Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

I seriously doubt you or I or anyone who posts here has a real clue what were the reasons for Hamas’s attack on October 7.

And why shouldn't we believe them when they say the reason is the very existence of Israel?

The gov’t of Israel had plenty of feasible choices - there have many reports over the disagreements within the Israeli gov’t over the appropriate course of action.

Stop denying the agency of the gov’t of Israel.

You have failed to demonstrate any other feasible choices. You came up with a couple of Trump-level proposals and that's it. Nor have you pointed to anyone else with a viable proposal. All the "answers" that keep being tossed around amount to appeasement. Stop the fighting now, ignore what that means for the future. You did not even address the article I posted about it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel's other feasible choices are

Feasible?!

1) a Two State solution with enough land and resources for each to ensure both Israel and the Palestinian State are viable, with mutually beneficial security arrangements and freedoms for citizens of both States,

Which does absolutely nothing about the fundamental problem: that Hamas wants to destroy Israel.

2) a One State solution where civilians are equally respected and protected, where suspected criminals are pursued and arrested, and where justice is served in equal measure regardless of race, sex, gender, religious creed, or any other factor bigoted assholes think should determine the outcome, and

Holocaust 2.0. Amazing how popular that is with the left.

3) something other than more ethnic cleansing and wanton killing of tens of thousands of non-Jews in an enclave where half of the people living there are children, the details of which to be worked out between representatives of Israel and Palestine, and put to a vote by the Israeli and Palestinian people.

In other words, a handwaved non-answer.

This is the fundamental leftist fallacy--you are taking on faith the idea that there must be a good answer. In the real world sometimes all answers are shit and all you can do is pick the one with the least shit. Looking at an answer and showing that it has shit on it doesn't prove that there is some other answer that's better!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) a Two State solution with enough land and resources for each to ensure both Israel and the Palestinian State are viable, with mutually beneficial security arrangements and freedoms for citizens of both States,

Except that this has been tried and didn't work out.

When?

Be specific.

In what year was it tried, and under which government?

You realize two-state basically describes 1948 to 1967? A period during which Israel faced repeated cross-border attacks until their air force got good enough that the troops couldn't have open bases anymore.

Sure, Egypt and Jordan prevented them from actually forming a government but that doesn't change the basic picture.

The Palestinians seem hellbent on Jewish destruction.

Bullshit.

"The Palestinians" include peace activists, people with Jewish grandmothers, babies, and people who wouldn't give you two knobs of goat shit to find out what version of god you believe in because they don't fucking care.

You are engaging in very racist thinking, attributing to all the character traits of some, in order to pass judgement on an entire ethnicity.

I see no cow.

There are some who want peace. They are in a minority and they are not in power. Not long ago I posted an article about Hamas executing a couple of clan leaders that they thought might talk peace with Israel. The polls continue to show that the Palestinians favor the path of war. Less so in Gaza than the West Bank but even in Gaza the majority favor it. You're looking under the streetlight.

2) a One State solution where civilians are equally respected and protected, where suspected criminals are pursued and arrested, and where justice is served in equal measure regardless of race, sex, gender, religious creed, or any other factor bigoted assholes think should determine the outcome, and

Jews don’t like to explode. So this one is out. The Palestinians just need to be controlled. Its for the best, for both parties.

Until we figure out how to talk the Palestinians in stopping with wanting to kill all Jews.

No one likes to explode. No one like it when their kids are killed in their own front yards, or walking to school, or playing soccer with their friends. No one likes it when assholes shoot at them, or firebomb their houses, or bulldoze their homes and property, or force them out of their communities to make way for other assholes and people willing to look the other way when injustices and atrocities are committed.

As to your assertion that the Palestinians want to kill all Jews, what evidence do you have to support it? Is it just the figments of your own imagination or do you have something that justifies this utterly racist claim?

The de-facto government of Gaza is Hamas. Hamas has said the fundamental reason for the conflict is the existence of Israel and the existence of Jews. It doesn't really matter what the people want because they don't have a voice. But previous polls have shown that they favor genocide--I haven't seen a recent poll. This is not being racist, it would be unlikely that there would be any other outcome when for a lifetime the educational system has been controlled by those who seek genocide.

