Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[TomC]

You really need to read your own posts. You wrote "I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes. What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?" That certainly suggests that there is only the current strategy or nukes in your mind.

"Suggests" is your key word here.

I didn't say that because I don't believe it.

What I did say, and nobody has countered, is that there is no feasible alternative presented to Netanyahu's plans. If anyone has a feasible plan that doesn't involve the whole sale destruction of the military installation in Gaza I'd love to hear it.

That the military installation has been interwoven with Gazan civilian infrastructure is because Hamas picked that. While the UN watched and Iranians paid and all that other stuff. But the bottom line remains, nobody can come up with a feasible peace plan that doesn't include the whole sale destruction of Gaza infrastructure.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You really need to read your own posts. You wrote "I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes. What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?" That certainly suggests that there is only the current strategy or nukes in your mind.

"Suggests" is your key word here.

I didn't say that because I don't believe it.

You don't believe it, but your posts keep suggesting what you don't believe. When your audience keeps coming up with "straw men" from your posts, you might consider the problem is not the audience.

What I did say, and nobody has countered, is that there is no feasible alternative presented to Netanyahu's plans. If anyone has a feasible plan that doesn't involve the whole sale destruction of the military installation in Gaza I'd love to hear it.

I suggest you reread the thread, because a number of posters have been there and done that. Moreover, the standard of "Bibi's plan is the only feasible plan I see because it is the plan in action" is something I would expect from a 10 year old.

That the military installation has been interwoven with Gazan civilian infrastructure is because Hamas picked that. While the UN watched and Iranians paid and all that other stuff. But the bottom line remains, nobody can come up with a feasible peace plan that doesn't include the whole sale destruction of Gaza infrastructure.
Tom

You keep putting impossible conditions on your ask. Using your "reasoning", since Gazan air space is part of the Hamas infrastructure because terrorist breathe air, it is permissible to gas Gaza.

 

[TomC]

You don't believe it, but your posts keep suggesting what you don't believe. When your audience keeps coming up with "straw men" from your posts, you might consider the problem is not the audience.

Strawman is what I mean when you make up stuff, attribute it to me (what I actually post "suggests" that to you) then ignore what I actually did say and respond to what it "suggests" instead.
That's what I mean by strawman.
You claimed I suggested
"That certainly suggests that there is only the current strategy or nukes in your mind."

But I didn't say that.
That's what I mean by that strawman thing. You ignore what I said and respond to a made up version of It.
Tom

 

[TomC]

You keep putting impossible conditions on your ask. Using your "reasoning", since Gazan air space is part of the Hamas infrastructure because terrorist breathe air, it is permissible to gas Gaza.

Seriously, you think I said anything remotely like that?
This is a big part of why the situation in Gaza is so intractable. People like you keep telling other people what they mean.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, this article states that Biden was in Israel discussion alternative options:

“We had a long talk about that and what alternatives there are. Our military is talking with their military about what the alternatives are,” the president replied but he declined to give details.

Since no details were given, we can't assess the feasibility of the proposed alternatives.

This article is a good summary of the overall situation and states:

No remotely plausible option for stopping the war is good, but some are grimmer than others. An immediate truce is imperative for ending Gaza’s destruction, getting aid in and enabling a hostage-prisoner swap, though some agreement on hostage and prisoner releases might be necessary to get there. Negotiations over a longer-term ceasefire and interim arrangements would follow. There it gets harder still, notably over questions of who provides local services and, over time, who governs the strip, what parts of Gaza Israeli forces hold and for how long, whether the blockade is lifted and, of course, what happens to Hamas. No Gaza ceasefire will endure over time absent efforts to get some form of wider political track going between Israelis and Palestinians, for which the obstacles are formidable.

And I'm sure that the warmongers of the world won't really think the alternatives laid out in this article would be considered "feasible".

It really hinges on what you consider the word "feasible" to mean and what both the short- and long-term goals are here. If the goal is truly to eradicate Hamas entirely, it seems likely there is no alternative to complete occupation of Gaza, be it by Israel and/or other nations. Even that may not ever truly get rid of all terrorism.

But I do get a feeling that options like ceasefires and negotiations, or basically anything that could even resemble compromise or capitulation by Israel, will simply be brushed off.

 

[laughing dog]

You keep putting impossible conditions on your ask. Using your "reasoning", since Gazan air space is part of the Hamas infrastructure because terrorist breathe air, it is permissible to gas Gaza.

Seriously, you think I said anything remotely like that?

