Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

There was a deal for hostages and Bibi killed it because it also meant stopping killing Gazans.
What part of “Bibi does not want peace” don’t you understand?

Do you mean the "deal" proposed by Hamas where they only release 32 "dead or alive" hostages? Really?

Btw, bodies of three more hostages were recovered. It is questionable how many of the hostages are even still alive.
IDF recovers three hostages’ bodies from Gaza

 

[Derec]

You insist on misrepresenting what you wrote.

BS.

The AMOUNT of friendly fire is indicative of rushing aggressively and persistent reckless assumptions. There is no expectation those kinds of problems do not extend to the Palestinian civilians.

It is indicative of how difficult and dangerous urban warfare is. Especially when the enemy is completely ruthless and not in the least concerned for the well-being of their own civilian population.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's an interesting story that is related to Derec's big mistake about assuming military aged men* in a warzone should be shot and killed.

I did not say that. Why do you insist on misrepresenting what I wrote? I merely wrote that we should assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing.

You insist on misrepresenting what you wrote.

Let me elaborate on this since Derec is minimizing his own writings and forgetting words like "NOT" that need to be added to his own text.

I asked several questions and one was answered. For example, I wrote in quick succession in a paragraph Question A, B, and C. Then, Derec responded with a quick succession of statements in one paragraph Statement A and Statement B. Those statements were focusing on answering the last question I asked but also addressed the totality of questions as well. He now forgets to add the word "NOT" or the negation of his Statement B, but regardless claims to "merely" (his word) have answered as Statement B, even though he also had answered Statement A and this has ramifications.

So let's review the specific posts:

[Quick succession of less relevant questions omitted for clarity... ] Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?

Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR. We can't just assume they were civilians.

One can observe the pattern:

Don2: Question#1? Question#2? Question#3?
Derec: Statement A. Statement B.

Question#3 = "Why are you putting a burden there to PROVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!!?"
Statement A = "Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR."
Statement B = "We can't just assume they were civilians."

Derec then follows up the discussion with the following:
"I merely wrote that we should assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing."

So first, he forgets to add the negation. He ought to have written:
"I merely wrote that we should NOT assume that military aged men in a war zone are civilians, like that tweet was doing."

This is trivial and we all make typos from time to time. We can excuse his typo. However, secondly, he did not "MERELY" respond with Statement B, but also with Statement A. So this is a second misrepresentation of his post he has expressed.

We can also go beyond the statement to the greater context. We are disallowed from criticism of the Israeli government or we are being anti-Semitic. To that end, we can only allow statements like Statement A: skepticism of one side, but not the other.

So what is the conclusion here? It's this: We ought to watch a video where our observations tell us the people in the video being targeted with missiles have no rifles and we must ignore it and not question it because we must censor ourselves. If we make statements, they can only support the right-wing govt of Israel such as "Because they are military aged men IN A WARZONE DURING AN ACTIVE WAR."

That kind of self-censoring agnosticism, if we can even call it that, is not materially any different from supporting it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The AMOUNT of friendly fire is indicative of rushing aggressively and persistent reckless assumptions. There is no expectation those kinds of problems do not extend to the Palestinian civilians.

It is indicative of how difficult and dangerous urban warfare is. Especially when the enemy is completely ruthless and not in the least concerned for the well-being of their own civilian population.

You and Loren keep saying this, but it doesn't seem to make sense because you also say that Israel is killing proportionally the least number of civilians ever recorded in the history of mankind. Also, the alleged relationship between Hamas using civilians as human shields and IDF friendly fire doesn't logically seem like a dependency. Suppose we have these persons:

IDF Soldier#1
IDF Soldier#2
Hamas terrorist#1
Civilian#1

IDF Soldier#1 did not coordinate with other platoon that suddenly entered region because they are going very quickly, sees a silhouette of a military-aged man through a window and shoots, but it turns out to be IDF Soldier#2.

How did the allegation that Hamas terrorist#1 was using Civilian#1 as a human shield cause that to happen?

 

[ZiprHead]

You don't seem to recognize it when Muslims do it any more than Barbos recognizes it when Russians do it.
Tom

Hamas has no ability to commit ethnic cleansing against the Israelis.

No they don't.
That would take a much bigger part of the Muslim community.

Then why do you continue to claim Hamas is committing ethnic cleansing?

Hamas is attempting to commit ethnic cleansing. The fact that they aren't very successful at it doesn't change that.

So they're attempting to do the impossible?

 

[laughing dog]

That's fair. I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.

Since nobody has better answers I don't feel that criticism is appropriate. It's always the faith-based belief that there must be a better answer--the lack of anyone suggesting one should be recognized as significant.

i am also tired of the arrogant“ there are no better answers “ response that is driven by the faith- based belief that Israel always chooses the best options.

