Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Bomb#20]

Thank you for doing some research. I have been waiting for years for someone to take even a cursory glance at the history of the Ottoman Empire. If you quoted my post and provided links to show that I was wrong when I said Jews were as safe as other ethnic and religious communities, point taken.

My point was that "as safe as other ethnic and religious communities" is not particularly safe.

Jews were safer.

"Safer than other ethnic and religious communities" is a pretty low bar.

Where on Earth is the bar set higher?

The bar is set higher in literally every country in the world that didn't perpetrate three genocides against ethnic and religious communities.

Yup. So the Jews would probably not have been genocided by the Ottomans, unless a few Jewish hotheads took some stupid provocative treasonous action, like blowing up a hotel full of Ottoman employees in an attempt to help Jewish-majority parts of Palestine secede from the Empire.

You mean if the Irgun, or Lehi, or some other Zionist terrorist groups had carried out the same campaign of murder and terrorism it did under British rule, would the Ottomans have reacted by massacring Jews?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Perhaps they would have. But the militant Zionists in the early 20th century were immigrants from Europe, like Joseph Trumpeldor, Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Avraham Stern, and their fellow Russian/Polish zealots. I think it more likely the Ottomans would have gone after those armed immigrants setting up walled compounds and deported them

Mmm, yes. Armenians know what Ottoman "deportations" were like.

rather than target Palestinian Jews, who were only about 10% of the population and not a majority anywhere except in some towns and scattered villages.

Did the Ottomans have a track record of making distinctions between the good Armenians they left alone and the bad Armenians they were death-marching into the desert?

I am sticking with my contention that things were quiet under Ottoman rule. I acknowledge that it was not a perfect place (not even Dulac is that). Yes, there had been murderers, thieves, land swindlers, corrupt officials, violent racist bigoted assholes, organized crime, and many other unsavory types living there, but for four centuries the society was as peaceful as we human beings can usually manage.

Yes; and they were even making progress. For instance, in the 1800s the Ottoman judicial system abolished execution by impalement.

Did I forget to say that the Ottomans weren't perfect? Ah, no, I can see I said it right there in the part you quoted.

Did I forget to mention I think we should take what the Ottomans did well and improve on it? Nope, I said that, too.

I remember talking about improvements like voting rights and free speech in a discussion I had with Loren. Perhaps you didn't participate in that one. If it helps clarify my point I'll say it again here. I think the Ottomans fell short in a lot of ways but we can take what they did well and improve on it, like ensuring people can participate in their government, that they have freedom of speech and a free press (with limits on speech that is harmful to society like inciting violence or slandering citizens), that women and men have equal rights, and probably a whole long list of other rights and freedoms.

My point was that the way the Ottomans achieved "things were quiet" and "for four centuries the society was as peaceful as we human beings can usually manage" was by means of extreme brutality. I'm not convinced that qualifies as "what they did well". Take away the brutality and would it still have been quiet and peaceful? It's not clear that the Ottoman Empire has a lot to offer the modern world in the way of positive lessons.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "... happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar by now with your limitless ability to conflate collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. But the fact that the distinction is evidently completely immaterial in your mind does not make it at all reasonable for you to incessantly project your own brain malfunction onto your opponents. The distinction is not immaterial in the rest of our minds, and every time you make inferences about others by assuming it's just as unimportant to them as it is to you, you are reasoning fallaciously and thereby reaching idiotic conclusions. So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.

Nowhere did I mention targeting civilians. In fact, if you actually bothered to read the part of your response I was responding to, you'd notice there was not mention of targeting of civilians.

Of course there was.

Regardless of your interpretation of their beliefs, have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death while living in Israel? If one basketball team pulls out guns and shoots their opposing basketball team dead, does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors?

aa

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "Meh, <expletive> happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

What the heck do you think "does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors" was a metaphoric reference to? What do you think "have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death" was supposed to be relevant to? Who do you think the phrase "Palestinians outside Hamas" in the question you were purporting to answer, "Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?", refers to? Targeting civilians was the topic of conversation.

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one doubts your infinite ability to rationalize your dismissal of intent. But you didn't ask "What reason for the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war would be satisfactory to a person who dismisses intent?". You asked why, after having been repeatedly told why.

