Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

The depth of depravity in the 7/10 Hammas attack makes it impossible for Israel to accept Hammas having any more influence in Gaza. And since Hammas has wide popular support its necessary to go in with the big guns.

It's important to use targeted munitions instead of indiscriminate ones, sir. Why? The former can help prevent your efforts to remove Hamas from being a tool of radicalization to produce more of Hamas. Gaza is not only the place with Arabs bruh! If they genuinely aiming to eliminate an enemy, their approach is remarkably unwise. We are no longer in colonial times when such behavior was deemed acceptable. In today's nuclear age, actions like these can lead to catastrophic consequences, risking the loss of everything, including your beloved continent. But you go on and preach brotha.

They want to destroy Hammas without losing IDF troops. Hammas has been planning a defence for decades. Going in for street by street combat is just suicide. Using artillery is the best, and probably only way for Israel to win. Hammas is using Palestinians as human shields counting on Israel to cave in to international pressure. Don't let yourself be manipulated by these monsters. Hammas doesn't give a fuck about the Palestinian people. If you let them win by behaving like this you are encouraging the behaviour. Yes it sucks for the Palestinians. But enough is enough

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah, yes, the old equation of criticizing the government = criticizing a specific group.

The sides in this group are:

1. Hammas. Funded by Iran to destabilise Israel. Popular in Palestine because they buy hospitals and stuff. Let's just ignore that the main benefactor of Palestine is Israel.

2. The Israeli government, who are just trying to keep everyone safe. Yes, even the Palestinians.

What?! Far-right Israeli leadership policies have rarely ever considered the safety of the Palestinian people.

Well, Palestinians aren't at risk from Jewish suicide bombers. They focus on where the attacks are most likely to occur.

I know a lot about this since my ex wife was a Hungarian/Israeli Jew. She lived many years in Jerusalem.

Did you just say you are a trusted source on this because of your ex-wife?

This is quite problematic. Especially for those who are appearing to being permanently displaced from their homes.

Palestine has never been an Islamic state. It has always been Jewish. Even when ruled by Islamic empires. So I don’t see how this is relevant.

I can't help you if you think mass displacement of a population isn't a relevant issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As I see it, the main problem in this conflict is the attitude of the Palestinians. In their minds Israel is surrounded by 900 million Muslims, so they can make bizarre and impractical demands on Israel. They behave like bullies. The problem is that Islam is a bullshit identity. Muslims have no solidarity with eachother, do not help eachother and are NOT a single unified group. All the support Muslim nations offer the Palestinians is lip service. So the Palestinians keep making demands, assuming that any day now a unified Islamic front will win the day for them. It won't. They live in fantasy land. There's just no way to reason with these people.

And Jews, being a traditionally persecuted group, are utterly pragmatic. They don't give a shit about ideology, religion or identity. They just do what they need to do to survive. They could not be more down to earth. History has taught Jews to be cynical and pragmatic. No, not orthodox Jews. But they're total clowns, with no say and no influence. They're all idiots and other Jews know it. No one cares about them. Or listen to them.

Broad brushes on sale this past weekend?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The depth of depravity in the 7/10 Hammas attack makes it impossible for Israel to accept Hammas having any more influence in Gaza. And since Hammas has wide popular support its necessary to go in with the big guns.

Indeed, Hamas pretty much ended Hamas with that attack. Curious though, what does "go in with the big guns" mean? Also, what is the goal for the "go in with the big guns"? It sounds a bit like "By any means necessary."

There is no other viable option for Israel. Allowing Hammas to have any more influence in Gaza is now a non-starter. Israel is now doing the only sensible thing to do. Yeah, it sucks for the Palestinians. Its really bad. But there is no other option for Israel. They have to do it, or never again know peace.

And isn't this the bit that is naïve. This whole, 'well, we are going to end Hamas'. You can't end Hamas, not without starving it from money. Ending Palestine doesn't end Hamas. Killing foot soldiers doesn't end Hamas. Hamas is a thought, that doesn't go away with a bomb. Indeed, the trouble here is that the goal is to do something that isn't actually possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

UN warns Gaza is now ‘uninhabitable’ as war continues | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

As Hamas wants. They chose the path of massacre knowing what would happen. Blame them.

