Gaza after the war

[Loren Pechtel]

Please stop moving the goalposts. It's annoying.

He's not moving the goalposts. He's just not accepting your false ideas of how things are.

The goalposts are moved every time a new bar is set. Most recently they moved when Tigers! said to get back to him when I had worked out a solution that did not involve civilian casualties. It was a non sequitur masquerading as a response to my point that the economic recovery of Gaza had to be for the benefit of the Gazans, because screwing them over yet again would be recreating the conditions that allow extremist political parties like Hamas and Nazis to come to power.

You are expecting Israel to come up with a better answer when they are already by far the world's best.

And your idea of economic recovery for Gaza makes no sense so long as Hamas exists. Hamas does not want economic recovery and so long as they have power they will prevent it.

And you're also wife-beating here. Hamas came to power because of money for terror. (Yes, I'm aware that Israel supported them for a while--sowing dissent in the enemy ranks. The result was Hamas and Fatah at each other's throats. Israel has not been supporting them since they turned violent.) Large scale terrorism is always due to foreign money. (Occasionally from resources--narco-terrorism--but almost always a foreign power.) I am not aware of any foreign-sponsored terror group that has been defeated, I'm not aware of any group that has neither resources nor foreign support.

And note the real screwing of Gaza was due to the second intifada.

Yes, the Nazis weren't allowed to return to political power after WW2. Hamas needs to be treated the same after this conflict is over. They must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box. They must lose the power and influence they currently hold and never regain it, as I have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again, in this thread and others over the past 7 months.

At the ballot box?? Hamas would win.

And, yes, you say it again and again and again--but never show that your ideas are connected with the actual situation.

I say Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain what you think the actual situation is.

If not, then what's the point of your response here? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

You're not addressing either point.

Defeated at the ballot box by who? Any competition is dead. And it's not relevant anyway, there's really only one vote here: Iran's money.

I believe that if the Gazans are screwed over again, then another radical political party will be empowered and eventually attack those the Gazans think are benefitting from their suffering. If, on the other hand, Gaza is rebuilt as Germany was after WW2, and the Gazans prosper as the Germans did, then IMO the Gazans will be unwilling to risk their prosperity be allowing radicals like Hamas to return to power. Do you think otherwise?

And you're still falling for the fundamental fallacy that what is happening in Gaza has anything to do with Israel's past actions. Until you accept that Iran is the driving force you'll never understand what's going on.

In your opinion Iran is the driving force. Okay, that's what you think.

This discussion is about the future of Gaza. Earlier in this thread Tigers! compared Hamas to the Nazi Party in Germany. I agreed the comparison was apt. I said we should consider:

1. how they came to power

2. how they were able to convince their followers to commit blatant injustices and atrocities, and the rest of society to ignore or deny what was happening

3. how the Nazis were, and Hamas can be, kept from returning to power after their defeat.

We are currently discussing the economic conditions that allow extremist parties to come to power, and how important it is to not recreate them in Gaza. Or at least that's what I'm discussing. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

The terrorists recreated them with the second intifada. We have no ability to change that. Unless you have a time machine you are discussing something meaningless. And they can't be kept from returning to power. All that can be done is keeping the threat level down.

 

[ZiprHead]

Actually, what we have seen suggests that most of the dead were civilians--but that it was due to secondaries. Israel nailed a jeep, the jeep was carrying stuff that went boom, that threw shrapnel that hit fuel.

Source for this?

 

[Arctish]

Please stop moving the goalposts. It's annoying.

He's not moving the goalposts. He's just not accepting your false ideas of how things are.

The goalposts are moved every time a new bar is set. Most recently they moved when Tigers! said to get back to him when I had worked out a solution that did not involve civilian casualties. It was a non sequitur masquerading as a response to my point that the economic recovery of Gaza had to be for the benefit of the Gazans, because screwing them over yet again would be recreating the conditions that allow extremist political parties like Hamas and Nazis to come to power.

