Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hammas is doing their best to put Palestinian civilians in harms way.

Okay, here's where I see a disconnect. TomC wants to view them as one and the same, interchangeable and co-responsible.
I think that accepting that also implies that every Israeli civilian is a combatant complicit in Bibi's genocide and is a valid target for elimination.

The average adult inhabitant of Gaza considers the 10/7 massacre a good thing despite what has happened to them since.

Or possibly because of?

And I see the eternal use of "genocide" in reference to Israeli actions to be wife-beating.

Will you stop using that term and come up with something new? The use of "genocide" regarding IDF actions is hyperbole anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think step one is a ceasefire.

Easy enough--Hamas releases the hostages, they'll get a ceasefire.

Will they? They release the hostages, the upper brass for Hamas could be targeted. I'd support such actions as well, assuming it was surgical.

The hostages were taken to provide cover to the Hamas brass. I'm completely against a ceasefire, but I also think the IDF needs a more surgical approach in their attack against Hamas.

Step two is a negotiated transfer of power, because right now the Gaza authorities are Hamas. It will be difficult but not impossible to get something resembling moderates in charge and the price will probably be amnesty for the surviving Hamas leaders, but at some point even the most ardent zealots are going to have to admit their position is untenable.

Step two shows an utter lack of understanding of the situation.

Iran's position is fine. And they're the ones in control.

This really is the problem. Hamas doesn't exist to create a system of duality and peace among the Israelis and Palestinians. Furthermore, the taking of hostages during the massacre indicated that Hamas needed be eliminated as well as possible. There is no place for Hamas now. But ridding the world of Hamas isn't exactly possible.

Step three is a normalization of Gaza's relationships with other countries, including control of coastal waters and airspace, control of its borders, receiving royalties on resources extracted in Gazan waters, etc. , and a genuine possibility of prosperity. If the Gazans want Jared Kushner to develop their seafront into high end resorts and condominiums, that's fine. But if Kushner tries to screw them over, it could reignite the war, so IMO it's best to keep him out of the real estate business there.

They had that until they threw it away with the Second Intifada. By their measure destroying Israel is more important than their wellbeing.

And lets get to your point. What is the acceptable destination here?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Enough Gazans have supported Hamas for Hamas to be in their 18th year of a 4 year term.

"Have supported", or "supported 18 years ago",
Not "support".
Yet who is enduring the greatest suffering and death?

How could you possibly know what Gazans are thinking?
I don't claim to. I'm just pointing out facts.
Tom

"Enough Gazans have supported Hamas for Hamas to be in their 18th year of a 4 year term." is an opinion, not a fact.

Since the polls consistently show the people support Hamas it's a fact, not an opinion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas' starting the current conflagration by building up a military installation

Wut?
Hamas bought a bunch of rockets, rolling in US/Israeli cash as they were. Sent dozens of thugs - not hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands - into Israel who were able to wreak unforetold carnage that was literally foretold, and THAT is a proof that Israel fucked up.
“They started it!”’is so lame at this point. They’ve killed so many people that they look like bloodthirsty jerks, no better than Hamas. I think most Israelis know it, too.

Yeah, dozens. By Hamas' own claim it's 100 dozen. Of that 1,200, Israel managed to kill about 1,500. (This might actually be possible--there's little doubt there were some opportunists that participated. I have seen but been unable to verify a claim that there were lots of opportunists.)

 

[TomC]

Hammas is doing their best to put Palestinian civilians in harms way.

Okay, here's where I see a disconnect. TomC wants to view them as one and the same, interchangeable and co-responsible.
I think that accepting that also implies that every Israeli civilian is a combatant complicit in Bibi's genocide and is a valid target for elimination.

The average adult inhabitant of Gaza considers the 10/7 massacre a good thing despite what has happened to them since. And I see the eternal use of "genocide" in reference to Israeli actions to be wife-beating.

Honestly, I would not trust such a poll either.
For several reasons, one of which is the phrasing of the question.

"Are you glad about the 10/7 attack?" Is very different from "Was the 10/7 attack a justified response to the West Bank settlers?"
Lots of polls have issues like that.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's another inconvenient truth.

Hamas' leadership and tactics have been well known for years. Nobody, including the UN and ICJ much less Iran, have expressed interest in supporting peace in Gaza.

