Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

Okay.

So how does killing tens of thousands of civilians and creating hundreds of thousands more Palestinian refugees make Israel more secure?

So how does killing > 1000 people and taking > 200 hostages make Israel more likely to leave Gaza to its own destiny?

I don't think it does.

I don't know what Hamas thought would happen. I doubt they thought it would lead to Israel allowing them to forge their own destiny. And I doubt they believed Israel would go on a killing spree of this magnitude.

I can only guess they wanted Israel to feel threatened as a way to compel the Israelis to modify or scrap certain policies. Perhaps they wanted to pressure Israel into restarting the peace process.

Do you honestly think Gazans will be less radicalized following Israel's current killing spree than they were when Israel was only killing a few hundred Gazans each year?

Or perhaps you could ask the question-
Do you honestly feel Israel is more secure and believe that Gaza can be left to it's own destiny after the 7th October killing spree?

The answer to that question (or any variants thereof) will help answer your question.

Both questions need to be answered yet you persist in only asking and demanding an answer to the 1st question and ignore the 2nd.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, I don't.

I think Hamas are the ones who should be held accountable for the civilian deaths.

Hamas provoked a retaliation and are now hiding behind civilians. So they are to blame.

I understand your point as to blame. But I’m not addressing blame. It seems you agree that the level of response the IDF has taken is justified and that the collateral damage is as expected whoever we “blame” for it.

If Israel were to simply carpet bomb or nuke Gaza, ensuring that 100% of Hamas and Gazans were killed, would that be a justified response and we could simply blame Hamas for the carnage?

I’m not saying Israel shouldn’t respond but clearly there’s a line and we are negotiating that line.

That would be unreasonable. Israel can do better than carpet bombing, therefore they should. However, I do not see anybody proposing a viable path to Israeli safety that would cause less collateral damage.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They're not doing that. They're being as careful as they can without putting their troops at unnecessary risk

If you agree that Israel should respond, and you don't think they're doing a good job, then how do you think they should go about it? Crawl through tunnels Hamas have been booby-trapping for 20 years?

Reality is ugly. Much better to pretend there's some undefined better approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

War crimes are not a necessary outcome of war. If Israel is committing war crimes, then they are doing war wrong.
So cries of "war crime" may be driven by the perception of an actual war crime being committed. For example, when the IDF executed 3 suspected wounded terrorists in a hospital while they were being treated - that was an actual war crime.

And once again you show you have no idea what's actually happening.

1) Just because they were in a hospital doesn't mean they were being treated.

2) And there's no war crime involved, anyway--no civilians died in that act. The hospital wasn't damaged. Just because the events occurred in a hospital doesn't make it an attack on a hospital.

3) And note that in conducting a military meeting in a hospital the neutrality was violated, it doesn't get special protection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

I’m no expert so I don’t know. But it’s possible there is something that they could do. Or is it that what they are doing is the only, or perhaps the “least bad”, option.

Yeah, it's always about some fantasy.

I’m assuming you would agree that nuking Gaza into glass would be bad, yes? And Israel turning the other cheek doesn’t seem like a good idea either. So somewhere in the middle there’s a solution.

To many, the Gazan civilian death toll seems disproportionately high. I don’t know what the right number is. Collateral damage is an unfortunate aspect of war. But many here who support Israel are giving the impression that the current death toll is acceptable, where “acceptable” means not worthy of them questioning the approach of the IDF.

Because people don't like the reality of war. We see it over and over, the bad guys kill civilians to get people to let them have their way.

I'm not saying there is no room for questioning, but we have people who know nothing of war saying the world experts at avoiding civilian casualties how to do their job. (And note that Israel has told the US military that their ideas on how to fight the war would cause too many civilian casualties.)

I also see a death toll of less than one per bomb. One total, not one civilian. They're hitting things and doing a very good job of getting civilians off the X in the process.

I also see repeated blaming Israel for acts that almost certainly are Hamas deliberately killing civilians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Their goal is clear--make it as long as possible before the next Hamas massacre.

