Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Can you provide a link to that data?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I agree, sorta, but I think it's worse than that.
Hamas is doing the bidding of wealthy supporters which includes Iran. They've no official power, but they control the money and guns. Which they get from those wealthy Islamic supporters.
But those supporters are not only Iranian. There's plenty of other super rich Islamic theocrats. You might not know their names, but if Iran were to agree to a permanent peace deal with Israel* other supporters would undoubtedly step in and prop up Islamic terrorists like Hamas. Hamas might be forced out, but they'd undoubtedly regroup under another name and continue more or less the same.

Yes, but Iran is the big player in terrorism. And the Saudis have realized that the strategy of pointing their hotheads elsewhere doesn't work too well--there won't be a lot of other support. And the other support is easier to go after, there's just no point with Iran being the big problem.

Neither Israelis nor Gazan civilians have any good options.
Tom

Agreed.

 

[laughing dog]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Work with the data logically, not illogically.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

Make a deal and honor a deal are two different things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

Which was both intentional and no secret.
Even I knew about it.
Tom

Of course we knew--the question was how big it was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As usual, you missed the point. Killing noncombatants is wrong. Whether the percentage is 10% or 90% noncombatant, it is fucking wrong. Quibbling over the number of "justified" dead reminds of the Holocaust denier MO of quibbling about the exact number of Holocaust victims. It is simply a smokescreen to divert from the inhuman tragedy.

As usual you are ignoring the reality--in war civilians will die.

The measure is whether they are being minimized or not. And you have presented no viable approach to reducing them below current levels.

Personally, I'm getting less worried about the deaths and more worried that there is being no place for them to return to. Civilians die in war both as a consequence of chance, intent, and indifference. But having the homes destroyed en masse in such a way that the Palestinians can't possibly rebuild... that can only be intentional.

That's the inevitable result of their houses being built on Hamas infrastructure. It's looking like Gaza had the world's most extensive subway system, albeit without trains.

I mean Gaza, not some house in Gaza.

You apparently don't realize that most anything that matters in Gaza is under Hamas control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Can you provide a link to that data?

Google hit #1: https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it before.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think Hamas has much say. No deal without Iran is a bigger target. But Iran doesn't want a deal.

I think the one thing history has shown us is that Iran is always willing to make a deal. It just depends on the terms.

Make a deal and honor a deal are two different things.

Iran does have reason to distrust the US as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Work with the data logically, not illogically.

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

 

[laughing dog]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Work with the data logically, not illogically.

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The civilians favor the attacks. They share some of the culpability.

You keep repeating that inanity. Unless the civilians favored it a prior, you are spouting illogic.

Since it was obviously secret no such poll results can exist. We can only work with the data we have--which says that Gaza supports 10/7 and the Muslim world in general also supports it.

Can you provide a link to that data?

Google hit #1: https://www.reuters.com/world/middl...attack-israel-support-hamas-rises-2023-12-14/

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it before.

From your link:

Fifty-two percent of Gazans and 85% of West Bank respondents - or 72% of Palestinian respondents overall - voiced satisfaction with the role of Hamas in the war.

Conveniently, it is the ones not getting bombed that favor the war more.

 

[Arctish]

It starts with the leaders in both Gaza and Israel affirming the 1967 borders as the permanent borders.

Hamas offered to do it years ago. It will be necessary for them to publicly affirm it again. Israel never has, IMO because the most militant factions in Israeli society want to seize all of Eretz Israel, even the parts that are now the Kingdom of Jordan. It will be a helluva fight in the Knesset to get them to agree that Gaza isn't part of Israel, and will only ever become part of Israel if the Gazans are willing.

Repeat this ad nauseum won't make it true.

And the Israeli radicals only have power because "peace" has been repeatedly shown to make things worse. They have been repeatedly rewarded (fewer attacks) by aggressive actions, repeatedly punished (more attacks) by peaceful actions.

So how's that list of concessions Israel has allegedly made coming along?

Also, during what time period did this alleged 'peace' happen, what actions were the 'peaceful' ones?

