ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist forces when Israel was founded. If you want people to believe the Arab armies had a similar plan or carried out a campaign like that one, post a link that supports your assertions.
A few strategic areas people were driven out of. Not out of the whole territory.
 
It didn't actually start in the mid 20th century, that's just when it became obvious. But even if you grant that it did, what is the solution? Allow the "refugees" to "return"? They win the next election, genocide. Jews go home? Genocide.
You are the most staunch racist I have ever met, and I lived in Texas for a few years so that's saying something.

Refugees returning does not equal genocide. Non-Jews winning elections in Israel doesn't, either. Your fears of Jews in Israel being annihilated practically overnight if they lose the majority in the Knesset are not reasonable, they're ridiculous.
The Palestinians would vote for their current leaders. Their current leaders have made it clear they want to kill all the Jews. Why in the world would you expect anything but genocide to result??
 
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
No, because Hamas is not limited by willing recruits. They are limited by money.

Large resistance operations, whether terrorist or insurgent, have an outside source of support. The size of the organization is limited by this support.
 

And as I pointed out in multiple posts over the years, there was no problem with migration during the First and Second Aliyah when the Jewish immigrants were applying to become citizens and their applications were granted.
No pogroms on the front page, that is.

Stop bullshitting.

If you have information about a pogrom in Palestine then post it.

The problems arose later when some of the recently arrived immigrants came bearing arms and declaring their intentions to create an ethno-state in which 70-90% of the resident population would be excluded and/or forcibly removed.
Except there was no intent to exclude or remove them.

The Zionists who created, funded, and manned The Jewish Agency for Palestine had that intention. They followed through with it, too.

Stop feigning ignorance. You know about the fundraising, the arms shipments, Ben Gurion deciding ethnic cleansing was the only way to achieve a Jewish majority in the State he and his comrades wanted to create in Palestine, and all the planning and coordination between terrorist groups that made Plan Dalet a success.

Israel invited them to stay, the Arab neighbors told them to get out so they weren't caught in the fighting.

Support this claim.

What were the specifics of this alleged invitation? Who wrote it? To whom was it delivered, how was it delivered, and when was it delivered? How did Ben Gurion, Begin, Shamir, Weitz, and the other Zionist leaders who crafted Plan Dalet react to this invitation to Palestinians to stay?

Lehi used to kidnap Jews who weren't on-board with the ethnic cleansing. Did Shamir order his thugs to go after those Jews who made that offer? Was it linked to the assassination of Bernadotte?

Tell us more, Loren. Link to the facts.
The change in government would not have hurt anyone other than in their feelings.

Pure bullshit. Also a flat out lie.

You know better. Even your best efforts at remaining ignorant of history have failed to keep you from learning about the reason the Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine was created and what it accomplished.
The Palestinians that are there now have full citizenship.

What a piss-poor attempt at a dodge.

You know about the work of the Transfer Committee. You know about the carefully planned campaign of ethnic cleansing and seizing of valuable property and infrastructure. You know Ben Gurion was arguing for seizing farmland and orchards in Galilee long before he and his cronies had the manpower and weapons to do it. And you know about the bombings, the murders, the drive-by shootings, the kidnappings, and acts of mayhem that preceded the Founding of Israel.

You're not a dumbass, Loren. Don't expect anyone to believe your dumbassery is genuine.
2) 1948 was about the Arab armies committing genocide against the Jews.
Bullshit squared.

The Arab armies did not engage in genocide against Jews. Not in their own countries, and not in other countries, either.
The whole intent of the war was genocide! The genocide of driving them out rather than the genocide of death, but it's still considered genocide.

Back up this claim, too.

You _might_ be able to string together enough factual information regarding the intentions of the governments of Egypt, Transjordan, and Lebanon to make some kind of plausible argument but you're going to have to make an effort. And don't bother with that quote from that one Egyptian guy about driving European Zionists back into the sea from which they came. He wasn't a government official and had absolutely no say in government policy, much less setting goals for military campaigns.