It's a cancer they can't hope to cure, they're just trying to knock it back as much as they can.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Security for Israel.

This isn't difficult.
Tom

Okay.

So how does killing tens of thousands of civilians and creating hundreds of thousands more Palestinian refugees make Israel more secure?

Do you honestly think Gazans will be less radicalized following Israel's current killing spree than they were when Israel was only killing a few hundred Gazans each year?

"Tens of thousands" would imply at least 20,000. Hamas' number is 26,751 dead--not distinguishing combatants. Thus we can only look at Israeli data for combatants and they say about 10,000. When I went to school 16,751 was less than 20,000.

And you're also falling for the Hamas propaganda in thinking that how many dead is relevant about radicalization. Radicalization is because of the billions being spent on radicalization. And you're sticking your head in the sand about the Hamas killing spree. They haven't done anything at that scale before, of course Israel is going to react harder than they ever have before.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What can Israel to defend itself and bring down Hamas that will not cause such cries?

I’m no expert so I don’t know. But it’s possible there is something that they could do. Or is it that what they are doing is the only, or perhaps the “least bad”, option.

Yeah, it's always about some fantasy.

I’m assuming you would agree that nuking Gaza into glass would be bad, yes? And Israel turning the other cheek doesn’t seem like a good idea either. So somewhere in the middle there’s a solution.

To many, the Gazan civilian death toll seems disproportionately high. I don’t know what the right number is. Collateral damage is an unfortunate aspect of war. But many here who support Israel are giving the impression that the current death toll is acceptable, where “acceptable” means not worthy of them questioning the approach of the IDF.

Because people don't like the reality of war. We see it over and over, the bad guys kill civilians to get people to let them have their way.

I'm not saying there is no room for questioning, but we have people who know nothing of war saying the world experts at avoiding civilian casualties how to do their job. (And note that Israel has told the US military that their ideas on how to fight the war would cause too many civilian casualties.)

I also see a death toll of less than one per bomb. One total, not one civilian. They're hitting things and doing a very good job of getting civilians off the X in the process.

I also see repeated blaming Israel for acts that almost certainly are Hamas deliberately killing civilians.

So you would agree that the civilian death toll is acceptably low, yes? Any other options would result in more Israeli deaths, eirher now or on the future.

No one can imagine any other method of reducing civilian casualties ( assuming that’s a desirable result) because the IDF are masters at limiting collateral damage.

This is your position, yes?

 

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew who wishes to live in Israel? And remember it is Hamas'opinion that really counts, not yours nor mine.

You can read their Charter yourself. Loren and I discussed specific sections here.

Hamas would not expend so much blood nor treasure if their goal was just a single Palestinian state where all could live in peace.

I disagree.

I think the Palestinians believe the only way they can be secure is to have their own State, the only place they have a right to call their own is Palestine. I believe they are willing to spend just as much blood and treasure as Zionist Jews have spent in order to have one.

Palestinian plans, going all the way back to their response to the UN partition plan, have consistently been inclusive. They want the government that rules over them to be dedicated to the well being of all the Palestinian people, not one that prefers some Palestinians over others.

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

Since Hamas's leadership would have endorsed that charter before publishing I think we can take it very seriously. No salt required.

Hamas are like Bin Laden - they are deadly seriously about what they say and many find that frightening. In the west we are so used to the feckless nature of our government's, politicians and other institutions etc. that it is unnerving to meet those who mean what they say and say what they mean.

The Charter says they reject the persecution of any human being or the undermining of their rights on nationalist, religious, or sectarian grounds.

I see that as an ideal, not something we can expect from the current leadership. I don't trust terrorists or their proteges to be anywhere near that fair minded or respectful of other people's beliefs, cultures, or choices. Or their right to live, for that matter.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I also see repeated blaming Israel for acts that almost certainly are Hamas deliberately killing civilians.

An honest question: can you point to an example?