That's so daft. If a group anticipates that a certain action will provoke an international reaction against their adversary, thus advancing their cause, they view this as a strategic success. In the context of groups like Hamas, their understanding of 'blame' is different. They perceive actions that lead Israel to respond in a way that garners international criticism as beneficial for their objectives. It's a tactical victory for their cause. If one of them read your post they'd click the like button.

You're evading the point.

Yes, it's beneficial to their objective. They deliberately slaughtered civilians and deliberately set up a situation where there own civilians were going to die. You fail to understand the Nuremberg-level evil in this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The State Department didn't say anything about what the Palestinian Authority did to stop attacks, or about the money they give to families of terrorists. It also doesn't compare Israelis to Afrikaaners or make sweeping statements about whole groups of people. Just sayin.

The data emphasizes the increased frequency and severity of attacks in 2022, contributing to heightened security in the region.

The Palestinian Authority is not considered a terrorist organization, and it would not have had any role or influence that would allow it to stop Hamas from attacking Israel.

What's the most important budget item in the PA budget? Money paid to the families of terrorists. That means they are directly funding terrorism and have been doing so all along.

Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The changed hats in response to western pressure but it's still government money. It's approximately 10% of the PA budget and about 3% of GDP. And note that that does not include what Hamas is spending on such payments.

The families of terrorists, whether real or merely alleged, are not the perpetrators, so Israel's policy of victimizing innocent family members to get revenge on the actual perpetrators is racist, despicable, and inhumane. I have no problem with the PA's support for their families. There is no way that the PA can be considered "directly funding terrorism" with this policy.

1) This does not in any way address the fact that it's paying for terrorism.

2) You're bringing in a distraction of the Israeli demolition of houses--it's not meant as revenge, but meant to make it economically less advantageous. The PA offers big rewards to the family of a martyr, Israel does what it can to reduce this so there's less incentive to become a martyr.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinian leadership rejected the plan to divide Palestine. They made their own proposal which would have given full and equal citizenship to all Palestinians born in Palestine before the beginning of the British Mandate, regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic origins, and grant resident status with a path to full citizenship for immigrants who had arrived in Palestine via legal means.

You are neglecting the fact that the Palestinian "plan" amounted to give everything to the Arabs, nothing to the Jews.

Anyway, if you believe the UN created the State of Israel via resolution 181 then you must also believe Israelis invaded their neighbor's territory in April of 1948 with the intention of seizing resources and infrastructure through ethnic cleansing and conquest.

Israel didn't start the war.

The history of the conflict doesn't start in May of 1948. The bodies of people killed in the strife, soldiers, civilians, LEOs, and terrorists alike, have been filling the graveyards there since the 1920s.

It goes back much, much farther than that. Massacring Jews was common long before then. 1948 is the abuse victim finally escaping.

 

[Tigers!]

View attachment 45236

Where is the slot for white males?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the Arabs just love to use the Palestinians as their meek little pawns of pawns. Radical Iranian leadership can't have peace because they need Israel as a foil. Radical Israeli leadership want it all (something that seems ridiculously impossible). When radicals run both sides of the show, nothing good will happen... and it gets exhausting watching people make excuses for condoning future violence.

(Emphasis added)
And here's where you get it wrong. So long as radicals run either side nothing good will happen. Israel didn't used to be radical, they have been pushed that way by every attempt to be good backfiring. The route to peace is for Iran and proxies to quit poking the porcupine.

 

[Copernicus]

The State Department didn't say anything about what the Palestinian Authority did to stop attacks, or about the money they give to families of terrorists. It also doesn't compare Israelis to Afrikaaners or make sweeping statements about whole groups of people. Just sayin.

The data emphasizes the increased frequency and severity of attacks in 2022, contributing to heightened security in the region.

The Palestinian Authority is not considered a terrorist organization, and it would not have had any role or influence that would allow it to stop Hamas from attacking Israel.