3) something other than more ethnic cleansing and wanton killing of tens of thousands of non-Jews in an enclave where half of the people living there are children, the details of which to be worked out between representatives of Israel and Palestine, and put to a vote by the Israeli and Palestinian people.

The only side who wants ethnic cleansing is the Palestinian side. So if we leave Israel in charge it'll all work out

Enjoy your bliss.

It's still a non-answer. Your faith in the existence of a something else doesn't make it so.

 

[laughing dog]

Your stupid straw man is not a rebuttal.
Your response is based on the excluded middle fallacy: Israel’s only two policy choices are massive death and destruction in pursuit of eradicating Hamas or sit back, do nothing and get slaughtered.

Before you claim excluded middle you need to show there is a middle that's being excluded.

If you cannot see there is a wide middle between doing nothing and inhumane death and destruction of Gazans without invoking the specter of Holocaust 2.0 or Satan, then rational discussion appears hopeless to this poster.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The only side who wants ethnic cleansing is the Palestinian side.

Yeah, that's bollocks. We are witnessing ethnic cleansing by a non-Palestinian side, right now.

There's plenty of earlier history of elements in the Israeli state calling for ethnic cleansing too.

No "side" has a monopoly on genocidal nutters. Indeed, it is doubtful that any sizable polity in human history has not included a vocal subset in favour of what is today called "ethnic cleansing".

There are some hotheads in Israel calling for ethnic cleansing. However, the war is not ethnic cleansing by any means. It looks like the real numbers are about 1.5:1 civilian:combatant. For urban combat that is overwhelmingly superior to what the world has seen before even before you consider Hamas' use of human shield tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wise choice. Submitting to being cross-examined on your views was never going to end well for you. Since you are refusing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. Here's how the discussion would have gone if you hadn't ducked the question.

Option A:

Yes, you are of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and whenever the evil take hostages who can't be rescued by force it is always the duty of good men to do nothing.​

Option B:

No, you are not of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. Israel would be justified in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre, even if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building.​

Option C: pretend unpleasant reality does not exist. We are not understood because our words are blasphemy in that we are going against the faith that there must be a good answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course you did. Not sure whether LP was referring to "Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead.", or to "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".", or to "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.", but they're all relevant, and you deleted them all.

We disagree about the relevancy. It is interesting that the reason you are not sure what LP was referring to is due to his engaging in the very thing to which he accused me.

I am not the one pruning the relevant quotes.

Wise choice. Submitting to being cross-examined on your views was never going to end well for you. Since you are refusing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. Here's how the discussion would have gone if you hadn't ducked the question.

Option A:

Yes, you are of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and whenever the evil take hostages who can't be rescued by force it is always the duty of good men to do nothing.​

Option B:

No, you are not of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. Israel would be justified in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre, even if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building.​

​

Follow-up question, from me to you: Would Israel be justified in tracking down the five-year-old son of the man who ordered the 10/7 attack, capturing him, tying the boy to a chair in a stadium, and blowing him up, as a deterrent to all Hamas leaders who might ever again order the murder of Israeli noncombatants?​

​

Follow-up answer, from you to me: No. That would not be justified.​

​

Follow-up to follow-up, from me to you. So it turns out you know damn well that intent matters. What a surprise. So give your "Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead." sophistry a rest.​

​

I succesively fought the urge to delete that word salad in order to avoid triggering another butt hurt response. I do appreciate the effort and imagination that went into those straw men - I hope the exercise was therapeutic. Otherwise, I think you are wasting your time and any that if any reader who attempts to stumble through it. Those pseudo options are silly straw men, unworthy of your time and effort if you are trying to construct a reasoned argument.

He didn't post word salad, he gave you a dilemma incompatible with your faith so you failed to understand it. There is one binary choice between his options--either collateral damage is acceptable or it isn't. There can be no third value to a binary. Everything beyond that is simply looking at the consequences of the two paths.

