Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Arctish]

Do you honestly think that Israel would allow PA police officers to cross Israel from the West Bank to Gaza at a moment's notice to respond to reports of Hamas activities? Do you honestly think Israel would allow the PA to acquire the high tech surveillance equipment, armored vehicles, body armor, weapons, and ammunition it would need to take down Hamas, and to train up its police officers to the level of Delta Force commandos?

Get serious.

The PA is never going to become that well armed and effective while Israel has any say in the matter.

You need to get serious about understanding.

The PA police officers do nothing to stop terrorism from the West Bank. In fact, there's a decent amount of overlap between police and terrorists. Remember when Israel armed the PA police? Israel promptly was facing the very weapons they had provided.

You need to get serious about supporting your claims.

 

[Derec]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

Why should that be a "starting point"? The 1967 borders are merely an armistice line, and not sacrosanct. It ignores issues such as Jerusalem. And by "starting point", do you mean that Palestinians should get even more, such as the bogus "right of return"?

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

I do not see Israel agreeing to that. Palestinians would like it since they have a ridiculously huge birth rate. And not by accident either - they use it as a demographic weapon against Israel.

 

[Derec]

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

Terrorists and assholes are essential for upholding of those so-called "ideals".

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism.

Which is why it is right of Israel to fight against them.

I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might),

This guy (Fathi Hamas) is a Hamas leader:

or that they think Jews are their only enemies.

Of course not. Their enemies are anybody who is opposed to making "Palestine" into an Islamic theocracy, including other Palestinians.

I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

And what if they "get their way"? Do you think they will be any less oppressive?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do you honestly think that Israel would allow PA police officers to cross Israel from the West Bank to Gaza at a moment's notice to respond to reports of Hamas activities? Do you honestly think Israel would allow the PA to acquire the high tech surveillance equipment, armored vehicles, body armor, weapons, and ammunition it would need to take down Hamas, and to train up its police officers to the level of Delta Force commandos?

Get serious.

The PA is never going to become that well armed and effective while Israel has any say in the matter.

You need to get serious about understanding.

The PA police officers do nothing to stop terrorism from the West Bank. In fact, there's a decent amount of overlap between police and terrorists. Remember when Israel armed the PA police? Israel promptly was facing the very weapons they had provided.

You need to get serious about supporting your claims.

Come on. Worst kept secrets. The UN stopped aid shipments because the Palestinian administrators handling it were all known, and very guilty, Hamas terrorists. This was the PA. They then struggled to find anyone not guilty.

The people who run Gaza are all guilty as fuck. Which is why Israel has now invaded.

The Palestinians haven’t even tried being good neighbors. I say the Palestinians, because this us bigger than any single group. No, we don't know how many of them want to live in peace with Jews. But either way, they seem to have zero ability to influence PA or Hamas policy, in a constructive direction

 

[Arctish]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

Why should that be a "starting point"? The 1967 borders are merely an armistice line, and not sacrosanct.

That was the agreement when the Oslo Accords were signed. The 1967 borders were the outline for the borders between the two States, with the possibility of land swaps so Israel could keep some of the larger settlements and Palestinians could get back some of the land the Zionists had seized.

Resuming negotiations where the peace process stalled is much more sensible than trying to reinvent the wheel every time some asshole murders a political leader.

It ignores issues such as Jerusalem.

The Oslo Accords did not ignore Jerusalem.

And by "starting point", do you mean that Palestinians should get even more, such as the bogus "right of return"?

Are you saying the Right of Return is bogus, or are you trying to argue that only Jews have it?

The State of Israel is founded on the notion that Jews have a Right of Return to Eretz Israel, aka Palestine, based on their religious dogma, cultural beliefs, and ancestry. Palestinians have just as much religious dogma, culture, and ancestry supporting the same thing, plus the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Rights of Refugees.

But of course you know all that.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

I do not see Israel agreeing to that. Palestinians would like it since they have a ridiculously huge birth rate. And not by accident either - they use it as a demographic weapon against Israel.