What's the most important budget item in the PA budget? Money paid to the families of terrorists. That means they are directly funding terrorism and have been doing so all along.

Palestinian Authority Martyrs Fund - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The changed hats in response to western pressure but it's still government money. It's approximately 10% of the PA budget and about 3% of GDP. And note that that does not include what Hamas is spending on such payments.

The families of terrorists, whether real or merely alleged, are not the perpetrators, so Israel's policy of victimizing innocent family members to get revenge on the actual perpetrators is racist, despicable, and inhumane. I have no problem with the PA's support for their families. There is no way that the PA can be considered "directly funding terrorism" with this policy.

1) This does not in any way address the fact that it's paying for terrorism.

You said "directly funding terrorism", but the welfare program is for families undergoing hardship because family members have been incarcerated far a variety of crimes, some alleged to be terrorist acts. These are not the people who perpetrated the crimes that the prisoners are accused of, and the Israeli justice system convicts almost every accusation against a Palestinian that is brought before it. Your characterization simply looks at the way Israel frame those payments (e.g. as "pay for slay"), ignoring the fact that the families of alleged terrorists are also targeted, sometimes even having their homes demolished. If Israel chooses to oppress the family members of terrorists, it seems fair that the PA have a program to compensate them.

See: Palestinian Prisoner Payments

2) You're bringing in a distraction of the Israeli demolition of houses--it's not meant as revenge, but meant to make it economically less advantageous. The PA offers big rewards to the family of a martyr, Israel does what it can to reduce this so there's less incentive to become a martyr.

If it isn't meant as revenge, then why are the homes of Israeli families never demolished when one of their family members commits a serious crime? Your special pleading slip is showing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was never an Arab state called "Palestine", much less one with Jerusalem as its capital. In fact the word was used as merely a geographical, not ethnic, term until the PLO invented Palestinian national identity in the 1960s or so.

That seems like a huge stretch of a rationalization. It's not like there weren't Arabs living in a place called Palestine.

The point is they weren't distinct from the surrounding population. Remember, originally the area included Jordan, it was already partitioned once.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can someone explain why we would care if the word "Palestine" was ethnic or geographical? I mean, it seems like a useless distinction to get upset about. Also, if people don't have a recognized country, what's wrong with them using an established geographical name in the name of their country when they try to get it recognized? Why flip out about this? Did these same people get mad at South Africa?

They are pretending it was a separate population, not merely part of the larger area.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Instead of acknowledging the hypocrisy inherent in displacing people to create a refuge for the displaced, they choose to justify further displacement under the guise of addressing displacement. Make's complete sense.

I don't even think that was it.

Rather, the world has been pretty hostile towards Jews, but most people were shocked by the horrors of the Holocaust. They wanted to do something--but they didn't really want the Jews--so give them what they wanted, their ancestral lands. I do not believe there was an intent to displace anyone--the Jews were moving there, not expelling anyone from there. It was a change in government, not a change in land ownership--and completely ignoring the fact that Islam wouldn't stand for that. (However, I don't think the world really cared if a colonial power displaced people.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Based on an article in the NYT (behind a paywall), the Times of Israel has published this article, which is critical of the IDF goals in Gaza:

IDF commanders said to believe quashing Hamas, returning hostages alive incompatible​

The NYT interviewed four anonymous "senior commanders", and the IDF has already rejected the claim that the war is unwinnable. However, the tunnel network, which was thought to be about 100 miles long is now estimated to be 450 miles long. There appears to be no way that the IDF can extricate the hostages in a way that they can survive, so diplomacy is the only solution.

But diplomacy is not a solution because the price will be intolerable.

What Israel is doing now is in a sense a diplomatic solution. Return the hostages, we'll stop bombing you.

The interviewed commanders said the unexpected challenges of tackling Hamas, and indecision by Israeli leaders, have made it unlikely that the over 130 Israelis still held by the terror group can be retrieved other than through diplomacy.

The report also noted that the war has not proceeded at the pace expected at its start. Reviewing army estimates and plans from October, the paper said the military had expected to have operational control of Gaza City, Khan Younis and Rafah by the end of December.

