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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

There is no peace.

What I'm tired of, is the ducking of LP, yourself, Derec, etc... about the outcome. Other than LP saying as long as it pushes the next attack down the road, success. How many dead Gazans is it worth to hold off the next attack a month longer?

 

[TomC]

There is no peace.

There could be,
if other people stopped funding Palestine terrorists.
I'm not holding my breath or anything.
Tom

 

[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.

Israel has a track record of honoring such bargains.

It isn't an option. I'm shocked you think it is. Hamas ended when they took the hostages. They (the people that actually matter) effectively got away with mass slaughter by taking hostages. Why in the heck wouldn't they do it that way again? There is no viable deal between Israel and Hamas. They best we can hope for is the IDF shifting how it targets Hamas.

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.

Seriously? If they wanted concessions, they could have just kidnapped hundreds of people. The hostage taking was to keep Mossad from icing Hamas' upper brass. Do you have no idea how the rules of the game changed on 10/7?

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.

That stat is bullshit.

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.

I'm saying have reach a point of no return. I've said it a few times. You just refuse to remember what people post and only reply to people with the bubble of the last post.

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.

"Be more surgical" is an emotional argument now? The best? The US took out bin Laden without killing any civilians. Meanwhile dictator for life wannabe Netanyahu was caught with his pants down and the strike happened. The best offense is a good defense.

Also, we are looking at an equation where value of 1 x Israeli = 10 x Gazan, and that is repugnant.

 

[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

The IDF aren't bombing the funders of Hamas!

Think it would improve things if they did?
Tom

 

[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!

Think it would improve things if they did?
Tom

Exactly. Now, juxtaposition that statement to Gaza. But careful, Loren will accuse you of beating your.. umm... SO.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no peace.

There could be,
if other people stopped funding Palestine terrorists.
I'm not holding my breath or anything.

There is no peace. It is off the table. It is one of the reasons Israel has the Dome in the first place.

 

[TomC]

The US took out bin Laden without killing any civilians.

You can't seriously believe that.
It took 10 years and massive casualties to catch up with bin Laden.
Tom

 

[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

The IDF aren't bombing the funders of Hamas!

Think it would improve things if they did?
Tom

Exactly. Now, juxtaposition that statement to Gaza. But careful, Loren will accuse you of beating your.. umm... SO.

You still seem to believe that Israel is targeting civilians. They are targeting the military installations and militants.
Whether they would blow up Teheran is a different question.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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.

In a nuanced world, the Gazans are victims of Hamas and of israel.

 

[Arctish]

They would have to be allowed to prosper. No more Zionist seizing of productive farmland, no more destruction of Palestinian wells or diverting of Palestinian water to Israel, no more Israeli settlements built in the West Bank, no more interference with the importing or exporting of material goods, no more fuckery by cutting off electricity to Gaza, or closing the borders without notice, or preventing foreign aid from reaching people, no more diverting natural gas from Palestinian territorial waters to Israel, or mining Palestinian minerals for transfer to Israel without paying royalties, etc. ,etc.

How about some reality?

Destruction of Palestinian wells? Hamas.

Diverting water? No, Hamas is using well pipe for rockets.

Interference with imports/exports? So long as it's not military or dual use it can freely be imported, Israel just checks to see that it is what it's supposed to be. Dual-use has been permitted in an environment of ensuring it went to it's intended purpose but the invasion has revealed at least 10% diversion so I expect we will see more restrictions.

Cutting off electricity? Tends to happen when you don't pay the power bill. And it especially tends to happen when Hamas shoots up the wires. Israel won't send out line crews until the shooting stops.

Closing the border without notice? Once again, Hamas. Fling some mortars at the crossing, the people take cover, the crossing is closed.

Preventing foreign aid? What legitimate aid has been blocked?? There was nothing but trash on the flagship of that flotilla. It wasn't about aid, it was about trying to get things in without inspection.

Diverting natural gas? This is a dispute about exactly where the boundary lies, I don't know enough about the situation to be able to evaluate the competing claims. The border point on land is clear, the question is what angle the line should be projected into the sea, and the two sides have different projections.

Mining? This is the first I've heard this claim, what are you talking about?

Israel has to either back off and allow Palestinians to prosper (Two State solution) or go for the One State solution and commit to treating every person with the same level of justice, fairness, and support regardless of whether they're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Neo-pagan, or whatever.

Israel would accept a peaceful two-state. The Palestinians will not accept a two-state, nor will they be peaceful.

The only other alternatives are the Rogue State solution (commit genocide) or the Failed State option in which Israel is defeated and dismantled.

You say the "rogue state" option causes genocide but fail to mention that the "failed state" option is even more of a genocide.

The suicide bombings went from a problem to rare after that wall came up. I think, for the safety of all Israelis (Jews and Muslims) that the wall stays

Fine, as long as it is built along the Armistice Line that Israel, the Palestinians, and the international community recognized as Israel's borders when the Oslo Accords were negotiated, and Israelis stay on their side of it.

I doubt the rightwing Zionist faction led by Netanyahu would agree to that. They will have to be defeated at the polls before there's a realistic chance that a separation wall will solve anything.

This is a fool-me-twice type thing.

Israel pulled completely out of Gaza and built a barrier. While that basically stopped the suicide bombings it does nothing about rocket fire and other such things. A huge cost (both economically and politically) to Israel and it made the overall situation worse--in the West Bank you never see more than light infantry operations, in Gaza you see armor, artillery and air power.