Anyone who has participated in these discussions for at least a year has come across information on Plan Dalet and the deliberate, premeditated ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist forces when Israel was founded. If you want people to believe the Arab armies had a similar plan or carried out a campaign like that one, post a link that supports your assertions.
A few strategic areas people were driven out of. Not out of the whole territory.
The strategic areas were those identified in Plan Dalet. You can call them "a few" if you'd like. The area the Zionists wanted was contiguous, so you could even say it was "one" area. The take-away here is that you are aware of Plan Dalet, you have seen the link to information about it (even if you haven't read it), and we can now move on from that stupid stance you sometimes take where you pretend to not know the Zionists leaders who created Israel absolutely did plan to harm the Palestinians, and the Palestinians knew it.
 
Last edited:
It didn't actually start in the mid 20th century, that's just when it became obvious. But even if you grant that it did, what is the solution? Allow the "refugees" to "return"? They win the next election, genocide. Jews go home? Genocide.
You are the most staunch racist I have ever met, and I lived in Texas for a few years so that's saying something.

Refugees returning does not equal genocide. Non-Jews winning elections in Israel doesn't, either. Your fears of Jews in Israel being annihilated practically overnight if they lose the majority in the Knesset are not reasonable, they're ridiculous.
The Palestinians would vote for their current leaders. Their current leaders have made it clear they want to kill all the Jews. Why in the world would you expect anything but genocide to result??
The current leaders of the PA, aka the governing authority over most of the Palestinian people, have renounced terrorism and are pursuing a just and fair diplomatic solution at the UN.

Stop trying to justify your racism by feigning ignorance. You're not a dumbass, you're just intransigent.
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

So how would you have done it?

Here's the scenario:

1) Hamas had designed Gaza to be a death trap for IDF ground troops, for 20 years.
2) Hamas had proven to be an existential threat to Israel and had to be neutralised.
3) Modern warfare is shooting artillery until there's no detected resistance and then go in with ground troops. That's why European cities looked the way they did after WW2. They didn't demolish all those houses just to be mean.

Given these three factors, how would you have conducted the war?

You are aware that even after being absolutely obliterated Hamas is still fighting. They're not a rational oponents. They're clearly willing to sacrifice every Palestinian life before they give up.
 
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.
A reasonable approximation, but how do you repair the ecosystem in this case?

It didn't actually start in the mid 20th century, that's just when it became obvious. But even if you grant that it did, what is the solution? Allow the "refugees" to "return"? They win the next election, genocide. Jews go home? Genocide.
You are the most staunch racist I have ever met, and I lived in Texas for a few years so that's saying something.

Refugees returning does not equal genocide. Non-Jews winning elections in Israel doesn't, either. Your fears of Jews in Israel being annihilated practically overnight if they lose the majority in the Knesset are not reasonable, they're ridiculous.

Like I've said before, you have a talent for concocting lurid pulp fiction stories about Palestinians and the existential threat they pose. I still think Grannies from Shatila and Return of the Saf Saf Villagers would be kick-ass dystopian fantasy novellas. You really should consider publishing them. And include that one about the eldritch hand of Yassir Arafat forcing the returning refugees to be carriers of a deadly disease that only affects Jews. I don't think we ever came up with a name for that one. The Curse of Jabalia, maybe?

The sad thing is that right of return is just dead. It's been dead since WW2. And it's the primary reason that killed the two-state solution in 2000. Throughout history, whenever Jews have been in the minority, they suffer. The entire world hates Israel. Even in the US, support for Israel is less than 50%. Antisemitism is up. And they just suffered an equivalent of a 9-11 attack on their country from their closest neighbor. Even the most liberal peace-loving Israeli would laugh at the topic that they bring in refugees from the group that attacked them and give up political power.
 
The sad thing is that right of return is just dead. It's been dead since WW2. And it's the primary reason that killed the two-state solution in 2000. Throughout history, whenever Jews have been in the minority, they suffer. The entire world hates Israel. Even in the US, support for Israel is less than 50%. Antisemitism is up.
Support for Israel could be under 50%, but that would likely be influenced by just how bad things look in Israel/Palestine. It isn't necessarily anti-Semitism. These two concepts need to be segregated appropriately.