FFS, at least pretend to read with some comprehension. You are the one defending the wholesale destruction of Gaza because "the military installation has been interwoven with Gazan civilian infrastructure". I simply used that reasoning to show its implications. If you don't like the consequences of your reasoning, that suggests your rationale is defective.

​

This is a big part of why the situation in Gaza is so intractable. People like you keep telling other people what they mean.
Tom

No, the big part of the problem is that people like you don't think about what they actually write.

 

[TomC]

You are the one defending the wholesale destruction of Gaza because "the military installation has been interwoven with Gazan civilian infrastructure". I simply used that reasoning. If you don't like the consequences of your reasoning, that suggests your rationale is defective.

You are the one who said

since Gazan air space is part of the Hamas infrastructure because terrorist breathe air, it is permissible to gas Gaza.

Not me.
Feel free to discuss what I actually do say.
Since you are demonstrably unable to reliably talk about what I actually do say, and must resort to strawman arguments, I'll probably dismiss your histrionics, generally, like I do another Russian poster.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.

This sounds to me like there was nothing there before the Zionists moved in. I know you don't think that.

 

[TomC]

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.

This sounds to me like there was nothing there before the Zionists moved in. I know you don't think that.

No I don't think that.
I'm aware that there were people there.

What's the point to this post?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

You are the one defending the wholesale destruction of Gaza because "the military installation has been interwoven with Gazan civilian infrastructure". I simply used that reasoning. If you don't like the consequences of your reasoning, that suggests your rationale is defective.

You are the one who said

since Gazan air space is part of the Hamas infrastructure because terrorist breathe air, it is permissible to gas Gaza.

Not me.

I never wrote that you said that. I said it is the result of applying your "reasoning". Of course it is ridiculous because your rationale is ridiculous.

Feel free to discuss what I actually do say.
Since you are demonstrably unable to reliably talk about what I actually do say, and must resort to strawman arguments, I'll probably dismiss your histrionics, generally, like I do another Russian poster.

I hope that nonsense helped you feel better.

 

[ZiprHead]

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.

This sounds to me like there was nothing there before the Zionists moved in. I know you don't think that.

No I don't think that.
I'm aware that there were people there.

What's the point to this post?
Tom

The point is, as others have pointed out, that your posts are often not clear about what you mean. We can only address the things you say. Not what you mean.

 

[TomC]

The point is, as others have pointed out, that your posts are often not clear about what you mean. We can only address the things you say. Not what you mean.

Okay, here's something I said.

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.
What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?

Want to talk about that?

I see it as a fundamental part of Zionist Identity. Whether it's important to you or not, Zionists were created by anti-jewish bigots.

Around the world, from medieval times until October 7, 2023, Jewish people have been fighting to survive the Abrahamic world for centuries. The survivors formed Israel and are fighting for survival in a hostile environment.
And that's the thing. Literal Zionists aren't a particularly representative sample of Jews. They're the ones who took on the challenges of surviving the modern Abrahamic world. I don't think that they'll accept defeat under any circumstances. They'll keep fighting until they're dead.
I hope it doesn't include nukes.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

The point is, as others have pointed out, that your posts are often not clear about what you mean. We can only address the things you say. Not what you mean.

Okay, here's something I said.

Israel was built by Zionists. People who had been driven out of somewhere by anti-jewish bigotry and collected there. I don't think they will give up the security of a "Jewish homeland" short of nukes.
What feasible plan can you point to that takes into account this fundamental aspect of Israel?

Want to talk about that?

I see it as a fundamental part of Zionist Identity. Whether it's important to you or not, Zionists were created by anti-jewish bigots.

Around the world, from medieval times until October 7, 2023, Jewish people have been fighting to survive the Abrahamic world for centuries. The survivors formed Israel and are fighting for survival in a hostile environment.
And that's the thing. Literal Zionists aren't a particularly representative sample of Jews. They're the ones who took on the challenges of surviving the modern Abrahamic world. I don't think that they'll accept defeat under any circumstances. They'll keep fighting until they're dead.
I hope it doesn't include nukes.
Tom

Jews around the world whether they are ZIonists or not have accepted the challenge of surviving the "Abrahamic" world. It is not unique to Zionists.

 

[TomC]

Jews around the world whether they are ZIonists or not have accepted the challenge of surviving the "Abrahamic" world. It is not unique to Zionists.

Which is not what I said.
The Zionists who formed Israel aren't the same as Jews. What I said was

Literal Zionists aren't a particularly representative sample of Jews. They're the ones who took on the challenges of surviving the modern Abrahamic world.

