• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
Critique of the Israeli government being countered with unfounded accusations of endorsing Hamas or harboring anti-Semitic sentiments is childish. Collective punishment is unjust, regardless of whether it's carried out by Hamas or Israel. It's a principle that has no exceptions. Deal with it.
 
I've been a 2 state solution guy for a long time. I'm leaning towards a no state solution these days. Neither has shown the ability to govern itself.

That btw is the position of my Israeli-Jewish ex-wife. She thought both sides behaved horribly. Which weighs heavy since she lived in Jerusalem. Side note, she dated both Palestinians and Jews. She also hated all religion, and was very very atheist. She thinks it was the root of a lot of evil. Also, a quite common attitude among Jews.

She has a naturally charming personality. :)
 
As far as I am concerned this war is to protect the Israeli people AND the Palestinian people from Hammas.
Well, the 1000s killed don’t have to be protected, so you have a point. Strange way of achieving the kill.
But the millions who are still living do need protection. Specifically from Hamas, but also genocidal Islamic terrorists in general.

People keep insisting that there's a better way, but nobody has ever described it.
Tom
 
Critique of the Israeli government being countered with unfounded accusations of endorsing Hamas or harboring anti-Semitic sentiments is childish.
Accusing people of making unfounded accusations without first looking to see if you ever gave them a foundation isn't exactly adultish. You wrote:

IMO a single state solution is the only option. to me, the Jewish people should have organically remerged in the region without the stupid wigs waving toilet paper around. Their butt wipes always leave a trail of poop.

The purpose of international borders is to make it possible to end wars without waiting until one side or the other is completely crushed. Everybody who calls for a "single state solution" to the Palestine situation can be reasonably presumed to be okay with ethnic cleansing until proven otherwise. You appear to be generally siding with the Palestinians; therefore the presumption was the people you're okay with ethnic cleansing are the Jews. That is why you got accused of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments; it wasn't your critique of the Israeli government. I critique the Israeli government here on a regular basis and nobody accuses me of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.

So the question is, have you proven otherwise? Let's see what you've said about keeping Jews safe from ethnic cleansing in a hypothetical future single state solution...

IMO a single state solution is the only option. to me, the Jewish people should have organically remerged in the region without the stupid wigs waving toilet paper around. Their butt wipes always leave a trail of poop.
This is genocide, if you don't see that you have your head in the sand.
They would continue to benefit from the same safeguards provided by the international community as they do currently. The notable distinction, however, would lie in the absence of provocative territorial acquisitions.
What current safeguards are you talking about, the international community posturing as usual, and finger-pointing at both sides, and taking no action? In what substantive way does the international community keep Israeli Jews safe?

If you're referring specifically to the billions of dollars of aid the U.S. gives to Israel, the mechanism by which that keeps Israeli Jews safe depends critically on the international border. If the border were gone and there were a one state solution with the Jewish people organically remerged, that state would have a Muslim majority; if the U.S. kept delivering aid then the recipients of that aid would be Hamas or whoever replaced them in the Jew-hunting business. The aid would no longer keep Jews safe.

However, you also wrote this:

... The United Nations ought acknowledge the hot potato they inherited (and played a role in) from the jump & take responsibility. Sitting on their hands and demanding Israel do this and that is just not going to cut it. They need to get boots on the ground and fight off both sides if they have to. This is their circus. ...
In theory, that could work; but we already saw how ineffective UN peacekeepers were in Bosnia. When the Serbs made up their minds to exterminate all the males in Srebrenica, they did, and the outnumbered UN troops stood aside and let them. The problem with the UN is that the UN isn't actually a government and doesn't actually have troops of its own. It has to cobble together coalitions of the willing.

So if you're advocating a one state solution but it isn't just yet another ethnostate where one side has the power to expel the other, then it's incumbent on you to nominate a specific foreign government to take control of the region and impose peace and respect for human rights on both sides, by force of arms. So who do you have in mind? What country do you think has the military power to do it, the willingness to spend the billions it would cost them, and the willingness to have its own troops be the ones Hamas or its successors would inevitably keep trying to kidnap and hold hostage in place of Israeli Jews? What is the nationality of all those boots on the ground?

Unless you can offer a plausible candidate, either make your peace with a two state solution, or else make your peace with being forever on the receiving end of accusations of endorsing Hamas and harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.
 