 

[laughing dog]

War crimes are not a necessary outcome of war. If Israel is committing war crimes, then they are doing war wrong.
So cries of "war crime" may be driven by the perception of an actual war crime being committed. For example, when the IDF executed 3 suspected wounded terrorists in a hospital while they were being treated - that was an actual war crime.

And once again you show you have no idea what's actually happening.

1) Just because they were in a hospital doesn't mean they were being treated.

2) And there's no war crime involved, anyway--no civilians died in that act. The hospital wasn't damaged. Just because the events occurred in a hospital doesn't make it an attack on a hospital.

3) And note that in conducting a military meeting in a hospital the neutrality was violated, it doesn't get special protection.

You got any evidence they weren’t wounded? The news reports I saw said they were being treated.

It is a war crime to shoot combatants who are being treated. I didn’t say anything about an attack on a hospital so what are you babbling about?

 

[Tigers!]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew who wishes to live in Israel? And remember it is Hamas'opinion that really counts, not yours nor mine.

You can read their Charter yourself. Loren and I discussed specific sections here.

Hamas would not expend so much blood nor treasure if their goal was just a single Palestinian state where all could live in peace.

I disagree.

I think the Palestinians believe the only way they can be secure is to have their own State, the only place they have a right to call their own is Palestine. I believe they are willing to spend just as much blood and treasure as Zionist Jews have spent in order to have one.

I wish that a one state would be viable but I think that only a 2 state will work.

Palestinian plans, going all the way back to their response to the UN partition plan, have consistently been inclusive. They want the government that rules over them to be dedicated to their well being, not one that prefers some Palestinians over others.

We will have to disagree on that.

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

Since Hamas's leadership would have endorsed that charter before publishing I think we can take it very seriously. No salt required.

Hamas are like Bin Laden - they are deadly seriously about what they say and many find that frightening. In the west we are so used to the feckless nature of our government's, politicians and other institutions etc. that it is unnerving to meet those who mean what they say and say what they mean.

So you take them at their word that they reject the persecution of any human being or the undermining of their rights on nationalist, religious, or sectarian grounds?

I take them at their word that "River to the sea - Palestine will be free" means no Jews.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't trust terrorists or their proteges to be anywhere near that fair minded or respectful of other people's beliefs, cultures, or choices. Or their right to live, for that matter.

The 7th of Oct. should have convinced anyone as to what Hamas really thinks and wants of the Jews.

 

[Tigers!]

So how does killing > 1000 people and taking > 200 hostages make Israel more likely to leave Gaza to its own destiny?

I don't think it does.

I don't know what Hamas thought would happen. I doubt they thought it would lead to Israel allowing them to forge their own destiny. And I doubt they believed Israel would go on a killing spree of this magnitude.

That knew exactly what would happen - Israel would hit Gaza. Granted they did not expect the ferocity of the Israeli response. The timing with regards to the Israeli-Saudi talks was no coincidence.

I can only guess they wanted Israel to feel threatened as a way to compel the Israelis to modify or scrap certain policies. Perhaps they wanted to pressure Israel into restarting the peace process.

There was a peace process occurring. Israel was talking to Saudi Arabia about normalisation of relations. but the 7th of Oct. scuttled that.

 

[Arctish]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew who wishes to live in Israel? And remember it is Hamas'opinion that really counts, not yours nor mine.

You can read their Charter yourself. Loren and I discussed specific sections here.

Hamas would not expend so much blood nor treasure if their goal was just a single Palestinian state where all could live in peace.

I disagree.

I think the Palestinians believe the only way they can be secure is to have their own State, the only place they have a right to call their own is Palestine. I believe they are willing to spend just as much blood and treasure as Zionist Jews have spent in order to have one.

I wish that a one state would be viable but I think that only a 2 state will work.

I agree that a Two State solution could work but the obstacles are actually larger.

The Two State solution requires an equitable division of the land and resources of Palestine so that both States can prosper. The faction that currently has control over arable land, aquifers, mineral deposits, etc., isn't going to give it up without a fight.

