Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Article:

• Israel’s military is now launching targeted strikes in eastern Rafah, Reuters and AP reported citing a statement. Israel says that they are striking Hamas targets in the region. But more than 1m displaced Palestinian people have sought refuge in Rafah amid Israel’s attacks in Gaza, the Washington Post reported.
• Hamas says it has accepted an Egyptian-Qatari ceasefire proposal to halt seven-month war with Israel. It issued a statement Monday saying its supreme leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had delivered the news in a phone call with Qatar’s prime minister and Egypt’s intelligence minister.
• An IDF spokesperson said that Israel will continue to act in a “operational manner” in the Gaza strip despite Hamas announcing that they accepted a Gaza ceasefire deal on Monday. Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said that Israel is going to continue to act in an operational manner, saying earlier that Israel has a right to defend itself.
• US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller confirmed that Hamas has “issued a response”, when asked about Hamas’s announcement that they accepted a ceasefire deal. “We are reviewing that response now and discussing it with our partners in the region,” Miller said.

Biden and Netanyahu speak again as US continues to oppose Rafah invasion

The Israeli leader is determined to attack Rafah despite US warnings

au.news.yahoo.com

 

[Elixir]

A true sign of authoritarianism:

“me unanimously decided”

You really don't see the difference between that and "the government headed by me unanimously decided"?
Tom

What I see is the superfluity of "headed by me". It has dark implications to me. Sounds like if it was headed by anyone else such unanimity among "the government" would be in doubt. How many unanimous people constitute "the government", anyhow? Just the defense council, I suspect.

The fact that the word "unanimously" follows the word "me" is just humorous.

 

[TomC]

A true sign of authoritarianism:

“me unanimously decided”

You really don't see the difference between that and "the government headed by me unanimously decided"?
Tom

What I see is the superfluity of "headed by me". It has dark implications to me. Sounds like if it was headed by anyone else such unanimity among "the government" would be in doubt. How many unanimous people constitute "the government", anyhow? Just the defense council, I suspect.

The fact that the word "unanimously" follows the word "me" is just humorous.

Somehow you keep leaving off the salient word.
Looks to me like you have simply decided that Netanyahu is a criminal and sticking to it.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

Looks to me like you have simply decided that Netanyahu is a criminal and sticking to it.

Until I see evidence that Bibi wants peace, or some reason why his freedom from prosecution does not rely on persistently urgent emergency conditions, I will continue to believe that he does not favor peace, he needs continuing emergency conditions to avoid prosecution and retain office, and people are dying because of it.

Sounds to me like you have decided that there is no number of dead Palestinians that could make up for the heinous acts of Hamas on 10/7, and will reliably favor Bibi's favored course of action over any alternative that might have been taken. I tend to agree with the first part.

 

[TomC]

Until I see evidence that Bibi wants peace, or some reason why his freedom from prosecution does not rely on persistently urgent emergency conditions, I will continue to believe that he does not favor peace, he needs continuing emergency conditions to avoid prosecution and retain office, and people are dying because of it.

I don't think any of the major players want peace.
Not Iran, Egypt, Syria and certainly not Hamas.
Israel is now resorting to their attitude towards ethnic cleansing.

Sounds to me like you have decided that there is no number of dead Palestinians that could make up for the heinous acts of Hamas on 10/7, and will reliably favor Bibi's favored course of action over any alternative that might have been taken. I tend to agree with the first part.

Nope.
I try to put the whole debacle into a bigger context than one guy and one event.
Like the historical context, going back centuries but especially the most recent century. 10/7 was just the most recent attempt at driving out Jews. Similar, worse, attempts go back a long way.

So, no I don't think that Zionist hardliners are much interested in peace any more than Hamas.

Tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

Expressed as a ranking:
Hamas and some extreme members of Israel's right-wing < Palestinian Authority and some other members of Israel's right-wing < some strains of Israel's left-wing

To put it another way, my enemies are tyranny, murder, and slaughter.

This is why neither Hamas nor Netanyahu are my allies.