Yes, the Nazis weren't allowed to return to political power after WW2. Hamas needs to be treated the same after this conflict is over. They must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box. They must lose the power and influence they currently hold and never regain it, as I have said again, and again, and again, and again, and again, in this thread and others over the past 7 months.

At the ballot box?? Hamas would win.

And, yes, you say it again and again and again--but never show that your ideas are connected with the actual situation.

I say Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box.

I am glad that you have stated this. What do you think "defeated on the ground" really means in practical terms? Israel is trying to do this and you have made it clear that you are are not happy/pleased/approve of Israel's actions.

You keep missing the point. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if I am failing to communicate clearly. Either way, the only thing I can do is spell it out again.

I do not disapprove of Israel striking at military targets as a response to the October 2023 attack or to prevent an attack in the future. I disapprove of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"Defeated on the ground" means defeated in combat, street by street if necessary, through a successful military campaign or police action. It means dismantling or destroying the resources Hamas needs to carry on the fight, and capturing or killing the militants who are resisting that campaign. I accept the necessity of shooting to kill when someone is shooting at you, or threatening your family or members of your community. I accept the use of lethal force, including targeted assassination, as justified in such circumstances.

I do not believe terrorism is ever an acceptable course of action. I reject the needless slaughter of civilians. I do not accept murdering people trying to surrender. I do not accept murdering people who have already surrendered or were taken prisoner. I do not accept blowing up houses full of civilians, most of them children, in order to kill one person suspected of being a low level foot soldier. I condemn attacking people for religious, tribal, or vengeance driven hate.

I utterly reject rape, torture, starvation, or imprisoning people without charge, especially if the apparent reason is racial and religious discrimination.

One body found with their hands tied behind their backs and a bullet hole in their head is one too many. That goes for Palestinians in Gaza, Jews in Poland, Armenians in Turkey, medical students in Mexico, suspected drug dealers in the Philippines, or anyone else, anywhere.

If you do not like Israel's approach then please tell us how Hamas can be defeated on the ground in other ways.

The same way the Confederacy was defeated in the United Stares and the Nazis were defeated in Europe. It required the use of lethal force. It did not require murdering grandmothers walking pre-schoolers to safety under a white flag, although that might have happened and been covered up.

I suspect that Hamas' defeat on the ground will need to precede defeat at the ballot box.

I am convinced the defeat must precede the ballot.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain what you think the actual situation is.

If not, then what's the point of your response here? Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I believe that if the Gazans are screwed over again, then another radical political party will be empowered and eventually attack those the Gazans think are benefitting from their suffering. If, on the other hand, Gaza is rebuilt as Germany was after WW2, and the Gazans prosper as the Germans did, then IMO the Gazans will be unwilling to risk their prosperity be allowing radicals like Hamas to return to power. Do you think otherwise?

And you're still falling for the fundamental fallacy that what is happening in Gaza has anything to do with Israel's past actions. Until you accept that Iran is the driving force you'll never understand what's going on.

In your opinion Iran is the driving force. Okay, that's what you think.

This discussion is about the future of Gaza. Earlier in this thread Tigers! compared Hamas to the Nazi Party in Germany. I agreed the comparison was apt. I said we should consider:

1. how they came to power

Yes

2. how they were able to convince their followers to commit blatant injustices and atrocities, and the rest of society to ignore or deny what was happening

Yes

3. how the Nazis were, and Hamas can be, kept from returning to power after their defeat.

See above. At the moment this is the crux of the matter.

I understand that you fully support the military campaign the IDF is carrying out in Gaza, but where do you draw the line?

How do you feel about IDF soldiers killing people trying to surrender, bodies of executed prisoners being found in mass graves, the death of Dr. Adnan Al Bursh in a detention facility where IDF soldiers report torture and abuse is commonplace? How do you feel about the claim Israel is authorizing the killing of up to 20 civilians for every 1 low level suspected Hamas fighter, and waiting for them to arrive home before striking so their families are killed, too?