Collective punishment is unjust, regardless of whether it's carried out by Hamas or Israel. It's a principle that has no exceptions. Deal with it.
What's your point? What's going on in Gaza isn't collective punishment; it's suppression of enemy military capability.

Of course, the amount of collateral damage Israel is inflicting in the process of that suppression is certainly unjust too. Any collateral damage at all in a military operation is unjust. It's a principle that has no exceptions. War is hell. The only outcome here that wouldn't be unjust is for the Palestinian people to rise up, overthrow Hamas, arrest everyone who knowingly participated in 10/7, convict them of crimes against humanity, and hang them all. That would be justice.

Since that isn't going to happen and nobody is even trying to make it happen, everybody has evidently decided a certain amount of injustice is acceptable. So if your point was only that what's going on is unjust, in other news a dog has bitten a man. But if you want to make the point that what's going on is more unjust than some alternative, what alternative do you have in mind?
 
As far as I am concerned this war is to protect the Israeli people AND the Palestinian people from Hammas.
Well, the 1000s killed don’t have to be protected, so you have a point. Strange way of achieving the kill.
But the millions who are still living do need protection. Specifically from Hamas, but also genocidal Islamic terrorists in general.
Don’t forget the IDF.
TomC said:
People keep insisting that there's a better way, but nobody has ever described it.
Tom
Multiple people have described possible better ways. Please either learn to read or more accurately make your point.
 
Hamas' demands for a ceasefire are completely unreasonable, especially since they are losing on the battlefield.

Report: Hamas unwilling to compromise on archterrorist's release

Israel National News said:
According to Maariv, which quoted the Jordanian news outlet, Al-Hayya also sent a document to Egypt's intelligence chief, saying that Hamas demands a cessation of the war in Gaza for one week before the hostages are released, as well as Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza and international guarantees that the Israeli forces will not return to the area.
So a week of ceasefire and a complete withdrawal before they even start releasing hostages. But wait, there's more.
The terror group will also not provide the information on which hostages will be released or their conditions, and the Israeli hostages will be released in stages.
They also demand release of high-profile terrorists serving life sentences.
The document said that Hamas completely opposes the suggestion that terrorists released in the prisoner swap be released to locations outside of the "Palestinian territories." The document also states that all 57 of the "Shalit deal" terrorists who were rearrested following continued involvement in terror be released in the current deal.
Hamas is also demanding the release of 160 terrorists who received heavy sentences, among them Marwan Barghouti, Ahmad Sa'adat, Abdullah Barghouti, Ibrahim Hamad, and Abbas al-Sayed.

Marwan Barghouti - imprisoned since 2002 on five life sentences related to ordering terror attacks as head of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (the terror wing of the supposedly moderate Fatah). He is very popular and would likely win presidential elections if freed and, you know, there were elections.

Ahmad Sa'adat - head of People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine (splitters!) and imprisoned by Israel since 2006. Before then he was held by PA in the Jericho Prison, but Hamas' electoral victory that year led to Israel assuming custody (Operation Bringing Home the Goods - IDF's copywriters are gold, gold Jerry!) Serving 30 years for his Involvement in the murder of an Israeli cabinet minister.

Abdullah Barghouti- imprisoned since 2003 on 67 life sentences (+ 5 millennia) for numerous terrorist attacks as a Hamas bombmaker.

Ibrahim Hamed - Hamas leader who has been imprisoned since 2006 and is serving 45 life sentences for Hamas terror attacks during the 2nd Intifada.

Abbas al-Sayed - Hamas terrorist imprisoned since 2005 on 35 life sentences for the 2002 Passover Massacre.

It seems Hamas wants mostly to free their own terrorists but also some notorious terror leader of other Palestinian factions. None of these people deserves to ever see freedom again.
Needless to say this is a non-starter. But all the useful idiots yapping about "ceasefire now" should admit that lack of a ceasefire is not the fault of Israel or of Biden. It is the fault of Hamas.
 
Negotiations are between parties who are trying with multiple and sometimes conflicting aims. “Deserve” has nothing to do with the the final (non)agreement. Successful negotiations s result when each party learns what is really important to the other party and themselves and compromises.

Public negotiations are extremely difficult to successfully conduct because it allies the inevitable intractable factions to rile up unproductive sentiment.
 