If the IDF literally killed every single Gazan civilian in their attempts to eliminate Hamas, according to your reasoning, that extirpation of Gazans is ok because it was "unintentional".

Epic logic fail. Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say anything about "ok"? You are not applying my reasoning; you are making up an incoherent chimera of my reasoning plus your own incorrect premises, and imputing the result to me. It is entirely possible, and consistent with all my posts, that Israel's response is so disproportionately over-the-top as to not be "ok". So what? That possibility doesn't magically convert all the illogical arguments I've been refuting into logical arguments.

Please, I know it is hard, but try thinking before you respond.

Please, I know it is hard, but save the snot for when you have a case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's war, and civilians die during wars. Its glory is all moonshine and all that.
Many German civilians, including children, died and suffered during the last stages of WWII as well. That does not mean that the Allied invasion of Germany was "collective punishment". ...

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

Indeed, comparing those massacred in October with collateral damage isn't apples to apples. But when in the heck are we going to address the issue that most Gazans are displaced at the moment... and have been for at least month, and some for months. Having only in their possession what they could carry with them. I can't imagine what it is like to have been a hostage of Hamas or to remain one at this moment... or the families as well. Nor can I imagine how it is to be in an ad hoc refugee camp for months, having escaped any manner of violence around them.

Israel was given an opportunity, effectively no questions asked in their response. The western world looked away for a couple months. Netanyahu didn't achieve much. We are hearing 20% losses for Hamas. That isn't progress. Biden wouldn't be speaking against Netanyahu publicly if the guy indicated there was some viable exit strategy here.

Currently the Israelis are living with fear, but at home, with markets, and food, and beds. I'm tiring of dead or starving being the bar used for whether things are humane for the Gazans at this point. How long do you think Gazans should suck it up? Over a thousand Israelis were slaughtered, but now over a one million Gazans are displaced and suffering (and certainly more than one thousand Gazan civilians are dead). The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

 

[TomC]

The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

Until they choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership?

There's a peace plan about as feasible as Israelis deciding to let Palestinians into their country, as they make travel plans.
Gazans decide not to continue being victims of Muslim terrorism.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

Until they choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership?

There's a peace plan about as feasible as Israelis deciding to let Palestinians into their country, as they make travel plans.
Gazans decide not to continue being victims of Muslim terrorism.
Tom

How do Gazans choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership if they haven't been able to vote for that leadership since 2006? A violent uprising? How do you imagine that will take place? With what weapons? Who will organize the uprising? Israel had the power to remove that terrorist government. Do you remember why Netanyahu favored keeping Hamas in place since 2006? He didn't care that they were terrorists, just that they would weaken the Palestinian opposition to Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank.

 

[TomC]

The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

Until they choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership?

There's a peace plan about as feasible as Israelis deciding to let Palestinians into their country, as they make travel plans.
Gazans decide not to continue being victims of Muslim terrorism.
Tom

How do Gazans choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership if they haven't been able to vote for that leadership since 2006? A violent uprising? How do you imagine that will take place? With what weapons? Who will organize the uprising? Israel had the power to remove that terrorist government. Do you remember why Netanyahu favored keeping Hamas in place since 2006? He didn't care that they were terrorists, just that they would weaken the Palestinian opposition to Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank.

Why do you think Gazans are such weaklings?
Sounds dismissive to me.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "... happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar by now with your limitless ability to conflate collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. But the fact that the distinction is evidently completely immaterial in your mind does not make it at all reasonable for you to incessantly project your own brain malfunction onto your opponents. The distinction is not immaterial in the rest of our minds, and every time you make inferences about others by assuming it's just as unimportant to them as it is to you, you are reasoning fallaciously and thereby reaching idiotic conclusions. So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.

Nowhere did I mention targeting civilians. In fact, if you actually bothered to read the part of your response I was responding to, you'd notice there was not mention of targeting of civilians.

Of course there was.

If you bothered to read the actual words, there was not.

​

Regardless of your interpretation of their beliefs, have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death while living in Israel? If one basketball team pulls out guns and shoots their opposing basketball team dead, does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors?

​

aa​

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?​

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "Meh, <expletive> happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.​

What the heck do you think "does that give the right to the fans of the dead basketball team to kill the fans of the aggressors" was a metaphoric reference to? What do you think "have Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death" was supposed to be relevant to? Who do you think the phrase "Palestinians outside Hamas" in the question you were purporting to answer, "Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?", refers to? Targeting civilians was the topic of conversation.