I think Netanyahu and his political faction would sabotage a Two State solution just like he bragged about doing to the Oslo Accords. I think they will try to implement a Rogue State solution but will find a reinvigorated BDS movement is just the beginning of the blowback, and that they will ultimately fail to achieve the religious-ethnic purity they desire in the State of Israel. That leaves the One State solution.

Yitzhak Rabin wasn't trying to do something nice for the Palestinians when he agreed to the Oslo Accords. He was trying to secure Israel's future as a Jewish State for the Jewish people. He knew that if Palestinians didn't have their own State in Palestine they would be living in Israel and eventually they would achieve equality with Israeli Jews. That or else they would be "dead or fled" as Loren likes to put it. Rabin wasn't willing to bet the world would tolerate genocide committed by people saying they needed their own State because some States commit genocide.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

Why should that be a "starting point"? The 1967 borders are merely an armistice line, and not sacrosanct.

That was the agreement when the Oslo Accords were signed. The 1967 borders were the outline for the borders between the two States, with the possibility of land swaps so Israel could keep some of the larger settlements and Palestinians could get back some of the land the Zionists had seized.

Resuming negotiations where the peace process stalled is much more sensible than trying to reinvent the wheel every time some asshole murders a political leader.

It ignores issues such as Jerusalem.

The Oslo Accords did not ignore Jerusalem.

And by "starting point", do you mean that Palestinians should get even more, such as the bogus "right of return"?

Are you saying the Right of Return is bogus, or are you trying to argue that only Jews have it?

The State of Israel is founded on the notion that Jews have a Right of Return to Eretz Israel, aka Palestine, based on their religious dogma, cultural beliefs, and ancestry. Palestinians have just as much religious dogma, culture, and ancestry supporting the same thing, plus the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Rights of Refugees.

But of course you know all that.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

I do not see Israel agreeing to that. Palestinians would like it since they have a ridiculously huge birth rate. And not by accident either - they use it as a demographic weapon against Israel.

I think Netanyahu and his political faction would sabotage a Two State solution just like he bragged about doing to the Oslo Accords. I think they will try to implement a Rogue State solution but will find a reinvigorated BDS movement is just the beginning of the blowback, and that they will ultimately fail to achieve the religious-ethnic purity they desire in the State of Israel. That leaves the One State solution.

Yitzhak Rabin wasn't trying to do something nice for the Palestinians when he agreed to the Oslo Accords. He was trying to secure Israel's future as a Jewish State for the Jewish people. He knew that if Palestinians didn't have their own State in Palestine they would be living in Israel and eventually they would achieve equality with Israeli Jews. That or else they would be "dead or fled" as Loren likes to put it. Rabin wasn't willing to bet the world would tolerate genocide committed by people saying they needed their own State because some States commit genocide.

Who gives a shit? The Arab Israeli wars were lost by the Arabs, and they were always in the wrong. This was half a century ago.

Nobody in power now had power then. We're two generations of leaders later.

The Jews aren't going anywhere and if the Palestinians can't (collectively) accept that then, by this point, they will need to be controlled and neutered.

The continual bad behaviour by the Palestinians shouldn't be endlessly tolerated

 

[Arctish]

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

Why should that be a "starting point"? The 1967 borders are merely an armistice line, and not sacrosanct.

That was the agreement when the Oslo Accords were signed. The 1967 borders were the outline for the borders between the two States, with the possibility of land swaps so Israel could keep some of the larger settlements and Palestinians could get back some of the land the Zionists had seized.

Resuming negotiations where the peace process stalled is much more sensible than trying to reinvent the wheel every time some asshole murders a political leader.

It ignores issues such as Jerusalem.

The Oslo Accords did not ignore Jerusalem.

And by "starting point", do you mean that Palestinians should get even more, such as the bogus "right of return"?

Are you saying the Right of Return is bogus, or are you trying to argue that only Jews have it?

The State of Israel is founded on the notion that Jews have a Right of Return to Eretz Israel, aka Palestine, based on their religious dogma, cultural beliefs, and ancestry. Palestinians have just as much religious dogma, culture, and ancestry supporting the same thing, plus the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Rights of Refugees.