As far as I am concerned this war is to protect the Israeli people AND the Palestinian people from Hammas.
Well, the 1000s killed don’t have to be protected, so you have a point. Strange way of achieving the kill.
But the millions who are still living do need protection. Specifically from Hamas, but also genocidal Islamic terrorists in general.

People keep insisting that there's a better way, but nobody has ever described it.
Tom
I think the word ìs surgical. The Gazans are living in anarchy at the moment. They are getting desperate.

Sadly we might be past that point of no return too.
 
Hamas' demands for a ceasefire are completely unreasonable, especially since they are losing on the battlefield.
You know, what I find funny is the lack of message making by the Israelis. And imagination. When I hear Hamas talk ceasefire, I would expect the Israelis to have a retort back regarding "what ceasefire?" What do we get when you inevitably violate the ceasefire... again. Hamas calling for a ceasefire is about as ridiculous about al Qaeda demanding the US stopping attacking them post 9/11.

It is becoming apparent to me that there are two options here, and only one likely outcome. Israeli permanent occupation of Gaza and bullets flying forever or this ceasefire is the Solution. The trouble we have here is that Hamas can't give up the last hostages. The leaders of Hamas know their lives are in imminent danger, and almost no one will care if they are iced. So Hamas needs insurance. And that insurance is that there is two-state solution that is enacted. But Israel (Netanyahu) won't go for a two-state solution now. That is gone. The Gazans will be lucky enough to have housing built for them in their new camp homes. Forget about territory and going back to their old homes.

Of course, on the other hand, the trouble we have with Hamas is that their covenant is one of disruption. Achieving the two-state solution isn't what they are there for. But they went so over the edge on October 7th, I don't see any other out for Hamas. I mean other than pussyfooting for the next decade.

It is too bad Trump slammed the door on Iran, because any remotely small chance we had at peace in Israel was evaporated when he did that. Iran and Saudi Arabia are the key to this solution, and Saudi Arabia is led by a tyrannt and Trump stopped any chance of the US moderating its relationship with Iran... because of the short-sighted stupidity that seems to not understand why Egypt and Jordan don't bother Israel anymore.
 
he purpose of international borders is to make it possible to end wars without waiting until one side or the other is completely crushed. Everybody who calls for a "single state solution" to the Palestine situation can be reasonably presumed to be okay with ethnic cleansing until proven otherwise. You appear to be generally siding with the Palestinians; therefore the presumption was the people you're okay with ethnic cleansing are the Jews. That is why you got accused of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments; it wasn't your critique of the Israeli government. I critique the Israeli government here on a regular basis and nobody accuses me of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments.

So the question is, have you proven otherwise? Let's see what you've said about keeping Jews safe from ethnic cleansing in a hypothetical future single state solution...

The one-state solution is a proposal, not a call for ethnic cleansing. I'm talking about a shared state with equal rights, a far cry from ethnic cleansing. Both Palestinians and Israel is fully capable to achieving this with current international aide & US support to keep outside forces at bay. Sure it won't bring absolute peace (nothing will) however it would remove the obvious Bloods VS Crips situation being perpetrated now. A situation that would only be exacerbated by a two-state solution. Wassup with the west bank? The PA seems to be doing a decent job using diplomacy (despite dealing with an Israeli government that has been taken over by Zionists extremists). Hamas is only a thing in Gaza right now because the Isreali government helped them get there.

What's your point? What's going on in Gaza isn't collective punishment; it's suppression of enemy military capability.

Your skills at misdirection is remarkable. My initial comment specifically addressed the narrative that "voting for Hamas equates to supporting terrorism,". If that narrative doesn't represent your viewpoint, my comment doesn't concern you.
 
Last edited:
Negotiations are between parties who are trying with multiple and sometimes conflicting aims. “Deserve” has nothing to do with the the final (non)agreement. Successful negotiations s result when each party learns what is really important to the other party and themselves and compromises.

Public negotiations are extremely difficult to successfully conduct because it allies the inevitable intractable factions to rile up unproductive sentiment.
You are pretending the two sides are equivalent. One is a free and democratic state. The other is a theocratic, oppressive dictatorship run by a brutal, islamofascist terrorist organization. One is holding prisoners convicted of terrorism. The other is holding innocent hostages. And certainly not least, one is dominating the battlefield, while the other is hiding in its ratholes. And yet they have the temerity to make ridiculous demands as if the tide of the war was favoring them.
Not that their supporters and useful idiots in the West care of course. But the rest of us, including the Biden administration, should be able to see through it.