It is clear that killing civilians was the target of conservation. It is not clear that targeting civilians was.

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one doubts your infinite ability to rationalize your dismissal of intent. But you didn't ask "What reason for the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war would be satisfactory to a person who dismisses intent?". You asked why, after having been repeatedly told why.

I understand the response. Apparently you don't understand my responses. Intent does not matter to the dead nor to most families of the dead because the dead are still dead. The excuse that "they weren't targeted" is neither comfort to the families nor likely to ameliorate any feelings of hate towards Israel.

If the IDF literally killed every single Gazan civilian in their attempts to eliminate Hamas, according to your reasoning, that extirpation of Gazans is ok because it was "unintentional".

Epic logic fail. Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say anything about "ok"? You are not applying my reasoning; you are making up an incoherent chimera of my reasoning plus your own incorrect premises, and imputing the result to me. It is entirely possible, and consistent with all my posts, that Israel's response is so disproportionately over-the-top as to not be "ok". So what? That possibility doesn't magically convert all the illogical arguments I've been refuting into logical arguments.

Please, I know it is hard, but try thinking before you respond.

Please, I know it is hard, but save the snot for when you have a case.

I will rephrase my question in the fading hope of avoiding yet another of your dyspeptic bombastic irrational responses.

Do you realize that the justification of lack of targeting applies to situation of the the complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

 

[Copernicus]

The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

Until they choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership?

There's a peace plan about as feasible as Israelis deciding to let Palestinians into their country, as they make travel plans.
Gazans decide not to continue being victims of Muslim terrorism.
Tom

How do Gazans choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership if they haven't been able to vote for that leadership since 2006? A violent uprising? How do you imagine that will take place? With what weapons? Who will organize the uprising? Israel had the power to remove that terrorist government. Do you remember why Netanyahu favored keeping Hamas in place since 2006? He didn't care that they were terrorists, just that they would weaken the Palestinian opposition to Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank.

Why do you think Gazans are such weaklings?
Sounds dismissive to me.
Tom

Tom, I don't know how it is you manage to channel yourself into the minds and lives of two million people, half of them not even adults, living in a concentration camp surrounded and cut off by a hostile nation and ruled over by a thuggish terrorist organization. If you think of them as "weaklings" because they don't all rise up and overthrow the bad guys, then you must imagine that you would behave differently under such conditions. Maybe you would go out in a blaze of glory fighting the bad guys. I don't know. But I don't think I'm the one being dismissive by calling people struggling to survive such conditions "weaklings". That's you doing the dismissing.

 

[Arctish]

Thank you for doing some research. I have been waiting for years for someone to take even a cursory glance at the history of the Ottoman Empire. If you quoted my post and provided links to show that I was wrong when I said Jews were as safe as other ethnic and religious communities, point taken.

My point was that "as safe as other ethnic and religious communities" is not particularly safe.

Jews were safer.

"Safer than other ethnic and religious communities" is a pretty low bar.

Where on Earth is the bar set higher?

The bar is set higher in literally every country in the world that didn't perpetrate three genocides against ethnic and religious communities.

And where is that? In places where only two massacres were committed? Can you name a place other than Antarctica that meets that criteria?

Heck, even Israel had massacres in the months before and in the months that followed its founding. It had a massacre in the mid-1950s.

Being safer than other religious and ethnic communities is as good as it gets. If those other communities are safe and you are safer than them, then you're very safe. But of course, nothing is perfect and no place is absolutely 100% safe, which is why I was talking about societies that are as good as we humans can usually manage, not Shangri-La.

Yup. So the Jews would probably not have been genocided by the Ottomans, unless a few Jewish hotheads took some stupid provocative treasonous action, like blowing up a hotel full of Ottoman employees in an attempt to help Jewish-majority parts of Palestine secede from the Empire.

You mean if the Irgun, or Lehi, or some other Zionist terrorist groups had carried out the same campaign of murder and terrorism it did under British rule, would the Ottomans have reacted by massacring Jews?

Yes, that's what I mean.