But of course you know all that.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

I do not see Israel agreeing to that. Palestinians would like it since they have a ridiculously huge birth rate. And not by accident either - they use it as a demographic weapon against Israel.

I think Netanyahu and his political faction would sabotage a Two State solution just like he bragged about doing to the Oslo Accords. I think they will try to implement a Rogue State solution but will find a reinvigorated BDS movement is just the beginning of the blowback, and that they will ultimately fail to achieve the religious-ethnic purity they desire in the State of Israel. That leaves the One State solution.

Yitzhak Rabin wasn't trying to do something nice for the Palestinians when he agreed to the Oslo Accords. He was trying to secure Israel's future as a Jewish State for the Jewish people. He knew that if Palestinians didn't have their own State in Palestine they would be living in Israel and eventually they would achieve equality with Israeli Jews. That or else they would be "dead or fled" as Loren likes to put it. Rabin wasn't willing to bet the world would tolerate genocide committed by people saying they needed their own State because some States commit genocide.

Who gives a shit? The Arab Israeli wars were lost by the Arabs, and they were always in the wrong. This was half a century ago.

Nobody in power now had power then. We're two generations of leaders later.

The Jews aren't going anywhere and if the Palestinians can't (collectively) accept that then, by this point, they will need to be controlled and neutered.

Racism + advocating genocide + double standards, with a side order of Might Makes Right and the phrases abusers employ to make their assholery sound just and fair.

The continual bad behaviour by the Palestinians shouldn't be endlessly tolerated

IOW the beatings will continue until the Palestinians are utterly compliant, after which they will only happen sporadically to keep the Palestinians in line. Shipments of food and the cessation of bombing in Gaza will be contingent on abject submission to the will of Israel by all Palestinians everywhere. If one Palestinian resorts to violence, they will all be punished. And when the world notices the starved, beaten captives in Israel's basement, Israel will say it had to be strict because otherwise the Palestinians wouldn't have done what Israel told them to do, and that would have been wrong because Israel is Good and the Palestinians are Bad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think you need to work hard to misunderstand to read any contradiction into my posts

I think the problem is that you post complex and nuanced opinions. They don't fit the simplistic narrative of "Palestinians are victims of Zionist oppression", therefore you mostly get strawman arguments in response.
Tom

Naw, we just ain't into genocide like Dr. Z. <----- Strawmen are fun!

That's a bizarre statement. Considering that Israels invasion is to stop genocide. But whatever. Maybe Jewish lives don’t matter to you?

You responded to a clearly sarcastic strawman with a real one?

Probably explains your problematic issue with understanding other positions on Israel and Palestine that people have.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An error was made somewhere, possibly by me, that caused other people's words to appear to be mine. I am not the author of the paragraph that begins with the comparison of Hamas to Bin Laden.

That was me a lot of posts ago.

Also, I have repeatedly said that IMO Hamas has too many terrorists and assholes in its ranks to live up to the ideals expressed in its Charter.

I do believe Hamas wants a single Palestinian State, and I do believe they want to bring about the utter defeat of Zionism. I do not believe that Hamas leaders simply want to kill Jews (although some of its fighters might), or that they think Jews are their only enemies. I believe they kill, abuse, and kidnap unarmed civilian Israelis because they have embraced terrorism as a means to an end, and the end they desire is to be powerful, influential, and to get their way in everything.

I believe. too, that Hamas want a single Palestinian state. It is the composition of said state that is the question. It would be Palestinian but I fear with no Jews at least and perhaps no non-Palestinians

Well, since no one posting in this thread appears to want Hamas to win, or believes Hamas could possibly win, can we move on to discussing the kind of State the PA wants, and the kind of State the Zionist hardliners Netanyahu leads want?

By all means. Lead on MacDuff.

It starts with a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders.

I don't think it's likely to happen, but calling for Israel to withdraw its people from the Occupied Territories and recognize the Palestinian State is the obvious starting point for a negotiated deal.