Releasing terrorists was a bad idea in 2011, as several of the released terrorists took part in the 10/7 massacre and one of them, Yaya Sinwar, is the head of Hamas in Gaza. But even in that deal certain terrorist leaders were not included. Neither should they be included now.
 
The one-state solution is a proposal, not a call for ethnic cleansing. I'm talking about a shared state with equal rights, a far cry from ethnic cleansing.
We both know that this is not realistic. The "one state" would be demographically dominated by Arabs, esp. since they practice hypernatalism as a weapon.
That's why half of Gaza population are minors by the way - they all have a ridiculous number of children per woman. Hamas has even been funding IVF to increase birth rates as much as possible.
Jews would quickly become 2nd class citizens in such a "one state" and most would probably chose to emigrate at that point.

Wassup with the west bank? The PA seems to be doing a decent job using diplomacy (despite dealing with an Israeli government that has been taken over by Zionists extremists).
PA is dominated by Fatah who are themselves hardly moderate - they have their own terrorist wing the "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades". The most popular Palestinian politician is serving 5 life sentences for terrorism during the 2nd Intifada.

Hamas is only a thing in Gaza right now because the Isreali government helped them get there.
No, Hamas rules Gaza because Hamas won the legislative elections in 2006 which led to a civil warlet in Gaza which Hamas won. Hamas is still very popular in Gaza as well as "West Bank".

Your skills at misdirection is remarkable. My initial comment specifically addressed the narrative that "voting for Hamas equates to supporting terrorism,". If that narrative doesn't represent your viewpoint, my comment doesn't concern you.
Voting for Hamas does equate to supporting terrorism, as it is a terrorist organization. Note, Hamas is very popular and most Palestinians (and a supermajority of Palestinians in the West Bank) support the 10/7 massacre that started this war.
Palestinian poll shows a rise in Hamas support and close to 90% wanting US-backed Abbas to resign
 
Negotiations are between parties who are trying with multiple and sometimes conflicting aims. “Deserve” has nothing to do with the the final (non)agreement. Successful negotiations s result when each party learns what is really important to the other party and themselves and compromises.

Public negotiations are extremely difficult to successfully conduct because it allies the inevitable intractable factions to rile up unproductive sentiment.
You are pretending the two sides are equivalent. ….
Moral equivalency got nothing to do with negotiation. No. I recognize the reality of negotiating. If both parties are serious, they will bargain which means ignoring the bluster and bigotry. If at least one is not, nothing will happen.
I have lots if experience negotiating. If course not as much was at stake, but the same basic principles apply - neither hide had much trust in the other, and one side was out to obliterate the other organization.

In my view, the report you cite is evidence someone is trying to scuttle any ceasefire negotiations.
 
Last edited:
Since the US aids, supplies, and protects Israel in its bombing campaign, it understandably shares the blame for the long-predicted humanitarian crisis that is unfolding. The Biden administration has carried out a few airdrops of meal bundles, but that is just for show. More significantly, President Biden has ordered the construction of a temporary port facility to deliver supplies via Cyprus, but this will take weeks to establish. Meanwhile, untold numbers of civilians are dying from lack of food and water, not to mention medical care to treat those who survive the Israeli bombings.

Biden to announce 'emergency' US military mission to build pier off Gaza coast to deliver aid

 
Stop pretending that Hamas has any Right to demand anything.

Critique of the Israeli government being countered with unfounded accusations of endorsing Hamas or harboring anti-Semitic sentiments is childish. Collective punishment is unjust, regardless of whether it's carried out by Hamas or Israel. It's a principle that has no exceptions. Deal with it.
So the U.S. and allies in WW2 inflicted "collective punishment" onto Germany and Japan, in the '44-'45 years when they butchered millions of Germans and Japanese civilians. They could have yielded sooner and done a "cease-fire" to stop this slaughter, and maybe there could have been a reasonable end to the hostilities without slaughtering the extra 1 or 2 or 3 million innocent civilians.

Why are the innocent Palestinian civilians today -- women, children, babies -- any more valuable human lives than the Japanese and German innocent women and children and babies slaughtered in 1944-45?