Bitching at Israel for defending themselves is not a Peace Plan.
Tom

Are you privy to diplomatic communications? If not, your “ truth” is your opinion.

Destroying Gaza is not simply defending Israel.

Why would we need to see diplomatic communications?

The test of a model is how accurately it predicts the future. To those of us who have been paying attention the only surprise about 10/7 was the scale of the success.

And you're engaging in wife-beating here. Israel's goal is destroying Hamas. The fact that this also devastates Gaza is an unpleasant reality, not an objective. If the intent had been to destroy Gaza they could easily have done far worse.

I'm recalling a picture from early in the war where Israel was pointing out where the fuel was. Big tank farm in Gaza. Note that they showed the tank farm, not a smoking hole--they didn't hit it. (And, yes, with IR cameras you can figure out approximately how full a big fuel tank is.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've never seen you acknowledge that point or try to deny it (although I may have missed your mention of it somewhere).

I have pointed out several times that I believe that the Israeli government knew enough about the impending attack to do something about it before hand. Maybe not the exact scope or date, but I am very sure that they did.
I have mentioned that I believe that Zionist hardliners were giving Gazan leadership enough rope to hang the whole people.

Which Hamas has done.
I've said that many times.
Tom

The general approach clearly was known. We've seen them rehearsing various parts of it. That's not the same as knowing the timing, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you actually expecting me to change my mind about the moral acceptability of killing hundreds of thousands of children to achieve vague and insubstantial political goals?

I ignored your 130,000 figure before because I figured it was a simple typo. Apparently you meant it--you have a zero error there.

And what "political" goal are you even talking about? Israel's goal is to dismantle as much of Hamas as possible and to recover their hostages. Military goals, not political goals.

130,000 dead children from atrocities is a threshold only reached by Hitler, Stalin, Sudan, and probably Iran. (I am excluding Mao from this list because I believe most of the deaths he caused were by mismanagement, not by intent.)

So you've retreated from your bizarre claim of 880,000 Hamas terrorists killed?

I can't imagine how I could even have typoed that.

I'm saying the 130,000 number is a zero error--the actual figure was 13,000. Somewhere along the line a zero got added.

 

[ZiprHead]

Btselem is not a credible source--they severely cherry-pick their reporting.

Media Bias fact check rates them as mostly factual. That they cherry pick doesn't change the facts of what they report.

 

[laughing dog]

The Palestinians don’t have to be poor. If they stopped using all their energy on attacking Israel, then perhaps they can make some money. Like they did before Isarel handed over control to the PA

That analysis is a combination of ignorance and wishful thinking. In Gaza, the resources put into missiles, tunnels and weapons were given for missiles, tunnels and weapons. Nor is it clear that even if Gaza had been peaceful, without trust, it is not clear that the gov't of Israel would have allowed the necessary resource flows and opportunity.

Palestinians in the West Bank are poor for a number of reasons, none of which have to do with resources put into missiles, tunnels and weapons.

None are so blind as those who do not want to see.

The situation you say couldn't exist did exist--and was thrown away in the Second Intifada because the terror leaders couldn't accept prosperity. If the people have options other than combat they'll take them.

The irony in the 1st sentence is delightful. I have no idea what the 2nd sentence is about.

 

[laughing dog]

Here's another inconvenient truth.

Hamas' leadership and tactics have been well known for years. Nobody, including the UN and ICJ much less Iran, have expressed interest in supporting peace in Gaza.

Bitching at Israel for defending themselves is not a Peace Plan.
Tom

Are you privy to diplomatic communications? If not, your “ truth” is your opinion.

Destroying Gaza is not simply defending Israel.

Why would we need to see diplomatic communications?

Because the discussion is about the UN and ICJ not expressing interest in peace in Gaza. Are you under the illusion that the only method of expression in diplomatic matters is public prouncement?

 

[laughing dog]

[

Btselem is not a credible source--they severely cherry-pick their reporting.

And you don’t?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rachel "Pancake" Corrie was a far-left activist who was accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer which was creating a buffer zone at the Gaza-Egypt border in 2003, before Israel disengaged from the Strip.