My personal opinion is that Israel and Palestine are heading towards a political shotgun marriage in a messy One State solution.

Crazy that this is an optimistic view. I think that Gaza is being razed for permanent Israeli occupation. The Gazans are about to become homeless.

This will feel good for a bit, but this will not lead to a peace for Israel which is supposed to be the goal of alll of this. This action will likely radicalize millions.

 

[laughing dog]

Palestinian self-rule does not mean Hamas is free to operate in Gaza. That is a ridiculous excluded middle fallacy.

Palestinian self rule means Palestinian police go after terrorists and other criminals in the State of Palestine. It means The Palestinian government can seek assistance from foreign governments if it so desires.

And seven days are nowhere near a week!

(The Palestinians have chosen and continue to choose the path of violence--10/7 polls higher than Hamas. Thus Palestinian self rule means the war continues.)

Its illogic like the above that supports bigotry and ethnic cleansing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who gives a shit? The Arab Israeli wars were lost by the Arabs, and they were always in the wrong. This was half a century ago.

Nobody in power now had power then. We're two generations of leaders later.

The Jews aren't going anywhere and if the Palestinians can't (collectively) accept that then, by this point, they will need to be controlled and neutered.

I'm assuming that was a very shitty metaphor and not meant to be taken seriously?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Calling what Israel is doing "ethnic-cleansing" is trivialising that expression. They're just defending themselves Since the Palestinians Hamas just won't stop attacking Israel they need to do whatever they need to do. Any military or police action does a lot of damage. But they are being as gentle as it's militarily sensible for them to be.

I've fixed the discrepancy between our viewpoints. Your remaining assertions are reasonable ones, barring any contradictory evidence.

Changing the name doesn't change the reality of the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying "Palestinians" and not "Hamas" is entirely appropriate. That's not saying they all took part or all are guilty. But it moves the focus to something more appropriate than just Hamas

Ignore the fact this contradicts your assertion that all Palestinians helped support the 7/10 attack. So, are you suggesting that Iran wasn't involved at all? Do you believe that only Palestinians supplied Hamas with weapons? Are you also denying that Hamas has redirected US funds? Is your position that solely the Palestinians are involved?

The fact that there is major outside support is what enables them to actually engage in such violence. That is in no way a rebuttal to the fact that they desire to engage in such violence. The desire is the result of decades of brainwashing teaching them that that's the path they should pursue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire Palestinian society helped support the 7/10 attack

You might avoid the worst of the pedantic arguments and goal post shifting by rephrasing that as "The enormous bulk of the adult Palestinian society helped support the 7/10 attack."
Which is clearly true.
It's not just the ones actively digging tunnels, storing weapons caches, or building all those thousands of missiles. It's also the people who were aware of the build up of the military installations, under and around civilian infrastructure, but didn't complain about it.
Tom

I would think hardly none of the Palestinian society knew of the attack plans. Such an attack requires secrecy.

Exact attack plans, obviously secret. The basic intention, decided not secret.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Palestinians advocate for resistance against Israel, not for committing war crimes against it. The distinction seems lost on some, which is bewildering.

The distinction is lost because it doesn't exist. They know what 10/7 was, they cheer it on. They likely do not know that such things are war crimes but they certainly favor them.

It's particularly striking to hear Americans criticize Palestinians for defending their territory.

And once again you get it wrong. They aren't defending their territory, they are trying to take and cleanse Israel.

This reaction is ironic, given the extensive history of Native American tribes resisting American settlers and the U.S. government to protect their lands. The parallel begs the question: what else would one anticipate in such a situation? Acknowledge the truth that the British Empire intentionally established settlements in Palestine, fully anticipating resistance. They were well aware of the potential consequences of their actions. Yet, today, we seem to be feigning surprise, as if the universe was created just 6,000 years ago and the State of Israel was founded on October 7th.