War crimes are war crimes are war crimes.

Please, reality check. Hammas are still holding the Israeli hostages. So obviously Israel hasn't put enough pressure on Hammas. Hammas are the one forcing Israel to go through Palestinian civilians to get to them.

The IDF are doing their best not to kill Palestinian cilvilians. But due to how Hammas operates, it's going to happen.

It's like Hammas is holding up a cute kitten and saying, "do what I tell you or I'll kill the kitten". And then when Israel doesn't do what they're told we then blame Israel for the kitten dying.

Hammas is playing the world press and popular opinion like a fiddle. Palestinian terror groups have been doing this since the 1970'ies. Don't be such a sucker.

In order to be able to protect Palestinian civilians long term I think it's necessary for some shock treatment and rip these fuckers out by the roots. Or the Palestinian people will continue getting hurt, for all eternity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But it's funny how Egypt and Qatar comes up with a suggestion for a truce deal. Hammas accepts it. Israel rejects the terms of the truce deal outright. How about Egypt first talks to both parties, come up with a set of terms both can agree to and after that ask the two sides if they can agree to it.

Egypt - "Hey, Israel and Hammas. How about we give all the candy and money to Hammas?"
Hammas - "sounds fair"
Israel - "wtf!?!"
Egypt - "why are you uncooperative Israel?"

 

[Cognoscenti324]

I wonder if beliefs like the following could explain Israel's comfort with killing children?

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman. - Sanhedrin 55B

 

[TomC]

I wonder if beliefs like the following could explain Israel's comfort with killing children?

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman. - Sanhedrin 55B

This bizarre level of anti -Jewish bias is probably why I come across as more staunchly Zionist, in this thread, than I really am.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

But it's funny how Egypt and Qatar comes up with a suggestion for a truce deal. Hammas accepts it. Israel rejects the terms of the truce deal outright. How about Egypt first talks to both parties, come up with a set of terms both can agree to and after that ask the two sides if they can agree to it.

Egypt - "Hey, Israel and Hammas. How about we give all the candy and money to Hammas?"
Hammas - "sounds fair"
Israel - "wtf!?!"
Egypt - "why are you uncooperative Israel?"

My understanding of this process that has been going on for weeks is that Israel agreed to the idea of Egypt and Qatar (and others) negotiating with Hamas because Israel would not sit at the table with Hamas. Israel would send ideas and proposals through these parties. Israel made it clear to all parties that they were under no obligation to agree to anything arose.

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

 

[TomC]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

That the intermediaries did not talk with Israel.

 

[TomC]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

That the intermediaries did not talk with Israel.

Well, if they didn't talk with Israel, what is the point of your complaint?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

That the intermediaries did not talk with Israel.

Well, if they didn't talk with Israel, what is the point of your complaint?
Tom

I pointed out that the argument was based on the false assumption that Egypt had not talked with Israel. That means Egypt had talked with Israel at some point. We don't know what parameters (if any) Israel gave the intermediaries, but at no time has Israel pooh-poohed these talks which strongly suggests that they know what is going on.

 

[TomC]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

That the intermediaries did not talk with Israel.

Well, if they didn't talk with Israel, what is the point of your complaint?
Tom

I pointed out that the argument was based on the false assumption that Egypt had not talked with Israel. That means Egypt had talked with Israel at some point. We don't know what parameters (if any) Israel gave the intermediaries, but at no time has Israel pooh-poohed these talks which strongly suggests that they know what is going on.

That's not what you actually said,
But honestly, I doubt that Israelis are much interested in dealing with such a peace process.
What they want is Israeli security and the people involved have never been particularly interested in that. Quite the contrary.

Nor do I think Likud is stupid enough to believe much of anything they say or claim to want. We all know what they want.
The ethnic cleansing of the region. Israel won't accept that.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I wonder if beliefs like the following could explain Israel's comfort with killing children?