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

Also, to get back to the topic of this thread, what do you see as the future of Gaza? What outcome should people be working toward?

 

[Tigers!]

I understand that you fully support the military campaign the IDF is carrying out in Gaza, but where do you draw the line?

How do you feel about IDF soldiers killing people trying to surrender, bodies of executed prisoners being found in mass graves, the death of Dr. Adnan Al Bursh in a detention facility where IDF soldiers report torture and abuse is commonplace? How do you feel about the claim Israel is authorizing the killing of up to 20 civilians for every 1 low level suspected Hamas fighter, and waiting for them to arrive home before striking so their families are killed, too?

How do I feel about 1200 Jews being killed and >200 kidnapped? All those claims you make will be investigated but there will no investigation into 7th Oct by Hamas or any other Arabic or Islamic body (nor will any regret or apology will be forthcoming).

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

A low-yield nuclear device.
Is there anything that Israel could do in response to 7th Oct. that you would accept?

Also, to get back to the topic of this thread, what do you see as the future of Gaza? What outcome should people be working toward?

Gazans should be able to decide their future without fear from people within and without their land.
Gaza should not allow attacks on 3rd parties to be undertaken from their lands.
Gazans should be able to trade with other groups without 3rd parties imposing blockades (looking at Israel and Egypt)
Gazans should be able to live their lives without scarcity of food, water, medicines, schooling etc. No fear of rockets leaving their territory nor rockets returning to their territory. What you and I take for granted really.

 

[Arctish]

I understand that you fully support the military campaign the IDF is carrying out in Gaza, but where do you draw the line?

How do you feel about IDF soldiers killing people trying to surrender, bodies of executed prisoners being found in mass graves, the death of Dr. Adnan Al Bursh in a detention facility where IDF soldiers report torture and abuse is commonplace? How do you feel about the claim Israel is authorizing the killing of up to 20 civilians for every 1 low level suspected Hamas fighter, and waiting for them to arrive home before striking so their families are killed, too?

How do I feel about 1200 Jews being killed and >200 kidnapped?

I assumed you were as outraged as everyone else on this discussion board.

How do you feel about the incidents I listed? I think every one of them is a war crime with the possible exception of Dr. Al Bursh's death. His death _might_ have been negligent homicide, although given the circumstances it's more likely to have been the result of a human rights violation.

All those claims you make will be investigated but there will no investigation into 7th Oct by Hamas or any other Arabic or Islamic body (nor will any regret or apology will be forthcoming).

Hamas is entirely unlikely to conduct a criminal investigation but almost certainly investigated the attack in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their tactics.

Other Arabic and Islamic bodies might or might not consider the attack a criminal matter, in the same way and for the same reason non-Arabic and non-Islamic bodies might or might not. If it is their opinion that Israel and Gaza have been at war since the Oslo Accords failed and Hamas took over, and they believe "all's fair in love and war", then they will probably call it a legitimate strike into enemy territory.

I don't call it that, in case you're still wondering. I call it terrorism and a war crime. I believe Israel and Hamas have been at war for years, but that does not legitimize a deliberate attack on civilians.

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

A low-yield nuclear device.
Is there anything that Israel could do in response to 7th Oct. that you would accept?

I already told you in the post you quoted.

I now believe you are being deliberately obtuse.

Also, to get back to the topic of this thread, what do you see as the future of Gaza? What outcome should people be working toward?

Gazans should be able to decide their future without fear from people within and without their land.
Gaza should not allow attacks on 3rd parties to be undertaken from their lands.
Gazans should be able to trade with other groups without 3rd parties imposing blockades (looking at Israel and Egypt)
Gazans should be able to live their lives without scarcity of food, water, medicines, schooling etc. No fear of rockets leaving their territory nor rockets returning to their territory. What you and I take for granted really.

I agree with all of this^.