The initial attacks by Germany and Japan which began the War were mostly against military targets rather than civilians like the Hamas aggression of October 7, so arguably this assault on Israel was a more egregious attack than that of Germany and Japan back in 1941, which at least was toward military targets (or mostly military).

To demand a "Cease-Fire" by Israel now is no different than condemning the U.S. and its allies for demanding unconditional surrender in WW2, before the goal was achieved of totally destroying the enemy capability to resume the war again. The right way to secure the peace is to totally obliterate the military capability of the enemy aggressor, and give them no bargaining position after the "cease-fire." You can give no reason why Hamas is entitled to any bargaining rights whatever. Rather, what Israel must demand is the total elimination of Hamas, leaving it no position of any power or recognition whatever, or any entitlement to make any demands.
 
Last edited:
Hamas is not comparable to Germany or Japan in WWII. They are not a national government with a world class military machine that poses a serious threat to large numbers of countries surrounding them. Rather, Hamas is a radical terrorist organization that Israel allowed to take over the administration of Gaza and grow in power, because that divided and weakened the Palestinian resistance to Israel's gradual colonization of the West Bank. Hamas did not pose a serious threat of conquering and occupying Israel, tiny as that country is. The best they could do was mount a sneak attack that would have failed, if the Israeli government had been vigilant and prepared for it. Their strategy was to capture hostages and use them to gain concessions from Israel. That's the kind of thing terrorists do. Taking hostages was not the goal of Japan or Germany in WWII. Those countries were out to invade and occupy other countries in their region.
 
It's appropriate to compare this to WW2 ---
though on a much smaller scale, the solution is essentially the same.

Hamas is not comparable to Germany or Japan in WWII. They are not a national government with a world class military machine that poses a serious threat to large numbers of countries surrounding them.
As a threat to Israel Hamas is as much needing to be totally destroyed as the German and Japanese regimes needed to be destroyed in order to remove them as a future threat. The point that Hamas is focused on destroying only Israel (and not the other surrounding countries) confirms the need for it to be destroyed by Israel, and to downplay Hamas as a threat is to suggest that destroying Israel is OK, maybe desirable.

Rather, Hamas is a radical terrorist organization that Israel allowed to take over the administration of Gaza and grow in power, because that divided and weakened the Palestinian resistance to Israel's gradual colonization of the West Bank.
You can make similar speculations about any aggressor which came to power and threatened others, saying the ones attacked were to blame by letting that aggressor come to power in the first place. You could blame the other European countries for having created Germany originally, etc. There's no end to theories how a bad guy came to take power and later victimized someone who is really to blame because of earlier mistakes, or even that they conspired to create this bad guy for some sinister reason.

No matter what may have caused the bad guy earlier, this real threat still has to be eliminated now, without excusing it or permitting it to go forward with its aggressive plans. Its guilt now for its crimes is not excused by theorizing that its victims today made some mistake decades or centuries ago which are the real cause. What the bad guy is doing wrong today is just as bad and needing to be corrected regardless what sequence of psychological factors may have contributed to the bad guy's resulting later aggressions.

Subjective speculations about "resistance to Israel's gradual colonization" are no more legitimate than any other speculations by stalwart propagandists trying to promote an ideology about how things ought to be, this more perfect world vs. that, this crusader's vision vs. that crusader's worldview about who owns what territory, or which side God is on, or who the true aggressor is, etc.

All we really know is that Hamas launched an attack on Oct. 7 -- no other blame or guilt can be objectively established which everyone agrees on.


Hamas did not pose a serious threat of conquering and occupying Israel, tiny as that country is.
Just because the scale is smaller does not reduce the threat to those attacked or the needed retaliation. Hamas has no entitlement to make any demands. To eliminate the future threat requires unconditional surrender by Hamas, with no cease-fire until that happens, just as this was required at the end of WW2. The difference in scale does not change the fact that the solution to the problem is total destruction of the aggressor.

The best they could do was mount a sneak attack that would have failed, if the Israeli government had been vigilant and prepared for it.
You could speculate likewise that the U.S. and Europeans made similar mistakes before WW2. Maybe -- more speculation which there will never be total agreement about. But even so, the solution now -- as in WW2 -- is total elimination of the aggressor regime, Hamas, total surrender by all those who participated in the invasion. And then doing what is necessary to be more vigilant and prepared in the future.