You aren't just going to repeat a bunch of unsupported claims over and over again and hope no one notices you never provided any evidence that any of it was true, are you?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

 

[laughing dog]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.

. A possibility is not a fact.

 

[Arctish]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Ashkelon is too close. Hamas already attacked there. Hamas has to be destroyed first.

Or, rather, maybe a few thousand could be evacuated there, if it's likely Hamas wouldn't attack there again. But even so, the real number of evacuees would probably be too many, so other destinations are also necessary, not only one.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

If Israelis can do what is necessary to destroy Hamas, and there are no non-combatant civilians in the way, then there's no problem, and no civilians are getting killed.

But it seems there is a problem, if we believe the news, and those civilians have to go somewhere else. So, evacuate them. Israelis are entitled to retaliate as necessary to finish the job. From the coast they could be evacuated on boats. And they have to go somewhere far enough away from Hamas and the current area of combat.

 

[Arctish]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Ashkelon is too close. Hamas already attacked there. Hamas has to be destroyed first.

Or, rather, maybe a few thousand could be evacuated there, if it's likely Hamas wouldn't attack there again. But even so, the real number of evacuees would probably be too many, so other destinations are also necessary, not only one.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

If Israelis can do what is necessary to destroy Hamas, and there are no non-combatant civilians in the way, then there's no problem, and no civilians are getting killed.

But it seems there is a problem, if we believe the news, and those civilians have to go somewhere else. So, evacuate them. Israelis are entitled to retaliate as necessary to finish the job. From the coast they could be evacuated on boats. And they have to go somewhere far enough away from Hamas and the current area of combat.

They could be evacuated to the new settlements Israel recently built in the West Bank. That would put them in much better living conditions and away from the fighting.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why not Evacuation?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:

that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Ashkelon is too close. Hamas already attacked there. Hamas has to be destroyed first.

Or, rather, maybe a few thousand could be evacuated there, if it's likely Hamas wouldn't attack there again. But even so, the real number of evacuees would probably be too many, so other destinations are also necessary, not only one.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

If Israelis can do what is necessary to destroy Hamas, and there are no non-combatant civilians in the way, then there's no problem, and no civilians are getting killed.

But it seems there is a problem, if we believe the news, and those civilians have to go somewhere else. So, evacuate them. Israelis are entitled to retaliate as necessary to finish the job. From the coast they could be evacuated on boats. And they have to go somewhere far enough away from Hamas and the current area of combat.

They could be evacuated to the new settlements Israel recently built in the West Bank. That would put them in much better living conditions and away from the fighting.

Maybe. As long as this doesn't displace someone already there or already moving in there. Any location where they don't displace someone else. For a large number, there'd have to be more than only one location. It might have to be currently unoccupied space, in camps. It has to be subsidized from somewhere. Several countries have to provide aid, which is practical, even if costly. It's better than 50,000 more getting killed.

Maybe you're right that Israel should be required to accept a certain number, provided there are other evacuation locations also. What if the number is 1 million or 2 million?

Has the offer been made to Israel? -- I.e. Israel must accept a certain number, 10 or 20 or 30 thousand. And others will go to other locations -- 100,000 or whatever. Maybe Israel would agree to accept a certain number in such an agreement. But still, the relocation areas have to be away from the combat. What's the likelihood of that (within Israel, West Bank, etc.)?

I see Ashkelon's population is about150,000. So maybe it's possible to put 10,000 refugees there? There are many nearby regions less densely populated. There are many coastal desert regions a few hundred miles away, suitable for temporary camps until Israel kills off Hamas.

Hamas is the cause of the problem, not Israel.

But it's true that Israel should make some sacrifice, accepting a percentage of the refugees if other countries will take care of the rest.

 

[Arctish]

Why not Evacuation?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:

that Palestinians could be evacuated.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

The lie is that there's no place to take them to. But the whole planet is out there, oceans and land areas. Take them to any beach or shore and set up camp for them. Or even have them stay at sea on boats for a long period, and keep the boats supplied. There is much more room for them if they go onto boats at the coast and the boats go from there -- to anywhere on Planet Earth. There are more places to take them to than the space for them in Gaza.