 

[Derec]

No, it was not "mostly children". 23 out of 45 (a bare majority) were identified by Hamas as "women, children and elderly". That means that 22/45, almost half, were non-elderly adult men. That is more than twice their share of the population, suggesting that among the dead more than those two senior operatives were terrorists. Otherwise, one would expect the demographics of fatalities to follow the population demographics more closely.

Actually, what we have seen suggests that most of the dead were civilians--

I agree. But Politesse claimed that most of the dead were children, which not even the Hamas health ministry claims.
I also think, based on demographics, that more than the two senior commanders were combatants. There are simply too many non-elderly aduly men among the dead for them all to be civilians.

Again, 23/45 are claimed to be elderly, women or minors. That means that 22/45, almost half, are non-elderly adult men. But maybe 23% of the Gaza population are in that category. About half the population are minors, half are women, and some 3-4% are elderly. So 22/45 is very unlikely if they were all civilians. But if, for example, 15 of the 45 were combatants, then 7/30 (or 23%) would be civilian "non-elderly, adult men", the same as their share in the overall population. Therefore, 15(± a few for uncertainty) were most likely combatants.
So, most were still civilians, but a significant number were likely combatants.

but that it was due to secondaries. Israel nailed a jeep, the jeep was carrying stuff that went boom, that threw shrapnel that hit fuel.

I think so too. The fire spread far from the initial strike.
IDF says it used small munitions in Rafah strike, believes ammo sparked secondary explosion

However, I would allocate all the fire deaths to Hamas, not Israel. Had they not had weapons around civilians the civilians would not have died.

Yes. Terrorists chose this location deliberately.

 

[laughing dog]

There will be no end to this war - just a postponement of violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, what we have seen suggests that most of the dead were civilians--but that it was due to secondaries. Israel nailed a jeep, the jeep was carrying stuff that went boom, that threw shrapnel that hit fuel.

Source for this?

Looks like the original report out of Gaza was wrong. Israel hit a building which had explosives, not a jeep.

IDF vows full probe into Rafah strike, shows evidence it was not in designated safe zone

* * *

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am glad that you have stated this. What do you think "defeated on the ground" really means in practical terms? Israel is trying to do this and you have made it clear that you are are not happy/pleased/approve of Israel's actions.

You keep missing the point. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if I am failing to communicate clearly. Either way, the only thing I can do is spell it out again.

No, we do not keep missing the point. Rather, we refuse to accept your fantasy of a clean war.

I do not disapprove of Israel striking at military targets as a response to the October 2023 attack or to prevent an attack in the future. I disapprove of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Then disapprove of Hamas. They're the ones doing them.

"Defeated on the ground" means defeated in combat, street by street if necessary, through a successful military campaign or police action. It means dismantling or destroying the resources Hamas needs to carry on the fight, and capturing or killing the militants who are resisting that campaign. I accept the necessity of shooting to kill when someone is shooting at you, or threatening your family or members of your community. I accept the use of lethal force, including targeted assassination, as justified in such circumstances.

But you don't. You expect perfection in targeting, which is something that's impossible when your opponent pretends to be civilians.

I do not believe terrorism is ever an acceptable course of action. I reject the needless slaughter of civilians. I do not accept murdering people trying to surrender. I do not accept murdering people who have already surrendered or were taken prisoner. I do not accept blowing up houses full of civilians, most of them children, in order to kill one person suspected of being a low level foot soldier. I condemn attacking people for religious, tribal, or vengeance driven hate.

It's your fantasy that they hit houses full of people for a low level commander.

Trying to surrender? The problem is that they keep getting attacked by people who were "trying to surrender". It's a standard tactic of Hamas.

And where are you getting this bit of killing people who are already surrendered? I'm not aware of any such incidents other than the total fabrication of the mass grave at the hospital--that was a Palestinian grave. (And it wouldn't be an issue even if they did. Fighting in civilian attire moves you from "lawful combatant" to be treated as a prisoner of war to "spies and saboteurs" which get no protections whatsoever.)

