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

[Cognoscenti324]

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 add

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.

I was responding to the claim that Israel was killing terrorists over civilians at a rate of 40 to 1.

 

[Elixir]

I was responding to the claim that Israel was killing terrorists over civilians at a rate of 40 to 1.

As I understand (or misunderstand) it, Loren’s stance is
“so what, they started it, they all like Hamas and Hamas has to be wiped out so if they die, tough shit”
… no matter what the ratio of civilians to combatants, men to women, or adults to children killed.
I vehemently disagree with that and anything like that.

 

[TomC]

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.

Why?
What if his successor is someone who's family was blown up by a Gazan suicide bomber during the 2nd Intifada, leaving him an orphan?

It's often mentioned that the current assault will result in generations more hate amongst Palestinians. That's also true of the Zionists. Netanyahu was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, during the tag end of the Muslim assault on his homeland. That would make him prime military age in '67 and '73. He is a child of war with Muslim neighbors.

He's not the only one.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I suppose a better question is "Who isn't?"

However, a lot of people here somewhat support Hamas.

*self-moderated*

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.

*self-moderated*

The United States helped fund and arm resistance fighters in Afghanistan as a proxy against the USSR. Some of those would merge into al Qaeda, the terror group that would murder 3,000 people on 9/11. Saying the prior doesn't blame the US for 9/11.

And the claims of genocide don't make it so.

That's true.

 

[Elixir]

What if his successor is someone who's family was blown up by a Gazan suicide bomber during the 2nd Intifada, leaving him an orphan?

Yeah, what if. Well Tom, if that was the case, losing office would not represent a threat to their freedom. They would not be so dependent on never-ending emergencies, and might entertain the notion of peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't believe morally that is the issue nor the issue related to this thread. Indefinitely increasing slaughter and occupation of Palestinian people needs to end.

Then tell Hamas to release the hostages.

It isn't only Hamas's choice as there have been ceasefire negotiations. Let's not pretend there is only ONE choice or NO choice. And certainly, the Israeli govt isn't actually prioritizing rescuing the hostages but instead destroying Hamas and factions within the government are also interested in taking the land afterward. So, let's not pretend it is 100% about the hostages.

What we are seeing is Israel's plan to rescue the hostages. Looking at how hostage negotiations have gone historically there simply is no prospect of a diplomatic settlement, nor would that be good for Israel's safety. Thus they have taken the approach of smashing Hamas to try to make them cry uncle.

So far we have had one deal that Hamas eventually broke, and we have another that turned into a non-starter when Hamas silently changed it.

They appear to be about 6x better (even before considering human shields, friendly fire, and Hamas shooting up people) than anyone else. They redefined the bar, yet you think that's not good enough.

I don't believe your bar, nor does it matter.

So you don't care about the facts. It's just terrorists good, Jews bad.

Do not paint me as not caring about facts since I do care about facts, just not what you BELIEVE are facts. And don't paint me as an anti-Semite either, that is insulting and UNTRUE.

If you care about facts look some up if you don't believe what I'm saying. You say the bar doesn't matter--in other words, you don't care if Israel is good at avoiding civilian casualties, all you care about is that they are causing civilian casualties.

And, yes, there is a civilian crisis--a crisis that is the result of actions those very civilians to this day support. If they think that's an acceptable price to massacre 1,200 Jews what authority do we have to tell them it's not?

Here's the deal. It wasn't unprovoked. There were 3 reasons for it: 1. A dumb religious reason, 2. Because of the occupation and killings, and 3. Because of imprisonments of Palestinians with no due process which itself amounts to kidnapping.

There's one reason: They're paid to do it.

That's bullshit. There has been a movement against Israel for decades and radicalization that has nothing to do with funding. When you isolate the variables, funding isn't much of a contribution to the existence of the movement against Israel on the lands there.

Nothing to do with the funding??? You realize it's been there all along, just from different sources?

Do you realize much of the operating budget of Gaza is paid by foreigners with the specific intent of causing terrorism?

Let's isolate the variables. Population subject to considerable repression vs whether that population attacks.

I don't see any reports out of Western Sahara. Everything I'm finding is about abuses by Morocco.

Sudan typically doesn't make the news. I see little mention of the current Iran-backed ethnic cleansing/genocide going on.

And in some universe when the extremist Hamas is ordered to stand down upon condition of a free recognized Palestine and Israel is also forced to stand down there is a better future.