Now you are asking them to do the same thing again on a far bigger scale.

That is not a plan for peace.

Neither is genocide, if that's what you're suggesting as an alternative.

Lol, genocide. Israel is the only side in this conflict not trying to carry out a genocide

I suggest you try reading up a bit on Hammas

There will be no peace in a world where Hammas has power anywhere

I suggest you read up on my posts in this thread.

We have--and can see they are based on some major misunderstandings of the situation on the ground.

You're looking at this through a filter of Israel must be the guilty party and handwaving away anything that disagrees with this.

Support your claims, Loren.

You can either deal with the backlog in this thread and the Gaza one, or you can start right now with your assertion that Hamas destroyed Palestinian wells, that it has diverted water, etc.

Don't keep shitting up the thread with unripe bovung. If what you say is true and accurate, show us the links to sources.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Another feasible motive for responding with “yes” to the question is the motivation if revenge for the Israeli response.

What you fail to appreciate is that people are also emotional beings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yeah, I have never seen them say something that's actually false. They have serious problems with presenting only some of the facts leading to an erroneous conclusion, though. I already pointed out two severe distortions in that source, saying that Israeli actions put non-combatants in danger when there was no danger. That makes me highly suspect the one I don't know about is likewise deceptive.

 

[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.

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.*

Try again. I'm saying that a claim of "using Gazans as human shields" requires some incident in which it happened. Something where the incident can be examined to see what happened. Such a check is needed because they gave three specifics--two of which are misrepresented and did not involve danger.

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.

If you're going to assert that cannibalism exists you need to show somebody, somewhere was eaten.

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:

Because you're asking about a strawman.

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

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

Forcing a non-combatant block incoming fire or do other dangerous actions.

"Show me that it's not booby trapped" is not forcing because the person is free to admit it's booby trapped and not interact with it.

*(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.

Taking a side doesn't mean 100% blind defense of the side when it's clearly in the wrong.

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.

No. I would prefer no violence, also. It's just I think Israel is justified in meeting violence with violence. And it's not that I support the most right wing government, but that the continued actions of the Palestinians have driven the Israeli electorate very right wing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

What you are seeing is rational behavior. They're doing the will of the people--doing as much as they can to avoid a repeat of 10/7.

We took down Afghanistan in response to 9/11. Compared to the size of their country 10/7 was 10x what 9/11 was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There was a misunderstanding, long ago clarified.

What I was saying is that for any given person, they were 40x as likely to have been killed if they were a terrorist than if they were a non-combatant. Not that they were killing 40x as many terrorists as non-combatants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't care how many Hamas are dead. They started it, they won't surrender.

I do care how many civilians are dead but Israel is doing a far better job of not killing civilians than anyone else.

 

[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?

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.

In other words, you have no solution but you believe Israel should find a better one anyway.

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."

Yeah, it's Iran's fault. Iran knew what would happen and intended it to happen. Same as Iran is backing a genocide in Darfur now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Sounds downright paranoid to me. Source?

Same poll that gave the 57% support in Gaza, already linked upthread.

 

[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.

It isn't an option. I'm shocked you think it is. Hamas ended when they took the hostages. They (the people that actually matter) effectively got away with mass slaughter by taking hostages. Why in the heck wouldn't they do it that way again? There is no viable deal between Israel and Hamas. They best we can hope for is the IDF shifting how it targets Hamas.

I'm confused here.

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.

Seriously? If they wanted concessions, they could have just kidnapped hundreds of people. The hostage taking was to keep Mossad from icing Hamas' upper brass. Do you have no idea how the rules of the game changed on 10/7?

And I'm even more confused now. Should have kidnapped people instead of taking hostages??? What's the difference???

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.

That stat is bullshit.

Keeping calling it bullshit doesn't make it so. Urban combat in areas with civilians typically runs 9:1 civilians:combatants.

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.

I'm saying have reach a point of no return. I've said it a few times. You just refuse to remember what people post and only reply to people with the bubble of the last post.

So what is your answer then??

"This option is bad." is not an answer if you have no better option.

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.

"Be more surgical" is an emotional argument now? The best? The US took out bin Laden without killing any civilians. Meanwhile dictator for life wannabe Netanyahu was caught with his pants down and the strike happened. The best offense is a good defense.

Try again. There was a non-combatant death when we took down Bin Laden. And it's not like taking out Bin Laden won the war. We got the local commander, not the shot-callers.

And you have it backwards--the best defense is a good offense. There's no way a good defense can stop 10/7s.

Also, we are looking at an equation where value of 1 x Israeli = 10 x Gazan, and that is repugnant.

This isn't a sporting event, there is no expectation of matching numbers.

Hamas attacked, Israel responded by tearing up anything Hamas they could find. 1 army vs 1 army.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Destruction of Palestinian wells? Hamas.

Diverting water? No, Hamas is using well pipe for rockets.

Support your claims, Loren.

You can either deal with the backlog in this thread and the Gaza one, or you can start right now with your assertion that Hamas destroyed Palestinian wells, that it has diverted water, etc.

Don't keep shitting up the thread with unripe bovung. If what you say is true and accurate, show us the links to sources.

Hamas crowed about digging up pipe for use in rockets after the Gaza pullout.

And I didn't say they diverted water. I said they diverted pipe meant for wells. The water wasn't diverted, it's still there in the ground.