Apparently, Hamas is reemerging in areas that the IDF has already cleared.

Probably. Hamas can't get it all, they're going for the equipment.

The Times noted that in northern Gaza, from which the military has removed many of its troops after saying it had destroyed Hamas’s operation infrastructure there, the terror group is already attempting to regain control. Citing an unidentified Israeli official, it said that in recent days, Hamas policemen and welfare figures had emerged in some areas in northern Gaza and sought to reassert authority there.

Troops have been carrying out operations at a lower intensity in northern Gaza for the past several weeks, after the military said it had defeated all of Hamas’s battalions in the area. The soldiers have been working to locate the remaining Hamas sites and kill or capture the terror group’s last operatives.

The Israeli government still appears to have no idea of when or how to end the war, but Defense Minister Gallant has this vision of plodding on:

The war will end when Hamas releases the hostages.
Why do so many of you think Israel is in the wrong when it's Hamas that has hostages?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The longer this war continues, the Israeli material standard of living will diminish. because this war has reduced the available workforce and absorbed other resources that would have been channeled to civilian uses.

Which might be tolerable to the Israeli civilians if more hostages are returned alive on a regular basis. If they start coming home in boxes, there will be major demonstrations and problems for the current government.

If they come home in boxes the people are going to be calling for far worse things to be done.

You are in effect asking the Jews to bow down before their executioner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The longer this war continues, the Israeli material standard of living will diminish. because this war has reduced the available workforce and absorbed other resources that would have been channeled to civilian uses.

Which might be tolerable to the Israeli civilians if more hostages are returned alive on a regular basis. If they start coming home in boxes, there will be major demonstrations and problems for the current government.

I'm confident that Palestinians standard of living is dropping faster than Israelis.
Where are the demonstrations and demands for peace?
Tom

It is all about revenge.

It's about getting the hostages back.

Hamas complied for a little while and had peace. Then they quit complying and went back to war.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is all about revenge.

Why do you think that?
I think it's about security for Israelis.

Doubtless there's an element of revenge. People lost loved ones to a brutal attack and subsequent hostage taking and killings.

But I don't think it's all about revenge.
Tom

If you don't think about revenge, then why gloat about the misery in Gaza?

I don't.
I hate it.
Tom

The content of your posts are radically inconsistent with your claim.

He doesn't like it, either--but he knows who to blame. He hasn't fallen for the propaganda that Israel is in the wrong while it's Hamas that has hostages.

 

[Arctish]

The Palestinian leadership rejected the plan to divide Palestine. They made their own proposal which would have given full and equal citizenship to all Palestinians born in Palestine before the beginning of the British Mandate, regardless of their religious beliefs or ethnic origins, and grant resident status with a path to full citizenship for immigrants who had arrived in Palestine via legal means.

You are neglecting the fact that the Palestinian "plan" amounted to give everything to the Arabs, nothing to the Jews.

Unlike you, I have researched this topic and have read the proposal.

You are utterly mistaken.

Anyway, if you believe the UN created the State of Israel via resolution 181 then you must also believe Israelis invaded their neighbor's territory in April of 1948 with the intention of seizing resources and infrastructure through ethnic cleansing and conquest.

Israel didn't start the war.

Which war, and when did it start? Be specific.

If you are calling the fighting before May 14, 1948 a war, then I agree that Israel didn't start it because Israel didn't exist. But if you are trying to use a cheap rhetorical trick to absolve the Jewish Agency for Palestine of responsibility for the planned ethnic cleansing and seizing of territory by force, i.e. the war of conquest they called the War of Independence, then I disagree. There is no doubt the Zionists started it.

The history of the conflict doesn't start in May of 1948. The bodies of people killed in the strife, soldiers, civilians, LEOs, and terrorists alike, have been filling the graveyards there since the 1920s.

It goes back much, much farther than that. Massacring Jews was common long before then. 1948 is the abuse victim finally escaping.

Link to the evidence that massacring Jews was common, or admit you can't find any.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The longer this war continues, the Israeli material standard of living will diminish. because this war has reduced the available workforce and absorbed other resources that would have been channeled to civilian uses.