Their strategy was to capture hostages and use them to gain concessions from Israel. That's the kind of thing terrorists do.
And the kind of thing to stop it is to crush all of them, make them surrender without conditions, eliminate any chance of those persons repeating it in the future. That's the kind of thing which has stopped them in the past. Of course in cases where the "terrorists" really are the good guys, then the ruling power elite are the ones who have to be crushed if it's practically possible (or weakened, or thwarted/undermined as much as possible).

Taking hostages was not the goal of Japan or Germany in WWII.
Nor was it the goal of Hamas. It was a strategy (means to the goal) which posed the same kind of threat to Israel (on a smaller scale) as the threat from Germany and Japan in WW2. And unconditional surrender of the aggressors is the solution in both cases.

Those countries were out to invade and occupy other countries in their region.
Essentially the same kind of aggression in both cases, despite the difference of scale.
 
Stop pretending that Hamas has any Right to demand anything.

Critique of the Israeli government being countered with unfounded accusations of endorsing Hamas or harboring anti-Semitic sentiments is childish. Collective punishment is unjust, regardless of whether it's carried out by Hamas or Israel. It's a principle that has no exceptions. Deal with it.
So the U.S. and allies in WW2 inflicted "collective punishment" onto Germany and Japan, in the '44-'45 years when they butchered millions of Germans and Japanese civilians. They could have yielded sooner and done a "cease-fire" to stop this slaughter, and maybe there could have been a reasonable end to the hostilities without slaughtering the extra 1 or 2 or 3 million innocent civilians.

Why are the innocent Palestinian civilians today -- women, children, babies -- any more valuable human lives than the Japanese and German innocent women and children and babies slaughtered in 1944-45?

The initial attacks by Germany and Japan which began the War were mostly against military targets rather than civilians like the Hamas aggression of October 7, so arguably this assault on Israel was a more egregious attack than that of Germany and Japan back in 1941, which at least was toward military targets (or mostly military).

To demand a "Cease-Fire" by Israel now is no different than condemning the U.S. and its allies for demanding unconditional surrender in WW2, before the goal was achieved of totally destroying the enemy capability to resume the war again. The right way to secure the peace is to totally obliterate the military capability of the enemy aggressor, and give them no bargaining position after the "cease-fire." You can give no reason why Hamas is entitled to any bargaining rights whatever. Rather, what Israel must demand is the total elimination of Hamas, leaving it no position of any power or recognition whatever, or any entitlement to make any demands.
Why are babbling about “ bargaining rights”? There is no such thing. Either each party decides it is in its best interest or not to negotiate. If each party does make that choice, the next step is to negotiate while realizing they are not compelled to reach agreement.

BTW, the only way to achieve the total elimination of Hamas is to kill all existing members and current potential members along with their sympathizers . Are you really calling for such mass killings?
 
It's appropriate to compare this to WW2 ---
though on a much smaller scale, the solution is essentially the same.

No, it isn't. You can find lots of ways to compare apples and oranges, but they aren't the same kind of fruit. The main goal of Hamas was to gain hostages in exchange for concessions. They had no capacity to launch an invasion that would result in a takeover of Israel, despite all the delusional hype to the contrary in mass media. Moreover, Hamas was allowed to assume control and fester in Gaza, because it served the aims of years of Israeli policy in the West Bank. You are totally ignoring that fact. Israel bears responsibility for the circumstances that led up to the attack.

...As a threat to Israel Hamas is as much needing to be totally destroyed as the German and Japanese regimes needed to be destroyed in order to remove them as a future threat. The point that Hamas is focused on destroying only Israel (and not the other surrounding countries) confirms the need for it to be destroyed by Israel, and to downplay Hamas as a threat is to suggest that destroying Israel is OK, maybe desirable.

Because I condemn Israel's behavior, that does not mean I don't condemn Hamas's behavior. I disagree with you, but I am not going to engage in the same kind of slander by accusing you of wanting all of those innocent Palestinians to suffer and die. Ad hominem attacks like this only weaken your argument. I was just as horrified at the brutal October 7 attack as anyone else, but I disagree with your advocacy for one side of the blood feud. There is enough blame to go around for all sides in this, including the US government's supply of weapons to the Israeli side.