I utterly reject rape, torture, starvation, or imprisoning people without charge, especially if the apparent reason is racial and religious discrimination.

Rape? I'm not aware of any substantiated allegations of Israeli rape. Hamas, though--you never replied (nor did anyone else) to my thread about it.

Torture? I consider that unproven.

Starvation? Hamas. They're the ones keeping the food from the people. Not that anyone is dying of starvation.

Imprisoning without charges? That's normal in war. Being an enemy combatant is reason enough.

One body found with their hands tied behind their backs and a bullet hole in their head is one too many. That goes for Palestinians in Gaza, Jews in Poland, Armenians in Turkey, medical students in Mexico, suspected drug dealers in the Philippines, or anyone else, anywhere.

So why do you side with the people who did that? (That is, if it happened at all. The grave is real, whether there were any bodies with their hands tied behind their backs and shot has not been established. Since the Palestinians are the ones that put the bodies there if there were such they did it.)

If you do not like Israel's approach then please tell us how Hamas can be defeated on the ground in other ways.

The same way the Confederacy was defeated in the United Stares and the Nazis were defeated in Europe. It required the use of lethal force. It did not require murdering grandmothers walking pre-schoolers to safety under a white flag, although that might have happened and been covered up.

Back then they didn't engage in human shield tactics. And it wasn't house-to-house fighting.

I suspect that Hamas' defeat on the ground will need to precede defeat at the ballot box.

I am convinced the defeat must precede the ballot.

But you give them effective immunity from defeat.

How do you feel about IDF soldiers killing people trying to surrender, bodies of executed prisoners being found in mass graves, the death of Dr. Adnan Al Bursh in a detention facility where IDF soldiers report torture and abuse is commonplace? How do you feel about the claim Israel is authorizing the killing of up to 20 civilians for every 1 low level suspected Hamas fighter, and waiting for them to arrive home before striking so their families are killed, too?

Executed trying to surrender? Because false surrender is a common tactic there.

Mass graves? Blame Hamas. You keep ignoring the fact that there's visual evidence of the grave existing before Israeli ground forces were there.

Adnan Al Bursh? I see nothing but allegations of torture, no evidence. I do see he was a leading figure at the hospital which almost certainly makes him Hamas.

And your 20:1 claim is a claim. Once again, no evidence.

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

Is there anything that would actually work that you would support?

Also, to get back to the topic of this thread, what do you see as the future of Gaza? What outcome should people be working toward?

Until the Iranian money is out of the picture it's going to remain a hellhole. That can't be fixed.

 

[Arctish]

I am glad that you have stated this. What do you think "defeated on the ground" really means in practical terms? Israel is trying to do this and you have made it clear that you are are not happy/pleased/approve of Israel's actions.

You keep missing the point. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if I am failing to communicate clearly. Either way, the only thing I can do is spell it out again.

No,

Show

we do not keep missing the point. Rather, we refuse to accept your fantasy of a clean war.

I do not disapprove of Israel striking at military targets as a response to the October 2023 attack or to prevent an attack in the future. I disapprove of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Then disapprove of Hamas. They're the ones doing them.

"Defeated on the ground" means defeated in combat, street by street if necessary, through a successful military campaign or police action. It means dismantling or destroying the resources Hamas needs to carry on the fight, and capturing or killing the militants who are resisting that campaign. I accept the necessity of shooting to kill when someone is shooting at you, or threatening your family or members of your community. I accept the use of lethal force, including targeted assassination, as justified in such circumstances.

But you don't. You expect perfection in targeting, which is something that's impossible when your opponent pretends to be civilians.

I do not believe terrorism is ever an acceptable course of action. I reject the needless slaughter of civilians. I do not accept murdering people trying to surrender. I do not accept murdering people who have already surrendered or were taken prisoner. I do not accept blowing up houses full of civilians, most of them children, in order to kill one person suspected of being a low level foot soldier. I condemn attacking people for religious, tribal, or vengeance driven hate.