Perhaps they would have. But the militant Zionists in the early 20th century were immigrants from Europe, like Joseph Trumpeldor, Menachim Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Avraham Stern, and their fellow Russian/Polish zealots. I think it more likely the Ottomans would have gone after those armed immigrants setting up walled compounds and deported them

Mmm, yes. Armenians know what Ottoman "deportations" were like.

The Armenian situation was not identical to the situation in Palestine. It wasn't even all that close.

Palestinians Jews did not rebel against Ottoman Rule. They did not fill the ranks of the Irgun or Lehi, and they certainly didn't have leadership roles. So why do you think the Ottomans would have atttacked them when it was newly arrived Europeans who were murdering officials and citizens of the Empire?

rather than target Palestinian Jews, who were only about 10% of the population and not a majority anywhere except in some towns and scattered villages.

Did the Ottomans have a track record of making distinctions between the good Armenians they left alone and the bad Armenians they were death-marching into the desert?

I don't know.

Do you?

I am sticking with my contention that things were quiet under Ottoman rule. I acknowledge that it was not a perfect place (not even Dulac is that). Yes, there had been murderers, thieves, land swindlers, corrupt officials, violent racist bigoted assholes, organized crime, and many other unsavory types living there, but for four centuries the society was as peaceful as we human beings can usually manage.

Yes; and they were even making progress. For instance, in the 1800s the Ottoman judicial system abolished execution by impalement.

Did I forget to say that the Ottomans weren't perfect? Ah, no, I can see I said it right there in the part you quoted.

Did I forget to mention I think we should take what the Ottomans did well and improve on it? Nope, I said that, too.

I remember talking about improvements like voting rights and free speech in a discussion I had with Loren. Perhaps you didn't participate in that one. If it helps clarify my point I'll say it again here. I think the Ottomans fell short in a lot of ways but we can take what they did well and improve on it, like ensuring people can participate in their government, that they have freedom of speech and a free press (with limits on speech that is harmful to society like inciting violence or slandering citizens), that women and men have equal rights, and probably a whole long list of other rights and freedoms.

My point was that the way the Ottomans achieved "things were quiet" and "for four centuries the society was as peaceful as we human beings can usually manage" was by means of extreme brutality. I'm not convinced that qualifies as "what they did well". Take away the brutality and would it still have been quiet and peaceful? It's not clear that the Ottoman Empire has a lot to offer the modern world in the way of positive lessons.

Support your claim that the Ottomans secured a peaceful society in Palestine through extreme brutality. What histories of the region are you relying on as sources of information?

Whenever I look into life in Palestine under Ottoman Rule in places like the World Jewish Congress website, I find reports that it was pretty good. The Ottomans had a well deserved reputation for supporting and protecting Jewish communities and denouncing anti-Semitism. They were even pretty active in rescuing Jews from Europe during the Inquisition (their successor Turks were pretty active in rescuing Jews from the Holocaust). I don't believe they would have turned against their peaceful citizens just because some recent arrivals turned out to be murderous bigoted assholes. I would like to see the evidence that has convinced you that they would have done so.

 

[repoman]

The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.

For how long?

Until they choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership?

There's a peace plan about as feasible as Israelis deciding to let Palestinians into their country, as they make travel plans.
Gazans decide not to continue being victims of Muslim terrorism.
Tom

How do Gazans choose to get rid of their violent terrorist leadership if they haven't been able to vote for that leadership since 2006? A violent uprising? How do you imagine that will take place? With what weapons? Who will organize the uprising? Israel had the power to remove that terrorist government. Do you remember why Netanyahu favored keeping Hamas in place since 2006? He didn't care that they were terrorists, just that they would weaken the Palestinian opposition to Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank.

Why do you think Gazans are such weaklings?
Sounds dismissive to me.
Tom

Tom, I don't know how it is you manage to channel yourself into the minds and lives of two million people, half of them not even adults, living in a concentration camp surrounded and cut off by a hostile nation and ruled over by a thuggish terrorist organization. If you think of them as "weaklings" because they don't all rise up and overthrow the bad guys, then you must imagine that you would behave differently under such conditions. Maybe you would go out in a blaze of glory fighting the bad guys. I don't know. But I don't think I'm the one being dismissive by calling people struggling to survive such conditions "weaklings". That's you doing the dismissing.

Keyboard Warrior

 

[Derec]

Israel had the power to remove that terrorist government.