Rather, Hamas is a radical terrorist organization that Israel allowed to take over the administration of Gaza and grow in power, because that divided and weakened the Palestinian resistance to Israel's gradual colonization of the West Bank.
You can make similar speculations about any aggressor which came to power and threatened others, saying the ones attacked were to blame by letting that aggressor come to power in the first place. You could blame the other European countries for having created Germany originally, etc. There's no end to theories how a bad guy came to take power and later victimized someone who is really to blame because of earlier mistakes, or even that they conspired to create this bad guy for some sinister reason.

It is not speculation that Israeli policy in the West Bank was directly linked to the rise of Hamas in Gaza. It is easy to prove, and it has already been discussed at length in this thread. Even in the Israeli press, you can find a lot of blame directed at Netanyahu and the radical right wing Likud governments for the rise of Hamas. Neither I nor Israeli commentators are trying to justify what Hamas did by pointing these facts out.

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces


No matter what may have caused the bad guy earlier, this real threat still has to be eliminated now, without excusing it or permitting it to go forward with its aggressive plans. Its guilt now for its crimes is not excused by theorizing that its victims today made some mistake decades or centuries ago which are the real cause. What the bad guy is doing wrong today is just as bad and needing to be corrected regardless what sequence of psychological factors may have contributed to the bad guy's resulting later aggressions.

Nobody is criticizing the need to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas now. What is being criticized is the means being used to achieve that end and whether they will do anything at all to eliminate it in the long run. A ceasefire would be in everybody's interest. Using bombs and bullets to kill tens of thousands of non-Hamas Palestinians is not going to eliminate the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, not unless you think there is a way to kill everybody on one side of the blood feud. Right now, Israel has turned the Gaza Strip (and West Bank to a lesser extent) into one big martyr factory--fuel for a whole new generation of hatred and resentment.


Subjective speculations about "resistance to Israel's gradual colonization" are no more legitimate than any other speculations by stalwart propagandists trying to promote an ideology about how things ought to be, this more perfect world vs. that, this crusader's vision vs. that crusader's worldview about who owns what territory, or which side God is on, or who the true aggressor is, etc.

All we really know is that Hamas launched an attack on Oct. 7 -- no other blame or guilt can be objectively established which everyone agrees on.

Why do you insist on Israel's spread of illegal settlements in the West Bank as "speculation"? Do you really think it might not be happening or that it had nothing to do with Israel turning a blind eye to the rise of Hamas in the Gaza Strip? That Hamas launched an attack on Oct. 7 is NOT "all we know". Apparently, it is all you know. Ignoring the history and using the same means to put a temporary halt to it--i.e. overwhelming firepower--is not going to stop history from repeating itself.


Hamas did not pose a serious threat of conquering and occupying Israel, tiny as that country is.
Just because the scale is smaller does not reduce the threat to those attacked or the needed retaliation. Hamas has no entitlement to make any demands. To eliminate the future threat requires unconditional surrender by Hamas, with no cease-fire until that happens, just as this was required at the end of WW2. The difference in scale does not change the fact that the solution to the problem is total destruction of the aggressor.

Yeah, the smaller scale does actually reduce the threat posed by the October 7 attack. It had far more limited goals than those of the aggressors in WWII. Military conquest and occupation was not one of them.

The best they could do was mount a sneak attack that would have failed, if the Israeli government had been vigilant and prepared for it.
You could speculate likewise that the U.S. and Europeans made similar mistakes before WW2. Maybe -- more speculation which there will never be total agreement about. But even so, the solution now -- as in WW2 -- is total elimination of the aggressor regime, Hamas, total surrender by all those who participated in the invasion. And then doing what is necessary to be more vigilant and prepared in the future.

What eliminated the threat posed by Japan and Germany was not just the end of hostilities. It was the way the peace was handled after the fighting stopped. Both countries were rebuilt and reintegrated with the world economy. Palestinians do not have a country, and Israel opposes any plan to give them one. The only discernable solution suggested by the Israeli government seems to be ethnic cleansing of both Gaza and the West Bank. Israel could negotiate an immediate ceasefire, but that would not remove the Palestinian population from the Gaza Strip or make it any easier to continue the spread of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Indeed, it would leave the Israeli government exposed to more criticism for its past policies, not to mention the possibility of Netanyahu landing in jail on a corruption conviction.

If the US is going to continue its policy of support for Israel, then it should insist on a two-state solution or simply abandon its policy of blind support for whatever the Israeli government chooses to do about a mess that it bears some responsibility to fix.
 
Back
Top Bottom