It's your fantasy that they hit houses full of people for a low level commander.

Trying to surrender? The problem is that they keep getting attacked by people who were "trying to surrender". It's a standard tactic of Hamas.

And where are you getting this bit of killing people who are already surrendered? I'm not aware of any such incidents other than the total fabrication of the mass grave at the hospital--that was a Palestinian grave. (And it wouldn't be an issue even if they did. Fighting in civilian attire moves you from "lawful combatant" to be treated as a prisoner of war to "spies and saboteurs" which get no protections whatsoever.)

I utterly reject rape, torture, starvation, or imprisoning people without charge, especially if the apparent reason is racial and religious discrimination.

Rape? I'm not aware of any substantiated allegations of Israeli rape. Hamas, though--you never replied (nor did anyone else) to my thread about it.

Torture? I consider that unproven.

Starvation? Hamas. They're the ones keeping the food from the people. Not that anyone is dying of starvation.

Imprisoning without charges? That's normal in war. Being an enemy combatant is reason enough.

One body found with their hands tied behind their backs and a bullet hole in their head is one too many. That goes for Palestinians in Gaza, Jews in Poland, Armenians in Turkey, medical students in Mexico, suspected drug dealers in the Philippines, or anyone else, anywhere.

So why do you side with the people who did that? (That is, if it happened at all. The grave is real, whether there were any bodies with their hands tied behind their backs and shot has not been established. Since the Palestinians are the ones that put the bodies there if there were such they did it.)

If you do not like Israel's approach then please tell us how Hamas can be defeated on the ground in other ways.

The same way the Confederacy was defeated in the United Stares and the Nazis were defeated in Europe. It required the use of lethal force. It did not require murdering grandmothers walking pre-schoolers to safety under a white flag, although that might have happened and been covered up.

Back then they didn't engage in human shield tactics. And it wasn't house-to-house fighting.

I suspect that Hamas' defeat on the ground will need to precede defeat at the ballot box.

I am convinced the defeat must precede the ballot.

But you give them effective immunity from defeat.

How do you feel about IDF soldiers killing people trying to surrender, bodies of executed prisoners being found in mass graves, the death of Dr. Adnan Al Bursh in a detention facility where IDF soldiers report torture and abuse is commonplace? How do you feel about the claim Israel is authorizing the killing of up to 20 civilians for every 1 low level suspected Hamas fighter, and waiting for them to arrive home before striking so their families are killed, too?

Executed trying to surrender? Because false surrender is a common tactic there.

Mass graves? Blame Hamas. You keep ignoring the fact that there's visual evidence of the grave existing before Israeli ground forces were there.

Adnan Al Bursh? I see nothing but allegations of torture, no evidence. I do see he was a leading figure at the hospital which almost certainly makes him Hamas.

And your 20:1 claim is a claim. Once again, no evidence.

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

Is there anything that would actually work that you would support?

Also, to get back to the topic of this thread, what do you see as the future of Gaza? What outcome should people be working toward?

Until the Iranian money is out of the picture it's going to remain a hellhole. That can't be fixed.

Loren, I'm not going to bother with any of ^this^, mainly for two reasons:

1. You have a backlog of assertions in need of support in this thread and the main Gaza one. You should focus on providing the supporting evidence people have asked for before you go making new claims.

2. I believe you are deliberately misreading my post so you can sling more bullshit under the guise of replying to what I wrote. You know I am a consistent advocate for applying one single standard when judging the rightness or wrongness of acts regardless of who is doing them to whom, so you can take your artificial, ginned-up "But what about Hamas???" dudgeon and stow it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is there anything Israel might do in response to the October attack that you would not support?

A low-yield nuclear device.

If they were going to go nuclear it should be against Tehran, not Gaza.

Is there anything that Israel could do in response to 7th Oct. that you would accept?

That should be qualified with "anything effective". She wants a magically perfect war.