It is wrong to kill 5 years intentionally or not. So your conclusion from your imputed answer does not follow.

So you are choosing option A. Satan will be pleased as you follow the road of good intentions.

 

[ZiprHead]

What makes you think at this point in time the Jews would be "slaughtered"? Gaza is basically destroyed. The tunnel system is pretty much destroyed. I cannot see Hamas have any sort of large weapons caches left. I cannot see Hamas mounting another offensive attack anytime in the near or even in the somewhat far future.

The more of Hamas Israel destroys the longer it will be before they can repeat 10/7.

Do you really believe Hamas can be destroyed completely and stop the terror attacks completely. That if enough Gazans are killed they will give up their ambitions?

 

[Arctish]

1) a Two State solution with enough land and resources for each to ensure both Israel and the Palestinian State are viable, with mutually beneficial security arrangements and freedoms for citizens of both States,

Except that this has been tried and didn't work out.

When?

Be specific.

In what year was it tried, and under which government?

You realize two-state basically describes 1948 to 1967?

I'm asking for names and dates, not bullshit and blather.

*Here's a hint: what was the first necessary step in order to implement the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s?

 

[ZiprHead]

Large demonstrations going on in Israel protesting Netanyahu's handling of the Gaza crisis.

Apparently there a lot of anti-semitic Israelis.

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you really believe Hamas can be destroyed completely and stop the terror attacks completely. That if enough Gazans are killed they will give up their ambitions?

It's certainly mathematically possible. About 4% of Gaza's population has already been killed; infrastructure is destroyed; children are eating grass -- so deaths will continue to rise.

But even if 100% of Gazans are killed, there are many millions of others -- Muslims, Christians, atheists and, yes, many Jews -- who will be annoyed. Expect conflict to escalate (not diminish) if the bloodthirsty Netanyahu continues his genocide.

Large demonstrations going on in Israel protesting Netanyahu's handling of the Gaza crisis.

Apparently there a lot of anti-semitic Israelis.

This genocide is hated all around the world, even in Israel itself. The one exception is the perverse lust for blood in the U.S.A.

Though of course there are many humane people even in the U.S.A.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The only side who wants ethnic cleansing is the Palestinian side.

Yeah, that's bollocks. We are witnessing ethnic cleansing by a non-Palestinian side, right now.

There's plenty of earlier history of elements in the Israeli state calling for ethnic cleansing too.

No "side" has a monopoly on genocidal nutters. Indeed, it is doubtful that any sizable polity in human history has not included a vocal subset in favour of what is today called "ethnic cleansing".

That's just delusional. Stop swall

Large demonstrations going on in Israel protesting Netanyahu's handling of the Gaza crisis.

Apparently there a lot of anti-semitic Israelis.

The fact that Netanyahu at all allowed the 7/10 attacks to happen is the main reason they hate him. His strong response in Gaza is an attempt to make up for his fuckup. The Israeli people are not buying it.

So it's a bit more complicated than that the Israelis are against the war in Gaza. What the Israeli people want is to feel safe in their own country. They're less concerned of how that is achieved.

The Israelis are very aware of that a large proportion of the Palestinian people are utterly unreasonable and cannot be reasoned with

 

[Shadowy Man]

What makes you think at this point in time the Jews would be "slaughtered"? Gaza is basically destroyed. The tunnel system is pretty much destroyed. I cannot see Hamas have any sort of large weapons caches left. I cannot see Hamas mounting another offensive attack anytime in the near or even in the somewhat far future.

The more of Hamas Israel destroys the longer it will be before they can repeat 10/7.

So why not just destroy it all?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Large demonstrations going on in Israel protesting Netanyahu's handling of the Gaza crisis.

Apparently there a lot of anti-semitic Israelis.

The biggest error is some people's support of the actions in Israel is the equating of Netanyahu as Israel. Israel has every single right to defend itself from Hamas, and that can even mean going on the offensive against Hamas. Getting closer to six months in and progress towards the "destroy Hamas" goal while better than Russia's 50 year invasion plan of Ukraine, it no where near completion. All the while, Israeli soldiers are also getting hurt and dying. Expanding the harm among Israelis and their families, not contracting it.