For Hamas to stand down is for it to become a nothing.

Who cares if Hamas if Hamas becomes nothing? Not me. That's the point. You clearly have mistaken me for an anti-semite which is why you chose to insult me.

Hamas cares. All the people in power lose their positions if they make peace. That's a pretty strong motive for them not to. And since they rely on outside funding and extreme repression there's no way to overthrow them even if the people wanted to.

In the mean time, I don't care if a bunch of radical college kids draw attention to the reality of de facto, if not deliberate, ethnic cleansing and its need to end. Doing so CAN lead to a better world.

I'm sure you know what road is paved with good intentions. That's the road you're following.

So you don't have good intentions?????? WTF.

I'm saying that good intentions are not enough. Be careful of where those good intentions lead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until Israel pulverizes the ability to launch attacks from Gaza,

You know that's impossible, right?

Yes I do. Which has a lot to do with dismissing claims about genocide.

What Israel can do is pound the Gazan military installations so hard that the rebuilding process takes more years to get done.
Which is really the goal. Possibly long enough for Muslim neighbors to get over the idea that violence is in their own best interests.
Tom

How can this be achieved without genocide?

By quitting slapping the "genocide" label on anything Israel does.

Not answering the question.

The point is that the label of "genocide" is inappropriate and is routinely used to describe any Israeli actions.

If you come at it from a standpoint of removing the actions that are being labeled "genocide" then you get Holocaust 2.0 which would be genocide. Thus the only path without genocide is to quit sticking the label on inappropriately.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

Perhaps you have your own meaning for genocide.
I don't think that 2% of a population, which is being used as human shields, remotely qualifies.
It is insanity, I'll agree. Too bad Gazans chose insanity over peace and prosperity.
Tom

It doesn't have to be genocide to be a war crime. I agree, Politese is using the word genocide inappropriately. Much like I think you are inappropriately handwaving the significance of the loss of 40,000 people. As if that won't have consequences down the road regarding Israeli security.

It will improve Israeli security. You are presenting a wife-beating position--namely, that Israeli actions drive the terror. No, Iranian actions drive the terror.

Killing civilians is wrong. Killing tens of thousands of Gazans makes it easier for Iran to convince a young hopeless teen to strap a bomb onto themselves.

So what's your answer to an attacker hiding behind human shields?

What is unfortunate is you seem to hold Palestinians with nothing but contempt. It is much easier to accept the deaths of people one doesn't human.

The Palestinians are victims--but victims of the Muslims, not of Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...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.

Obviously you haven't been reading the articles linked in this thread. You should take some time to catch up.

Also, don't forget to support your claims. You've got quite a backlog of unsupported assertions to deal with before you go making new ones.

I read them when they have credible sources. There was no reason to look here because I recognized some of the standard fake claims of Israel using human shields. If they continue to use known false claims I see no reason to trust the rest of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You not believing doesn't make it so.

A 57% poll to the contrary doesn’t make most people think 10/7 was the “right” thing to do.

English failure??

57% of the people in Gaza think 10/7 was the right thing to do even given the response. You appear to be interpreting this backwards.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is 40,000 dead anything but genocidal violence? This is insanity.

Perhaps you have your own meaning for genocide.
I don't think that 2% of a population, which is being used as human shields, remotely qualifies.
It is insanity, I'll agree. Too bad Gazans chose insanity over peace and prosperity.
Tom

It doesn't have to be genocide to be a war crime. I agree, Politese is using the word genocide inappropriately. Much like I think you are inappropriately handwaving the significance of the loss of 40,000 people. As if that won't have consequences down the road regarding Israeli security.

It will improve Israeli security. You are presenting a wife-beating position--namely, that Israeli actions drive the terror. No, Iranian actions drive the terror.

Killing civilians is wrong. Killing tens of thousands of Gazans makes it easier for Iran to convince a young hopeless teen to strap a bomb onto themselves.

So what's your answer to an attacker hiding behind human shields?

I'm uncertain. That uncertainty and how best to target terrorists hiding among the people doesn't make killing civilians not wrong. Nor does it not muddle the moral arguments or not help with propaganda.

What is unfortunate is you seem to hold Palestinians with nothing but contempt. It is much easier to accept the deaths of people one doesn't human.

The Palestinians are victims--but victims of the Muslims, not of Israel.