How? Israel is trying now, and you see how difficult it is. Especially since Hamas is popular among the populace. Even those that support other factions, like Islamic Jihad or PFLP still support terrorism against Israel.
In the earlier conflicts, like the 2008/9 Operation Cast Lead, Israel had been pressured to end hostilities early, well before removal of Hamas could be accomplished.

 

[Derec]

Indeed, comparing those massacred in October with collateral damage isn't apples to apples. But when in the heck are we going to address the issue that most Gazans are displaced at the moment... and have been for at least month, and some for months.

They are displaced because of intensity of the war in certain places is higher than in others. It will probably be necessary to move civilians from Rafah elsewhere so that area can be cleared - including the tunnels. War is never pleasant to those caught up in it. That does not mean it's not sometimes necessary.

Israel was given an opportunity, effectively no questions asked in their response. The western world looked away for a couple months. Netanyahu didn't achieve much. We are hearing 20% losses for Hamas. That isn't progress.

I think much has been achieved. IDF is claiming ~13k dead terrorist fighters. If we assume ~40k Hamas fighters and ~20k belonging to other terror groups (Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP etc.) So that is just over 20%. But killing more than 1/5 of the enemy fighters in a few months is actually pretty good.
Consider another thing. The 60k estimate is more than 10% of all military age males in Gaza - that's a big share. Which means less than half of this number are likely the equivalent of western "active duty", the rest being "reservists". But those who have been fighting (and dying) in the early months of this war would have been mostly "active duty", with "reservists" kept, well, in reserve. That means that the effective losses are greater than the 20% figure would suggest, esp. when you add those wounded and/or captured.
Then there are leaders. The death of Marwan Issa has finally been confirmed, and he was, with Sinwar and Deif, part of the Hamas triumvirate in Gaza. Just yesterday, in an operation at the Al Shifa hospital, IDF captured Mahmoud Kawasme who was involved in the kidnapping and murder of 3 Israeli teenagers in 2014.
Then you have to consider all the terror tunnels and other Hamas infrastructure that was destroyed.
Contrary to what you wrote, IDF managed to accomplish much in less than 6 months. Now it is necessary to go into Rafah and finish the job. Once this last stronghold falls, the end of major operations will be very close at hand.

Biden wouldn't be speaking against Netanyahu publicly if the guy indicated there was some viable exit strategy here.

Biden is speaking against Netanyahu publicly because of the threat to his reelection by the anti-Israel caucus of the Democratic Party, consisting of Muslims/Arabs and their useful idiots on the far left.

Currently the Israelis are living with fear, but at home, with markets, and food, and beds. I'm tiring of dead or starving being the bar used for whether things are humane for the Gazans at this point. How long do you think Gazans should suck it up?

Suck up what exactly? The war? Hamas could end this war by releasing the hostages and surrendering. We should not expect Israel to have to "suck up" the fact that Hamas is determined to repeat 10/7 over and over again, as they have clearly stated.

Over a thousand Israelis were slaughtered, but now over a one million Gazans are displaced and suffering (and certainly more tha5n one thousand Gazan civilians are dead). The Gazans have no infrastructure in place, no police, no government, no one to tell them what is next.
For how long?

Until Hamas is defeated. Maybe Gazans should wake up and take up arms against Hamas. Italians hanged Mussolini. Maybe Gazans can hang Sinwar.

 

[Derec]

No, of course Israel isn’t targeting civilians.

Amnesty International is notoriously hostile to Israel.

And that’s just in October! It’s much worse now, and now, of course, in addition to targeting civilians, Israel is causing mass starvation among them.

I disagree that Israel is causing mass starvation. First of all, there is no "mass starvation", although there are shortages, esp. in the North.
However, Israel is letting in many trucks (after they are inspected, of course) through Kerem Shalom. Unfortunately, it is in the South close to the border with Egypt. Getting those trucks to the North is a logistical and security nightmare. But Israel did warn civilians to evacuate the North and go south of Wadi Gaza, did they not? Everybody who stayed in Gaza City and other northern areas has done so despite Israel, not because of Israel.

 

[Derec]

Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead.

Intent means a lot in the distinction between lawful warfare and war crimes.

If the IDF literally killed every single Gazan civilian in their attempts to eliminate Hamas, according to your reasoning, that extirpation of Gazans is ok because it was "unintentional".