Zionism isn't unique to Jewish folk.
There are more christian evangelical Zionists in Texas than Jewish Zionists in Israel. If, by Zionist, you mean people who believe that the Christian Canon is God's Word and so Exodus is a property deed from God himself.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Jews around the world whether they are ZIonists or not have accepted the challenge of surviving the "Abrahamic" world. It is not unique to Zionists.

Which is not what I said.
The Zionists who formed Israel aren't the same as Jews.

The Zionists who formed Israel were Jews. It is impossible for them not to be the same as themselves.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Evacuation? or

Let the slaughter resume! ???

. . . 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.

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.

I.e., all Jews living in Palestine-Israel are there illegally. No, this is just another way of saying "Let the slaughter resume!"

It's better to address the immediate practical challenge, or crisis, of saving Palestinians from getting slaughtered. I.e., by evacuating them, which is possible. But that doesn't mean kicking out any Jews who are in the way and putting those refugees there in place of them. No, there are places where Palestinian refugees could be evacuated. It's not true that the only place they could go would be into the homes of Israelis there who you judge are illegals.

Somebody moving there is about to move into illegal housing built on stolen land.

translation: Let the slaughter resume!

No, there are places to where refugees could be evacuated. Possibly some to a location in Israel, to Ashkelon or somewhere. But that's not "illegal" housing or "stolen" land just because there are Jews living there. Maybe there's room for some refugees there, but that doesn't mean Jews living there must first get the Hell out because they're illegal or the land there was stolen. To say that is just to say that it's time for the slaughter of the Palestinians to resume, or continue, because there's no other alternative.

Instead of demanding dogmatically that Israel must surrender to Hamas because they're illegal and stole everything, it's more productive to consider locations to where Palestinians could be evacuated, from their current location where they're threatened. If you don't care anything about saving some of them, then just say outright that it's time for the slaughter of them to resume.

Why should they be allowed to continue to inflame the situation while children remain in peril?

How is it being inflamed by just evacuating someone to safety so they don't get killed? You prefer the alternative of innocent people getting slaughtered?

Any location where they don't displace someone else. . . . 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. . . .

I see Ashkelon's population is about 150,000. 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.

But meanwhile, as the cases are being judged, to determine where everyone lived 10 or 20 or 30 years ago, and thousands of hearings are held, the war continues on and Palestinians will get slaughtered. Whereas it's possible to evacuate thousands of them right away, to other locations not presently occupied. There are plenty of unoccupied locations to which they could be evacuated, now, when there's an emergency, as Israel is going to continue its retaliation against Hamas, which it is entitled to do. And which is going to happen, in the real world, not just hypothetically. Whereas conjecture about where some family allegedly got forcibly removed from takes months or years of litigation to resolve. Those who make such judgments can't convene court in a day or 2 and resolve all those claims, so the refugees in danger can be evacuated to their new location which rightfully belongs to them.

The danger is now, as the retaliatory war against Hamas is now in progress and cannot wait years for all those ownership disputes to be resolved. To demand 100% justice for all claims of who owns what land is just another way of saying -- "Let the slaughter resume!"

A lot of them were from Ashkelon and the surrounding area, so that would be a good place to start.

Any place where they would not displace someone already there. There are plenty of locations. But the time to evacuate them is immediately, while there is time, before there is more killing. Anything else is just to say "Let the slaughter resume!"

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.

Again, this means "Let the slaughter resume!" because there's not time to resolve all that. Evacuate them now, without delay. To wherever there is unoccupied space. Resolve the past history disputes later. To say no evacuation is allowed until all the past history disputes are resolved is just another way of saying there is to be no evacuation at all = "Let the slaughter resume!"

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.

The purpose is to save their lives now, whatever that takes. Which means EVACUATION NOW, no matter what. Without giving any excuses for delaying this. I.e., get them away from the combat area, to any place where they can go that has some space for them.

 

[Arctish]

Evacuation? or

Let the slaughter resume! ???

. . . 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.

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.

I.e., all Jews living in Palestine-Israel are there illegally.

That is incorrect but perhaps the misunderstanding is because I forgot to be really wordy in my post.

Palestinian Jews from families that have lived in Palestine for centuries are there legally. Likewise for Jews who legally emigrated to Palestine before 1939 and their descendants. Many Jewish immigrants to Palestine from 1939 to 1948 (but not all of them) arrived illegally.