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl who is three years and one day old dies, if his brother, the yavam, engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife; and if she is married, a man other than her husband is liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with a married woman. - Sanhedrin 55B

I'm going to take a stab at answering this question. You didn't say necessarily that the specific text had an impact on "comfort with killing children," but rather "if beliefs like the following." Nonetheless, I am going to point out that the text isn't condoning three year old marriages but is apparently more about discussing virginity or some other technicality...or at least that is what apologetics claim. So, let's throw it out anyway and stick to a more "beliefs like the following" (but that are not the following) type question.

So, I presume you are referring to various Abrahamic religions having a history and texts that claim adulthood well prior to the age we typically claim adulthood in modern society, in particular in the US. I'll note it isn't merely wacky Abrahamic religions that sometimes have such adherents but also pedophilia or more broadly thinking of children as adults extends into the secular world, too. Just the other day I saw an argument between two posters about trying minors as adults, which we sometimes do in the U.S..

And certainly this is a thing that has been discussed in this thread in terms of people mentioning how young Hamas members can be as a way to reduce the moral impact of the slaughters...

So I think the question is "Does religion play a role in accepting children as adults and therefore make part of the accountable class of persons in collective punishment?" or maybe does religion make it easier to kill children to think of them as adults?

I'm going to say YES but primarily in two different ways than you have suggested.

1. These strains of Abrahamic religions preach of chosen people and chosen lands or holy lands that are sacred and bestowed or hard-fought and won, given by a GOD through a promise to the special people. Could be Muslims or could be Jews, some of whom will believe these types of things. Modern-day Christians seem to have given up on the Crusades, but many fully support a mythology that entitles Jews to a nation of Israel. This is different than political Zionism.

2. Some variations of Abrahamic religions are extremely tribal and as such speak of conquests in their histories and killing children...sometimes done by their God and sometimes by them. It's very disturbing but the slaughters are justified in the stories.

So SOME people in these religions and variants thereof, have some pretty fucked up views about child death supported by their religious beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

If my understanding is relatively accurate, your characterization is based on false assumptions.

In what way is the characterization based on false assumptions?
Tom

That the intermediaries did not talk with Israel.

Well, if they didn't talk with Israel, what is the point of your complaint?
Tom

I pointed out that the argument was based on the false assumption that Egypt had not talked with Israel. That means Egypt had talked with Israel at some point. We don't know what parameters (if any) Israel gave the intermediaries, but at no time has Israel pooh-poohed these talks which strongly suggests that they know what is going on.

That's not what you actually said,it

It is true, I did not use those exact words in that order. Apparently I gave my audience greater credit. I apologize.

But honestly, I doubt that Israelis are much interested in dealing with such a peace process.
What they want is Israeli security and the people involved have never been particularly interested in that. Quite the contrary.

Nor do I think Likud is stupid enough to believe much of anything they say or claim to want. We all know what they want.
The ethnic cleansing of the region. Israel won't accept that.
Tom

Whose ethnic cleansing of which region are you talking about? Israel is most assuredly but slowly engaging in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And, if exit from Gaza were easier and less costly, I suspect it would be just about empty. So, IMO, Israel is fine with ethnic cleansing as long as they are the cleaners.

 

[TomC]

Whose ethnic cleansing of which region are you talking about?

Does your knowledge of history go back further than the 2nd Intifada?
Apparently not.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Israel is most assuredly but slowly engaging in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And, if exit from Gaza were easier and less costly, I suspect it would be just about empty.

Do Egypt or Jordan want Palestinian people moving in?
Nope.
They know them too well.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Whose ethnic cleansing of which region are you talking about?

Does your knowledge of history go back further than the 2nd Intifada?
Apparently not.
Tom

Speak for yourself.

Israel is most assuredly but slowly engaging in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And, if exit from Gaza were easier and less costly, I suspect it would be just about empty.

Do Egypt or Jordan want Palestinian people moving in?
Nope.
They know them too well.
Tom

Of course, no one wants them as a group. I am not sure that Gazans want to move to Egypt or Jordan if they have a choice. But none of that refutes anything I wrote.