 

[Swammerdami]

The fact that Netanyahu at all allowed the 7/10 attacks to happen is the main reason they hate him. His strong response in Gaza is an attempt to make up for his fuckup. The Israeli people are not buying it.

WOW!! I'm afraid we'll want to see a cite.

If you're auditioning for a job at The Onion please include a sarcasm emoticon in future.

 

[TomC]

What makes you think at this point in time the Jews would be "slaughtered"? Gaza is basically destroyed. The tunnel system is pretty much destroyed. I cannot see Hamas have any sort of large weapons caches left. I cannot see Hamas mounting another offensive attack anytime in the near or even in the somewhat far future.

The more of Hamas Israel destroys the longer it will be before they can repeat 10/7.

So why not just destroy it all?

Because Israelis and Zionists are more moral and compassionate than Gazans and Islamicists.

Why didn't IDF carpet bomb Gaza, from "the Wall to the Sea"? Start at the northern border and continue on to the Egyptian border.

Multiple attacks from Islamicists for decades have resulted in IDF having the capability of doing it. But they didn't, the Israelis and Likud and the Zionists are much more moral and compassionate than Gazans and their Hamas leadership and their supporters, from Gaza to Iran to UN.

So, why did Israelis choose not to blast the folks who launched the October 7 attack back to the Stone Age? Why did the folks who launched the October 7 attacks choose to do it?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I succesively fought the urge to delete that word salad in order to avoid triggering another butt hurt response. I do appreciate the effort and imagination that went into those straw men - I hope the exercise was therapeutic. Otherwise, I think you are wasting your time and any that if any reader who attempts to stumble through it. Those pseudo options are silly straw men, unworthy of your time and effort if you are trying to construct a reasoned argument.

They aren't straw men; and if you don't appreciate people inferring your position by extrapolation when you duck their questions, you always have the option of not ducking their questions.

 

[laughing dog]

I succesively fought the urge to delete that word salad in order to avoid triggering another butt hurt response. I do appreciate the effort and imagination that went into those straw men - I hope the exercise was therapeutic. Otherwise, I think you are wasting your time and any that if any reader who attempts to stumble through it. Those pseudo options are silly straw men, unworthy of your time and effort if you are trying to construct a reasoned argument.

They aren't straw men; and if you don't appreciate people inferring your position by extrapolation when you duck their questions, you always have the option of not ducking their questions.

You are deeply and sadly mistaken. But thanks for the advice - it is shows the old adage that those who cannot do, teach still has some legs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What makes you think at this point in time the Jews would be "slaughtered"? Gaza is basically destroyed. The tunnel system is pretty much destroyed. I cannot see Hamas have any sort of large weapons caches left. I cannot see Hamas mounting another offensive attack anytime in the near or even in the somewhat far future.

The more of Hamas Israel destroys the longer it will be before they can repeat 10/7.

So why not just destroy it all?

Because Israelis and Zionists are more moral and compassionate than Gazans and Islamicists.

Why didn't IDF carpet bomb Gaza, from "the Wall to the Sea"? Start at the northern border and continue on to the Egyptian border.

Iran and Hezbollah would have likely responded. The UN would have sanctioned the fuck out of Israel. US would have turned off the tap. Let's not mistake not committing larger war crimes as some sort of benevolence on the part of Netanyahu, the dude who is leading this military effort that is getting a lot of people killed for intolerably low gains (and also helped get a former Israeli PM assassinated).

 

[Harry Bosch]

The fact that Netanyahu at all allowed the 7/10 attacks to happen is the main reason they hate him. His strong response in Gaza is an attempt to make up for his fuckup. The Israeli people are not buying it.

WOW!! I'm afraid we'll want to see a cite.

If you're auditioning for a job at The Onion please include a sarcasm emoticon in future.

What part is sarcastic? Neta was asleep at the wheel on 10.7. His popularity is way down in Israel. I’d be surprised if he survives politically.