Jews who live on land that was not allocated to the State of Israel by the UN Partition plan can make the case that they live there legally since the international community and the Palestinians have recognized the 1967 borders, even if they moved there following the implementation of Plan Dalet. The ones who are living in the Occupied Territories can't make that claim because a State moving its citizens on to land it took from people living under military occupation is a violation of international law.

No, this is just another way of saying "Let the slaughter resume!"

It's better to address the immediate practical challenge, or crisis, of saving Palestinians from getting slaughtered. I.e., by evacuating them, which is possible. But that doesn't mean kicking out any Jews who are in the way and putting those refugees there in place of them. No, there are places where Palestinian refugees could be evacuated. It's not true that the only place they could go would be into the homes of Israelis there who you judge are illegals.

Somebody moving there is about to move into illegal housing built on stolen land.

translation: Let the slaughter resume!

Not at all.

The choice here isn't between slaughter or allowing some people to steal land from other people. That is a ridiculous excluded-middle fallacy.

The choice here is between sitting by passively as people are slaughtered or moving them to safety. Where better to move Palestinians than to a different part of Palestine, away from the fighting?

No, there are places to where refugees could be evacuated. Possibly some to a location in Israel, to Ashkelon or somewhere. But that's not "illegal" housing or "stolen" land just because there are Jews living there. Maybe there's room for some refugees there, but that doesn't mean Jews living there must first get the Hell out because they're illegal or the land there was stolen. To say that is just to say that it's time for the slaughter of the Palestinians to resume, or continue, because there's no other alternative.

Instead of demanding dogmatically that Israel must surrender to Hamas

Who in this thread is even suggesting that Israel surrender to Hamas?

Your argument is based on some wild hot takes.

because they're illegal and stole everything, it's more productive to consider locations to where Palestinians could be evacuated, from their current location where they're threatened. If you don't care anything about saving some of them, then just say outright that it's time for the slaughter of them to resume.

Why should they be allowed to continue to inflame the situation while children remain in peril?

How is it being inflamed by just evacuating someone to safety so they don't get killed? You prefer the alternative of innocent people getting slaughtered?

The situation is being inflamed by the on-going ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionists like Netanyahu and the settlers he caters to in exchange for their support.

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.

The purpose is to save their lives now, whatever that takes. Which means EVACUATION NOW, no matter what. Without giving any excuses for delaying this. I.e., get them away from the combat area, to any place where they can go that has some space for them.

I agree.

They should be evacuated now.

I suggest moving them to the nearest point of safety as a short-term solution, and to places where they have relatives or where their families are from as a longer term solution. That's why I suggest Ashkelon.

 

[repoman]

So if Netanyahu, Gvir and Smotrich get all that they want which is a near or total expulsion of Gazans and then stay in office will there be any international blowback?

If the do clear out Gaza and then resign or are removed will Israel avoid any repercussions by saying that they are under "new management"?

What about the Democrats in that Biden who is hurting in Michigan, if he were replaced by Newsom for the candidacy. Newsom would have a clean slate I think. If the plan NOW is for Biden to be replaced, why not let Israel go full on very quickly and finish the job to keep the taint in the Biden candidacy timeline not in a Newsom timeline.

However, Trump would likely be as supportive or more of Israel. RFK, forget it, he is very Zionist. So, the Arabs in Michigan don't have a good choice.

 

[TomC]

I suggest moving them to the nearest point of safety as a short-term solution, and to places where they have relatives or where their families are from as a longer term solution. That's why I suggest Ashkelon.

Ashkelon doesn't seem particularly good to me. It's a small Israeli city. It's been bombed by missiles from Gaza. It's largely inhabited by Israelis forced out of their homes somewhere else. It's further away than Egypt for most Gazans at this point.

Egypt is the obvious choice to me. Close, Muslim, safe from Zionists.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Because otherwise they aren't telling us anything we didn't already know. What people aren't descendants of the ancient Canaanites? Everybody is descended from everybody. Parents everywhere have been trying to stop their children from going for a tumble in the hay with those people for thousands of years, and failing miserably.

Really? Please cite your sources for this.

Which part do you want a cite for, teenagers having unapproved sex? "Everybody is descended from everybody." was a bit hyperbolic, sure, but the point is that other than maybe the Sentinelese, ethnic groups in Europe, Asia or Africa with no Canaanite ancestry are statistically very improbable. Canaanite descent went west when they dominated the Mediterranean for a thousand years -- they were known as Phoenicians -- and east in step with the expansion of the Arabian tribes. Muhammad was one eighth Jewish.