Because the sort of thing we see in Palestine only happens with major outside funding. You don't see resistance movements slaughtering Muslims like this despite multiple situations they have perpetrated that are far worse than Gaza. That's because there's no power large enough who supports in engaging in such actions. The closest the world has seen have been the wars in Afghanistan (first round--kicking out the Russians) and Ukraine--but note that in both cases the violence was directed almost entirely at enemy combatants and that that support would very quickly dry up if they were to engage in atrocities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would think hardly none of the Palestinian society knew of the attack plans. Such an attack requires secrecy.

Had all that stuff popped into existence on Oct 6th I'd agree. But it didn't.
I've no doubt that the scope and timing weren't public knowledge. But the terrorist build up for an attack on Israel was not a secret.
Tom

Funny, the Palestinians should have known, but not the Israelis, who actually have active intelligence operations in Gaza.

Of course Israel knew Gaza would attack. That's a given. The question is the details of when/where/how. I suspect those details were closely held.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, repeated carpet bombing would be genocidal. The current operation is consistent with revenge and other motives.

I don't doubt that revenge is an element. It's the other motives that matter. Degrading Gazan ability to launch violent terrorism is one biggy. Who knows, maybe Gazans will realize that Hamas is their real oppressors, not Israel?
I dunno.
Tom

Hamas is not the oppressor. They are the tools of the oppressors. While they have a fair amount of freedom of exactly how to accomplish their goals those goals and the funding for them are of external origin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

On what basis are you determining that their current approach is the most gentle they could take to still achieve their desired goals?

Nobody can come up with one that's better.
The goal is provide security for Israel by causing maximum degradation to Gazan military installations.
Given the circumstances, keeping casualties below 30k seems quite good. If they were after revenge they could carpet bomb the place.
Tom

Nobody at all? I understand the goal. And I also understand that innocent casualties are unavoidable in war. But to assume that the current approach is the only possible one that can achieve those goals seems a bit oversimplified.

But, assuming this is indeed the best approach then clearly it is a justified amount of civilian deaths if the Israeli response is justified at all, yes? That’s the implication of what you and others here are saying.

Normally a foe who is at such a disadvantage surrenders. Hamas does not, thus the bombardment continues until Israel can't find anything more worth hitting. It is not wrong to pummel a foe who will not surrender.

 

[Shadowy Man]

On what basis are you determining that their current approach is the most gentle they could take to still achieve their desired goals?

Nobody can come up with one that's better.
The goal is provide security for Israel by causing maximum degradation to Gazan military installations.
Given the circumstances, keeping casualties below 30k seems quite good. If they were after revenge they could carpet bomb the place.
Tom

Nobody at all? I understand the goal. And I also understand that innocent casualties are unavoidable in war. But to assume that the current approach is the only possible one that can achieve those goals seems a bit oversimplified.

But, assuming this is indeed the best approach then clearly it is a justified amount of civilian deaths if the Israeli response is justified at all, yes? That’s the implication of what you and others here are saying.

Normally a foe who is at such a disadvantage surrenders. Hamas does not, thus the bombardment continues until Israel can't find anything more worth hitting. It is not wrong to pummel a foe who will not surrender.

I understand. So the civilian deaths are justified because Hamas isn’t surrendering, you agree?

“It is not wrong”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Regarding the amount of "children" dying. I think that lack of granularity is causing some of the politicking about this number.

If you have the raw numbers of age and sex who have died then you can start to have a better discussion.

To be frank, yes a 14 year old male can be trained and right now be very motivated to do damage to the IDF.

So even if all 13-17 year old males who have died are removed from the category of "child", what would that do to the child deaths in Gaza?

Is the assumption that it is less tragic if a fourteen year old male dies because he could have been trained to be a combatant? That appears to be the takeaway from your post.

It's not "could be trained", but "was acting as". I haven't seen any decent demographic distributions of deaths in the current conflict (and last I knew the Hamas numbers didn't add up and we have no others) but in past conflicts the deaths of "children" skewed very sharply upwards and male at about 16. Same thing we see in the US with "children" in gangs--the "childhood" death rate from guns goes up sharply as they near the end of childhood.