Integration in a single State would be less economically disruptive, which is why I think it's more likely to succeed.

Palestinian plans, going all the way back to their response to the UN partition plan, have consistently been inclusive. They want the government that rules over them to be dedicated to their well being, not one that prefers some Palestinians over others.

We will have to disagree on that.

Have you ever looked at the Palestinian proposals?

You can take that with a very large grain of salt. The ideals expressed in the Charter don't necessarily conform with the opinions of Hamas' leadership, much less the rank-and-file militants.

Since Hamas's leadership would have endorsed that charter before publishing I think we can take it very seriously. No salt required.

Hamas are like Bin Laden - they are deadly seriously about what they say and many find that frightening. In the west we are so used to the feckless nature of our government's, politicians and other institutions etc. that it is unnerving to meet those who mean what they say and say what they mean.

So you take them at their word that they reject the persecution of any human being or the undermining of their rights on nationalist, religious, or sectarian grounds?

I take them at their word that "River to the sea - Palestine will be free" means no Jews.

Palestine will be free does not necessarily mean Palestine will have no Jews.

The Hamas Charter makes a distinction between Jews and Zionists. You should read it.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't trust terrorists or their proteges to be anywhere near that fair minded or respectful of other people's beliefs, cultures, or choices. Or their right to live, for that matter.

The 7th of Oct. should have convinced anyone as to what Hamas really thinks and wants of the Jews.

...which is why I don't trust the Hamas leadership to uphold the ideals expressed in the Charter, and why I think Hamas needs to be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box.

 

[Rhea]

It occurs to me that if Hamas is using the kidnapped Israeli citizens as human shields, then it is justifuable to kill the human shields, because they should have escaped and gone somewhere else - according to the IDF and several posters here.

Just thinking about that today.

 

[Tigers!]

What is Israel's goal in Gaza?

Is it to defeat Hamas militarily and get a peace treaty with the PA? Is it to install a quisling government that will comply with Israel's wishes? Is it to clear the way for Zionist settlers? Is it to forever destroy any chance the Palestinians might have the strength and ability to form a Palestinian State in Palestine?

Does Israel simply want to kill as many Gazans as it can, while it can?

Whilst you are asking such existential questions you could ask what is Hamas' goal in Israel? Total destruction of Israel, death or exile of all Jews, 2 state solution.? Something else?

According to their Charter (linked earlier in this thread) their goal is the end of the Zionist state and the creation of a single Palestinian State. The Charter says their fight is not with the Jews, it is with the Zionists. Jewish Palestinians would be full and equal citizens in the Palestinian State, and immigrants could apply for legal resident status.

What is the difference between a Zionist and a Jew who wishes to live in Israel? And remember it is Hamas'opinion that really counts, not yours nor mine.

You can read their Charter yourself. Loren and I discussed specific sections here.

Hamas would not expend so much blood nor treasure if their goal was just a single Palestinian state where all could live in peace.

I disagree.

I think the Palestinians believe the only way they can be secure is to have their own State, the only place they have a right to call their own is Palestine. I believe they are willing to spend just as much blood and treasure as Zionist Jews have spent in order to have one.

I wish that a one state would be viable but I think that only a 2 state will work.

I agree that a Two State solution could work but the obstacles are actually larger.

The Two State solution requires an equitable division of the land and resources of Palestine so that both States can prosper. The faction that currently has control over arable land, aquifers, mineral deposits, etc., isn't going to give it up without a fight.

Integration in a single State would be less economically disruptive, which is why I think it's more likely to succeed.

Palestinian plans, going all the way back to their response to the UN partition plan, have consistently been inclusive. They want the government that rules over them to be dedicated to their well being, not one that prefers some Palestinians over others.

We will have to disagree on that.

Have you ever looked at the Palestinian proposals?