Israeli's handling of Palestinians has been harsh. There is a context behind it, but that context is growing on two decades old, which was built on even older context. The younger someone is, the further away from those events they are. They see Israel as the bad guy, because all they have generally seen is that Israel's policies have been bad for Gaza.

And making portions of Gaza uninhabitable, Netanyahu trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza by sweeping them into Egypt, are these things to be ignored because Hamas enacted a brutal massacre on October 7th? Are these things not going to influence those who've experienced a different Israel/Palestine conflict that older people have?

If Israel has polling issues in the US, it is Netanyahu who is dragging it down. The radical that fanned flames that helped lead to the assassination of Israel's own leader who was trying to see to a peace. Netanyahu doesn't want a peace deal. He wants all of Israel or what he views as belonging to Israel. Maybe that is the reason he isn't speaking publicly on how Trump's memo of understanding is not remotely taking Israel's security into account.
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

So how would you have done it?

Here's the scenario:

1) Hamas had designed Gaza to be a death trap for IDF ground troops, for 20 years.
2) Hamas had proven to be an existential threat to Israel and had to be neutralised.
3) Modern warfare is shooting artillery until there's no detected resistance and then go in with ground troops. That's why European cities looked the way they did after WW2. They didn't demolish all those houses just to be mean.

Given these three factors, how would you have conducted the war?
Wars are fought with the goal of winning the war. Doing it Netanyahu's way didn't do it. Asking someone how to do something better, when the actual plan failed utterly, seems tone deaf.
 

You are aware that even after being absolutely obliterated Hamas is still fighting. They're not a rational oponents. They're clearly willing to sacrifice every Palestinian life before they give up.
That is not a valid rational for Israel to help them achieve that goal.
 
The problem is you are proposing a fantasy solution.

The problem here is that this isn't my proposal, it's Israel's. I've explained that repeatedly, yet you keep arguing with me as though I personally drafted the policy. At some point, you're going to have to force that through your remarkably thick skull: I'm describing Israel's stated position, not presenting my own peace plan for your approval. Not a single living creature on earth is seeking your approval on anything.

I don't think Israel at any point since the 7/10 attacks have entertained the idea of Gazan self rule. I think that attack permanently removed that option from the table. So in Israeli parlance, removing Hamas, means Israel taking over.

Israel have tried their damndest to find a Muslim country they can give Gaza to. But they all keep saying no. Muslims are often also sick and tired of Muslim extremism. Which is a thing.
The Israeli overkill response tp 10/7 surely made a helluva a lot more potential Palestinian terrorists.
What could Israel have done that you would not consider to be overkill?
How about not dropping bombs that destroy entire neighborhoods. If you know where Hamas is, fire a missile right up their asses.

So how would you have done it?

Here's the scenario:

1) Hamas had designed Gaza to be a death trap for IDF ground troops, for 20 years.
2) Hamas had proven to be an existential threat to Israel and had to be neutralised.
3) Modern warfare is shooting artillery until there's no detected resistance and then go in with ground troops. That's why European cities looked the way they did after WW2. They didn't demolish all those houses just to be mean.

Given these three factors, how would you have conducted the war?
Wars are fought with the goal of winning the war.

Are they? I thought wars was "politics through other means" Wars are rarely won outright. Wars usually just lead to various political objectives being reached. And that's it. Very little changes. Typically everyone is a loser in war. They tend to be high cost, no reward.

Doing it Netanyahu's way didn't do it. Asking someone how to do something better, when the actual plan failed utterly, seems tone deaf.

The Israelis I know (including my Israeli ex wife) told me that Israeli jews typically see Palestinians as perpetually angry and aggressive and talk about wars with the Arabs along the lines of regularly needing to cut the lawn. As if, as soon as the Palestinians get strong enough to attack, they will, so just need to be hit hard now and again, to keep them from doing serious damage. Israeli Jews, in general, have given up on being able to reason with the Palestinians. That's the voter base who voted for Netanyahu.

When I asked my ex wife about what she thought about the Israeli/Palestine conflict she quipped, "I think they deserve eachother"
 
Back
Top Bottom