There is enough blame to go around. And it is quite the immoral argument to say "Sorry thousands to tens of thousands were killed in IDF strikes, it was Iran's fault."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas is doing the will of the people!

Who conducted the poll?
What is the margin of error?
Is 57% a number worth eradicating the other 43% (if the poll was accurate)?

It's an Arab group, they keep conducting polls. I don't know the margin of error but there have been multiple polls, all with the same general pattern.

"Netanyahu's essential problem is that when he leaves office, he is likely going to jail."
-Forbes ("Hamas Magazine")

None are so blind as those who will not see.
Bibi does not want peace, he NEEDS a never-ending emergency.
He wants peace like Trump wants a fair election.

Hamas still has hostages. If Israel gives up in that situation the next election will make the current one look like doves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And there's no way to distinguish between someone who actively supports Hamas without joining and "official" members, whatever that means.

A five year old cannot be meaningfully called a member of a terrorist group.

Absolutely not. But they can, and are, used as human shields by Gazan leadership and you know it.
Tom

A child dragged in front of a soldier as a blockade for bullets is a human shield. A child living in the house they live in is not a human shield. Everyone fucking grows up somewhere, Tom. There's a reason the deliberate targeting of civilians is called a war crime.

When an enemy commander chooses to remain in his house rather than in a military facility during times of war that makes the child living in said house a human shield.

And when the child is living in the house from which fire is coming it makes them a human shield.

The only side deliberately targeting civilians is Hamas.

I hope you'll keep your proposed rules of engagement in mind when China invades. Any veteran's family is a combatant? Half our population will be dead, but at least no war crimes will have been committed.

Also, you realize this disincentivizes laying down arms, right? If you try to leave the fight and go home, we'll kill your family as punishment.

Since when is military commander a work from home job??

And note that the top people generally have tunnel access inside their homes. That's clearly making their homes into military facilities.

 

[TomC]

What if his successor is someone who's family was blown up by a Gazan suicide bomber during the 2nd Intifada, leaving him an orphan?

Yeah, what if. Well Tom, if that was the case, losing office would not represent a threat to their freedom. They would not be so dependent on never-ending emergencies, and might entertain the notion of peace.

I don't know either but given the history I sincerely doubt that his successor will be particularly interested in most people here are referring to as peace.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Anything to avoid looking at the unpleasant reality. The support for 10/7 is even higher amongst non-Gazans.

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.

Then quit using it.

 

[TomC]

There is enough blame to go around. And it is quite the immoral argument to say "Sorry thousands to tens of thousands were killed in IDF strikes, it was Iran's fault."

I totally agree with that first sentence.
The second one I don't.
It's immoral to pretend that Israel can produce peace as long as Hamas' international supporters keep funding war.
Tom

 

[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?

Anything to avoid looking at the unpleasant reality. The support for 10/7 is even higher amongst non-Gazans.

The Israelis?

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.

Then quit using it.

You are borderline trolling at this point. Maybe if you didn't look at every single post in damn bubble... you wouldn't be struggling as hard to understand what people are trying to communicate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is enough blame to go around. And it is quite the immoral argument to say "Sorry thousands to tens of thousands were killed in IDF strikes, it was Iran's fault."

I totally agree with that first sentence.
The second one I don't.
It's immoral to pretend that Israel can produce peace as long as Hamas' international supporters keep funding war.
Tom

The IDF aren't bombing the funders of Hamas!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Israel has a track record of honoring such bargains.

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.

No. The hostages were taken to get concessions from Israel. It's historically been a very good tactic for them, except this time they bit off too much and Israel knew negotiation wasn't an option. Not to mention that their people are going to demand the threat be dealt with.

And calling for a more surgical approach shows a lack of understanding. Israel appears to be doing about 6x better at being surgical than any other country.

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.

So you agree the keys aren't under the streetlight (Israel) yet continue to search there anyway.

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?

I do not believe there is a good answer so long as Iran and friends keeps funding terrorism. Israel is taking the least bad answer--pounding the terrorists as needed to keep the threat level down. I know it's a horrible answer but nobody has presented anything better. It's always emotional arguments like "be more surgical", despite them already being the best.

 

[Elixir]

The support for 10/7 is even higher amongst non-Gazans.

Sounds downright paranoid to me. Source?

You are borderline trolling at this point.

I agree, except maybe with the borderline part!