(1) When you write that it happened "accidentally" what you mean is that Israel ruled it an accident when Israel did it. Non-Israel groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say she was wearing a bright vest and this was no accident.
(2) When you write "creating a buffer zone" you mean tearing down Palestinian homes which you seem to have a tendency of not mentioning ever.
(3) When you call the bulldozed young lady "Pancake" it says way more about you than it does her.

Amnesty International and HRW can be counted on to take the underdog's side regardless of reality. And they can be counted on to take the side against Israel.

A bright vest is completely irrelevant--the issue was she fell. The driver did not have a line of sight to her and thought she had moved elsewhere rather than realizing she was on the ground hidden behind his equipment.

As for that buffer zone--Hamas responded by making innocents go into the buffer zone and get killed. This eventually caused Israel to quit enforcing it which was the whole point and a key part of the 10/7 preparations. That's the horror you are supporting.

 

[ZiprHead]

The average adult inhabitant of Gaza considers the 10/7 massacre a good thing despite what has happened to them since. And I see the eternal use of "genocide" in reference to Israeli actions to be wife-beating.

I'm wondering how accurate polls can be conducted under the conditions in Gaza, let alone the fact that anyone disputing Hamas puts their life at risk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...used Gazans as human shields. I call that a war crime.

If Israel has done it would you call it a war crime, too? I'm not saying you wouldn't. I am asking.

Where is there any meaningful example of Israel using human shield tactics?

The closest I'm aware of is using locals to go knock on doors, but they're being used as messengers, not as shields.

There also is the issue of having the homeowner demonstrate the safety of the house but they should know if it's unsafe. If Hamas has booby-trapped it it's going to be gone anyway.

Your post from the get-go contains illogical biased reasoning. So, let's look at this one step at a time.

If a person makes a claim that "us[ing] Gazans as human shields" ==> "a war crime" then naturally, there is no logical attachment to any specific perpetrator.*

It is like if a person makes a claim that "eating another human being" ==> "cannibalism." It does not matter if the context surrounding the universal declaration is about some far-off island culture of the past or Neanderthals further back in time. If another person then asks, "are you okay with it being cannibalism when a British citizen does it?" the correct answer is a simple YES because it is a hypothetical question first and foremost. Instead, we have encountered a logical blindspot that such universal declarations made immediately become non-universal once Israel is mentioned precisely because any criticism of the Israeli government is said to be anti-Semitic by some people. While I am calling it a "blindspot," it goes well beyond that into taking offense, ad hominems, and breaking the TOU. It is like if someone wrote "when Palestinians add 1 and 1, they get 2," and I respond, "How about Israelis, if they add 1 and 1, do they also get 2?" And I get a response of "You fucking NAZI!" That is the worst-case scenario. The best case scenario is that this is some sort of odd pattern matching that people do and so observe "Israel" and negativity and then conclude anti-Semitism, even in the face of the universal declarations they themselves make.

The hypothetical question I asked is extremely politely worded:

If Israel has done it would you call it a war crime, too? I'm not saying you wouldn't. I am asking.

Your response is a failure to engage in the hypothetical:

Where is there any meaningful example of Israel using human shield tactics?

When you can have objective criteria, we can discuss further.

*(Note that I PERSONALLY haven't said whether or not this is a logical proposition I support or not up to this point. I've only provided an analysis of the post's implications).

Rachel "Pancake" Corrie was a far-left activist who was accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer which was creating a buffer zone at the Gaza-Egypt border in 2003, before Israel disengaged from the Strip.

(1) When you write that it happened "accidentally" what you mean is that Israel ruled it an accident when Israel did it. Non-Israel groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say she was wearing a bright vest and this was no accident.
(2) When you write "creating a buffer zone" you mean tearing down Palestinian homes which you seem to have a tendency of not mentioning ever.
(3) When you call the bulldozed young lady "Pancake" it says way more about you than it does her.

Amnesty International and HRW can be counted on to take the underdog's side regardless of reality. And they can be counted on to take the side against Israel.

Except what you write isn't true, these groups say using human shields is a war crime when Hamas does it and also have stated that te 10/7 attacks were war crimes...but in both cases Hamas are underdogs. So your claims are contradicted by reality.