The death toll is at ~1.5% even if we take Hamas numbers seriously. Your hyperbolic hypothetical is just that.

 

[Derec]

What makes it so hard to manage the conflict is precisely that Palestinians do not hate Jews.

Do I really have to post this again?

They hate the people who stole their land, who happened to be Jewish.

Except they consider all of Israel "stolen land". Do you?

At bottom this has little to do with religion at all, IMO.

Depends on the faction. For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it has a lot to do with religion. PFLP is Marxist-Leninist, so I reckon does not have to do with religion for them. But they are a lot less popular than the other two.

 

[Derec]

Dropping 2,000 pound bombs that completely destroys entire city blocks in one fell swoop is pretty indiscriminant in my book.

Israel at most takes out a building with a bomb, not an entire block. So much is evident from the footage of the strikes. Although, sometimes buildings house weapons caches that cause secondary explosions that lead to further damage. But then it isn't an "indiscriminant"[sic] attack on a civilian target anyway, right?
Besides, you need big bombs to break through to the tunnels. In the early days of the war, there were many cameras that directly captured the strikes from the ground. I recall an amazing shot of an Israeli bomb not hitting a building at all, but the street next to it. What followed are puffs of smoke breaking through the ground in several places as secondary explosions in the tunnel network were triggered. The building collapsed anyway, but not because of the Israeli bomb. Rather, ground was literally taken from under it. Too bad I can't find it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think the biggest factor in this conflict is the Palestinian widespread antisemitism. Irrational antisemitism. Hating Jews is normal among Palestinians. That’s what makes this so difficult for the Jews to manage the conflict.

What makes it so hard to manage the conflict is precisely that Palestinians do not hate Jews. They hate the people who stole their land, who happened to be Jewish. If Hindus had stolen their land, they would hate them too, while expressing their hatred with anti-Hindu invective.

At bottom this has little to do with religion at all, IMO.

That narrative is antisemitism IMHO.

...and besides, Israel isn't a Jewish state. Isreal has plenty of Muslims, Christians and atheists living in it. Yes, they have a policy that expat Jews are welcome home. But that's because Jews are not welcome anywhere else in the world. This is there one country that welcomes Jews specifically. Muslims form a majority in almost a quarter of the world's countries. They won't feel lonely anytime soon.

Not to mention that Isreal is a well functioning democracy with right of law, universal suffarage and the defence of women's rights in their laws. It's the only country in the area where it's fully legal to get abortions, and the only country where getting tested for std's is readily available and encouraged by the government. Not to mention that Israel works. It's not a tribal mess of layers upon layers of corrupt bullshit you need to navigate in order to get shit done. Which is the norm in the rest of the Middle-East. Being a Palestinian living insde the borders of Israel, is a way better life than it's ever been in either Gaza or the West bank. Isreal has been awesome for the Palestinians. Before Israel was founded Palestine was dirt poor and neglected by every ruler they'd ever had. The economic opportunities that Palestinians now have (yes, even considering the war) is much greater now than it has ever been when they ruled themselves. Just out of selfish self interest it would still be good for Palestinians to support Israel.

So what about some perspective here?

 

[DrZoidberg]

 

[Arctish]

I think the biggest factor in this conflict is the Palestinian widespread antisemitism. Irrational antisemitism. Hating Jews is normal among Palestinians. That’s what makes this so difficult for the Jews to manage the conflict.

What makes it so hard to manage the conflict is precisely that Palestinians do not hate Jews. They hate the people who stole their land, who happened to be Jewish. If Hindus had stolen their land, they would hate them too, while expressing their hatred with anti-Hindu invective.

At bottom this has little to do with religion at all, IMO.

That narrative is antisemitism IMHO.

...and besides, Israel isn't a Jewish state.

Benjamin Netanyahu disagrees with you:

Embattled Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the country is “not a state of all its citizens” in yet another apparent attempt to win extremist anti-Arab support ahead of the upcoming general election.

The comments, made on Facebook, were a direct reference to the country’s 1.6 million Arabs, who make up almost a fifth of the population.


“Israel is not a state of all its citizens,” he wrote in response to comments from the TV host Rotem Sela. “According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.”

The racism and religious bigotry is explicit. It is enshrined in the Basic Law, and has been upheld by Israel's version of the Supreme Court.

 

[Derec]

Danke Merkel!