Which might be tolerable to the Israeli civilians if more hostages are returned alive on a regular basis. If they start coming home in boxes, there will be major demonstrations and problems for the current government.

Really? What exactly was the your point about the Palestinian standard of living then, because it nothing to do with the content of my post.

Once again you conveniently snip the quote history so as to exclude the words that rebut your position.

Note that you were the one who brought up the standard of living, now you turn around and say it has nothing to do with your post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was not attempting to change my definition. I was attempting to clarify things for you.

Years ago I realized that in certain discussions it was important to be really, really wordy because assuming that other posters could or would ask for clarification was unrealistic. I now realize that I should have gone on for a few paragraphs about the meaning of the term and included several dictionary definitions. I also realize I made a slight error in punctuation. I should have written my initial comment this way:

The term oppression is used to indicate an exercise of unjust and abusive power or authority by one person or group over another; it is not used to indicate mutual hostilities between parties.

The term "oppression" is not used to indicate mutual hostilities, warfare, civil strife, or similar conditions in which two or more parties engage in an exchange of violent acts and aggression with each other. We have other words for mutual bloodletting. It is used when individuals in positions of power (popes, kings, emperors, dictators, etc. ), or groups in positions of power (white supremacists in the Jim Crow era, Japanese troops in Nanking in the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge, etc.), exercised their power over other individuals or groups in unjust and abusive ways.

1) Massacres aren't supposed to be part of warfare.

2) A scene of utter desolation and horror, of Jewish girls with their breasts cut off, of little children with numerous knife wounds and of whole families locked in their homes and burned to death, was described by a Jewish Telegraphic Agency correspondent, who succeeded in reaching this city today.

“It will take days before the world will obtain a true picture of all the atrocities committed by the Arabs during the pogrom on the Jewish quarter,” the correspondent wired.

“The only comparison I can think of is the Palestine riots of 1929. I found Jewish girls with their breasts cut off, greybearded Jews stabbed to death, little Jewish children dead of numerous knife wounds and whole families locked in their homes and burned to death by the rioters.

“Just as in Palestine in 1929, the lists of the dead and injured run into the hundreds with no official estimates available. The hospitals are filled with Jewish victims and the doors of the hospitals are besieged with half-crazed wives and mothers seeking to ascertain whether their loved ones are among the dead or injured, or whether they succeeded in escaping the pogrom bands.

Other than the location and the mention of "wired" this sounds like something that could have been written about 10/7. Except it's 8/8/1934, Algeria.

Just because the victim managed to turn the tables on their abuser doesn't make it not oppression. Look at the big picture!

You are misreading my posts.

The rapes, kidnapping, and murders carried out by Hamas in Israel in October were acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity. We call them that because they fit the definition of the terms 'terrorism' and 'crimes against humanity'.

IMO they were not instances of oppression because they do not fit the definition of the term 'oppression'. You apparently think they do but you have not yet explained your reasoning. I think at this point it is up to you to be really, really wordy in your response and to explain more fully what you mean.

In the overall picture, yes, they are instances of oppression.

I asked you "What definition of the term 'oppression' do you use, and how do you decide who is oppressing whom?" You haven't given me an answer except to say you were using common definitions.

That is a falsehood. I have told you exactly what definition I'm using. If you're forgetting how our discussion has gone because I'm responding slowly, my apologies -- a lot on my plate.

A quick Google search yields several common definitions including
-prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control
-the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.

Palestinians have been targeting Israeli noncombatants for murder for decades. That is prolonged, cruel, and unjust.

The IDF and settlers have been targeting non-Jewish Palestinian non-combatants for murder and mayhem for decades. That, too, is prolonged, cruel, and unjust, and it comes on top of ethnic cleansing and theft of property.

Proof of their non-combatant status?? The Palestinians claiming they weren't combatants and that they were targeted by Israeli actions doesn't mean much.

And note they only list the first names of the "UNWRA workers" killed. If they really were non-combatants why are they going out of their way to hide their identity? Assume anyone they're not fully open about is a combatant and you'll rarely be wrong.