A bright vest is completely irrelevant--the issue was she fell. The driver did not have a line of sight to her and thought she had moved elsewhere rather than realizing she was on the ground hidden behind his equipment.

As for that buffer zone--Hamas responded by making innocents go into the buffer zone and get killed. This eventually caused Israel to quit enforcing it which was the whole point and a key part of the 10/7 preparations. That's the horror you are supporting.

I am not the one supporting horrors, you are. I am against violence against civilians by both sides. You are FOR violence against civilians as a means for one side, even if it results in 100K civilian deaths. You claim the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but then there you are advocating for never-ending bloodshed. As long as you support the most right-wing extremist faction of govt in Israel's history there is nothing but a cycle of occupation, terrorism, 100x the payback by Israel, and then more radicalization. Rinse and repeat. That's what you support and it will only get worse.

 

[Elixir]

Hammas is doing their best to put Palestinian civilians in harms way.

Okay, here's where I see a disconnect. TomC wants to view them as one and the same, interchangeable and co-responsible.
I think that accepting that also implies that every Israeli civilian is a combatant complicit in Bibi's genocide and is a valid target for elimination.

The average adult inhabitant of Gaza considers the 10/7 massacre a good thing despite what has happened to them since. And I see the eternal use of "genocide" in reference to Israeli actions to be wife-beating.

Honestly, I would not trust such a poll either.
For several reasons, one of which is the phrasing of the question.

"Are you glad about the 10/7 attack?" Is very different from "Was the 10/7 attack a justified response to the West Bank settlers?"
Lots of polls have issues like that.
Tom

Plus, there’s like 35,000+ of them who no longer get to vote and would likely all oppose the murderous terror attack that evoked a response that ended up costing them their lives. And likely half of those who say they favor it are lying, fearful of repercussions for speaking out against Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think antisemitism is necessary to see Hammas as the victims here. Hammas needs to be destroyed. And if the Palestinians aren't willing to help doing that.. well... that's unfortunate. then this conflict will drag on and more Palestinian civlians will die

People are seeing Gazans as victims, victims in fact of Israeli genocide, and not Hamas as victims. I don’t think anyone here has any brief for Hamas. Accusations of antisemitism against those who oppose Netanyahu’s genocide ini Gaza are odious and contemptible.

Palestinians aren’t willing to help doing that, yeah, right, blah blah blah. Almost my entire life the U.S. government has been doing things that I abhor and there isn’t a goddamned thing I can do about it.

Gazans certainly are victims--the problem is who is the perpetrator.

However, a lot of people here somewhat support Hamas. When you blame 10/7 on Israel's actions it's the same as blaming the woman for being raped because she had on a short dress. And the claims of genocide don't make it so.

 

[Elixir]

Israel pulled completely out of Gaza and built a barrier….

Bibi gave Hamas tons of money to do things to make him look good (stop with the suicide bombs etc), ignored general AND specific warnings, then acted surprised to be bitten by the very dog whose neck he’s had his foot on for decades.
Sheesh. If Israelis insist on being ruled by an indicted criminal whose very life depends on staying in office, they’re ultimately fucked anyhow.
I hope Murkinz aren’t going to make the same mistake.

 

[laughing dog]

However, a lot of people here somewhat support Hamas.

It is a sign a poster knows they have relevant thought to add to a discussion when they blurt out such ridiculously blatant falsehoods.

 

[Elixir]

And once again the world falls for Hamas PR.

That's not "Hamas PR".
On 21 November 2019, Netanyahu was officially indicted for breach of trust, accepting bribes, and fraud.
Hamas did not do that. But if Bibi leaves office he will have to answer for it.
HE DOES NOT WANT TO ANSWER FOR IT.
According to that famous Hamas publication FORBES MAGAZINE:

"Netanyahu's essential problem is that when he leaves office, he is likely going to jail."

We sure are awash in "Hamas PR", right Loren?

I understand that.
What I do not know is how that actually impacts the situation. I think Trump should have been taken directly from the White House to the DC holding cells while the Justice Department sorted out the details. We both know how that worked out.

It also implies that Netanyahu's successor would be notably different. I don't know that either. They might be more hardcore than he is.
Tom

Unless his successor was similarly under indictment and on their way to jail when elected, I would expect far more rational behavior from them - whoever they might be.