Yes. The ones before partition and the ones since. Many flowerily words and fine phrases. Sounds so good, yet if the will is not there to implement them then those fine words mean little/nothing.
There were anti-Jewish before WW2 when the Jewish population was much fewer. Unlikely that now being more Jews in the area would decrease the chances of future pogroms. there was the expulsion from Jews from Morocco to Afghanistan in 1948-51 (or so). If the local Arabs could not live with the existing Jewish communities then why would it be better now?
I would not blame the Jews or any one else for that matter, being reluctant to trust others.
Palestine will be free does not necessarily mean Palestine will have no Jews. Jews will require more than the word "necessarily". Necessarily is not a synonym for will not happen. It is Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. that will détermine whether any Jews live in that area. Not you, not me, not the UN. And their rhetoric and actions would not give Jews many reasons to think that they would be safe.

The Hamas Charter makes a distinction between Jews and Zionists. You should read it.

I have not looked at it for a few years now. The original or the latest version?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I also see repeated blaming Israel for acts that almost certainly are Hamas deliberately killing civilians.

An honest question: can you point to an example?

Hamas respects no rules of engagement. What more do you need to know? Hamas have been open about their behaviour from the start. As well as demonstrating it

 

[DrZoidberg]

It occurs to me that if Hamas is using the kidnapped Israeli citizens as human shields, then it is justifuable to kill the human shields, because they should have escaped and gone somewhere else - according to the IDF and several posters here.

Just thinking about that today.

Hamas needs to make it possible for the civilians to go somewhere safe. But there isn't. They can't be temporarily be moved out of Gaza because fighters hide among the refugees. They're all potential fighters.

The fact that the IDF have no way of distinguishing from fighters and civilians of course impact civilians negatively. Combat uniforms for soldiers aren't just decorative

And Israeli hostages have been accidentally shot. For this reason.

And those here who are pro-Palestinian are you somehow fine with Hamas still having hostages? Was it OK that Hamas first took them? What's the logic here?

 

[Arctish]

Have you ever looked at the Palestinian proposals?

Yes. The ones before partition and the ones since. Many flowerily words and fine phrases. Sounds so good, yet if the will is not there to implement them then those fine words mean little/nothing.

I would like to see what you looked at. Please link to them if you can find them.

I don't believe that what the Palestinians lacked was the will to implement their proposals. IMO what they lacked was the support of other nations with power and influence, or enough power and influence of their own.

There were anti-Jewish before WW2 when the Jewish population was much fewer. Unlikely that now being more Jews in the area would decrease the chances of future pogroms. there was the expulsion from Jews from Morocco to Afghanistan in 1948-51 (or so). If the local Arabs could not live with the existing Jewish communities then why would it be better now?
I would not blame the Jews or any one else for that matter, being reluctant to trust others.

Who are you talking about when you say "they"?

Why are you blaming Palestinians for what Moroccans did? That's like blaming the Swiss for what the Belgians did.

And why are you saying the local Arabs could not live in peace with the existing Jewish communities? They did it for centuries before Zionism and a massive influx of European immigrants determined to achieve Jewish sovereignty fractured Palestinian society.

Palestine will be free does not necessarily mean Palestine will have no Jews. Jews will require more than the word "necessarily". Necessarily is not a synonym for will not happen. It is Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. that will détermine whether any Jews live in that area. Not you, not me, not the UN. And their rhetoric and actions would not give Jews many reasons to think that they would be safe.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are extremist organizations full of terrorists and zealots. They do not represent the Palestinian people as a whole any more than Kach represents Israelis.

Yes, there are violent racist bigots willing to murder people to maintain racial, religious, and ethnic separation in Israel and Palestine. It will take courage and fortitude to stand up to them. But if you want peace, you have to support the peacemakers and defy the warmongers. You can't just surrender your principles when the going gets tough. Not if you want to have any principles, that is.

The Hamas Charter makes a distinction between Jews and Zionists. You should read it.

I have not looked at it for a few years now. The original or the latest version?

Presumably the latest version is the one the current leaders endorsed.

 

[Arctish]

I can't fix the spelling error in the previous post. Too much time has elapsed.