That they are being killed is not Israel's fault, but the fault of all other countries, or at least all the richer countries, who could afford to evacuate thousands of them -- tens of thousands, or a million of them. Nothing prevents this, as an alternative to making them stay there as shields to protect Hamas.

Yes, it might be inconvenient. It might cost a few billion $$$. But to say it's impossible is a lie.

Why not evacuate the kids and mothers with young children to Ashkelon?

A lot of people who were forced to live in Gaza came from there. Why not allow them that escape?

Ashkelon is too close. Hamas already attacked there. Hamas has to be destroyed first.

Or, rather, maybe a few thousand could be evacuated there, if it's likely Hamas wouldn't attack there again. But even so, the real number of evacuees would probably be too many, so other destinations are also necessary, not only one.

Is it because Israel is a racist religious ethno-state that doesn't want them? Because if so, that's a bullshit reason to deny children the safety they could find just a few miles away from the overcrowded death trap they're in.

Gazans who are old enough they might plausibly be Hamas fighters can be sequestered and searched. The IDF will have more room to carry out operations against the remaining Hamas fighters once the little kids are safely housed elsewhere.

If Israelis can do what is necessary to destroy Hamas, and there are no non-combatant civilians in the way, then there's no problem, and no civilians are getting killed.

But it seems there is a problem, if we believe the news, and those civilians have to go somewhere else. So, evacuate them. Israelis are entitled to retaliate as necessary to finish the job. From the coast they could be evacuated on boats. And they have to go somewhere far enough away from Hamas and the current area of combat.

They could be evacuated to the new settlements Israel recently built in the West Bank. That would put them in much better living conditions and away from the fighting.

Maybe. As long as this doesn't displace someone already there or already moving in there.

Somebody already living in one of the settlements is there illegally. Somebody moving there is about to move into illegal housing built on stolen land. Why should they be allowed to continue to inflame the situation while children remain in peril?

Any location where they don't displace someone else. For a large number, there'd have to be more than only one location. It might have to be currently unoccupied space, in camps. It has to be subsidized from somewhere. Several countries have to provide aid, which is practical, even if costly. It's better than 50,000 more getting killed.

Maybe you're right that Israel should be required to accept a certain number, provided there are other evacuation locations also. What if the number is 1 million or 2 million?

Has the offer been made to Israel? -- I.e. Israel must accept a certain number, 10 or 20 or 30 thousand. And others will go to other locations -- 100,000 or whatever. Maybe Israel would agree to accept a certain number in such an agreement. But still, the relocation areas have to be away from the combat. What's the likelihood of that (within Israel, West Bank, etc.)?

I see Ashkelon's population is about150,000. So maybe it's possible to put 10,000 refugees there? There are many nearby regions less densely populated. There are many coastal desert regions a few hundred miles away, suitable for temporary camps until Israel kills off Hamas.

Hamas is the cause of the problem, not Israel.

But it's true that Israel should make some sacrifice, accepting a percentage of the refugees if other countries will take care of the rest.

Any evacuations of children from families that were forced into Gaza should be back to where their family was living before they were forcibly removed. A lot of them were from Ashkelon and the surrounding area, so that would be a good place to start.

Evacuations of children from families that were living in Gaza before the founding of Israel should be to where their closest relatives live, whether it be in Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, or wherever.

The purpose of evacuating the children and mothers with young children is to protect them, not to compound their problems by making them refugees from refugee camps now living in countries where they have no relatives and no connections.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why not Evacuation?

But that doesn't mean simply denying inconvenient facts.

What inconvenient fact do you think is being denied?

Here's one inconvenient fact being denied:
that Palestinians could be evacuated permanently displaced.

They can be very easily. To demand a "Cease-Fire" is unnecessary. Just send boats to the shore (E. Mediterranean) of Gaza and take all refugees away who want to leave.

FIFY