I am tired of the human shield whining excuse for killing civilians. Yes, the presence of civilians makes the task of killing Hamas targets more difficult and/or dangerous for the IDF. But waiting until the target is home to drop the bomb is inexcusable. Not bothering to confirm the target is inexcusable, Making the distribution of relief food, water and medical supplies is inexcusable.

I am sick and tired of the “not killing Gazans” means the genocide of Jews sometime before the end of the universe. Not only is that claim a passive aggressive accusation of anti-semitism except when it is an explicit accusation, it is an insult to the intelligence to anyone with a functioning brain.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's indicative of the IDF tactic to kill anything that moves in an IDF declared war zone.

No, it is not. It is indicative of the dangers of urban warfare. And besides, that ratio is not that far off US friendly fire deaths.

The US lost 45 US, British, and Kurdish fighters to friendly fire in the entire Iraq war.

 

[repoman]

I think that Israel having setbacks against Hamas in Northern Gaza is good for their actual goal of razing Gaza even more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And no, I don't think Netanyahu expects peace. I think that hard core Zionists have given up on the possibility of peace with the Palestinians. They are not willing to give up Israel either, and are resigned to military defense for the foreseeable future.
Tom

Replace "hard core Zionists" with "average Israeli citizen". War is expensive, they would prefer peace, but they see war as preferable to 10/7.

Their extremists would like to gobble up Gaza and the West Bank but that's not worthwhile to the average Israeli.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has done that. As I pointed out up thread, I probably come across as more staunchly Zionist than I really am. That's because I read a lot of what looks to me like heavily biased Israeli bashing.

We must live in different worlds.

Why do you think that?
Is that your best response to what I posted?
Tom

In the sense it is succinct and does not violate the TOU, yes it is.

At least 3 posters routinely pull out the kneejerk Panglossian defense of “ it’s the only feasible response's that insures Israel’s security” to justify any resulting misery on Gazan civilian misery and who reject the nuanced view that Israel has choices that do not result such misery.

Your "nuanced" is a faith based position. You are sure there must be a better answer so you blame Israel for not finding it. If nobody else has found one why do you think Israel can?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My pro-Palestinian stance is partly in response to Trumpist bashing of college students. I know you're not a Trumpist, Tom, but you're still in effect playing into their hands. That illegal confiscation of Palestinian land -- Tom? Agree with LP that Might Makes Right? -- is still tolerated and has been very WRONG. Evil acts like this build resentment against the Israeli government (and a religious faction). The lives of over a million Gazans are being destroyed in a response that may be intemperate. (By some measures Netanyahu has caused more human suffering than Putin has in ten years of a war.)

It isn't a matter of might makes right.

I choose the side that is defending itself. I choose the side that isn't trying to engage in genocide.

A majority of those million Gazans still think it was the right course of action.

Is there anything we CAN agree on? I think it would be great if some Arab coalition would step in as peace-keepers, disarming Hamas. A far-fetched Dream? Surely so, since billion-dollar grifts to Kushner were much more important, and more-or-less likely again.

What are you smoking?!

What Arab nation would touch that with a 10' pole?? To even appear to act against Islamist violence would cause major internal trouble.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With vicious anti-Muslim bigotry?

We are talking about Islamists, not merely Muslims.

The Muslim attacks on Israel have also been going on for decades. It's kinda like a continuation of the attacks that resulted in Israel in the first place.
Except now, Jews can defend themselves. And they're doing so. Even when it's not politically correct.
Tom

Of the 5 sentences, only the third one is balanced. The rest are pure propaganda.

You say "balanced"--in other words, you admit the first two are true. And what's unbalanced about them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Member of Israel's War Cabinet says he'll quit the government June 8 unless there's a new war plan

Benny Gantz, a popular centrist member of Israel’s three-member War Cabinet, threatened to resign from the government if it doesn’t adopt a new plan for the war in Gaza in the next three weeks.

apnews.com

There is a schism right now between the center-right and the far-right. If Netanyahu loses support of the center-right, Netanyahu might go even more extreme than now.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Member of Israel's War Cabinet says he'll quit the government June 8 unless there's a new war plan

Benny Gantz, a popular centrist member of Israel’s three-member War Cabinet, threatened to resign from the government if it doesn’t adopt a new plan for the war in Gaza in the next three weeks.

apnews.com

There is a schism right now between the center-right and the far-right. If Netanyahu loses support of the center-right, Netanyahu might go even more extreme than now.

It would seem that Benny Gantz should read this thread. Because then he would understand that the current plan is the best possible plan.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israelis regularly attack west bank residents, murder residents, destroy their farms and steal their land. Do you think if Hamas stopped the attacks by the Israelis would stop?

An awful lot of the settler violence does not add up.

 

[laughing dog]

With vicious anti-Muslim bigotry?

We are talking about Islamists, not merely Muslims.

The Muslim attacks on Israel have also been going on for decades. It's kinda like a continuation of the attacks that resulted in Israel in the first place.
Except now, Jews can defend themselves. And they're doing so. Even when it's not politically correct.
Tom

Of the 5 sentences, only the third one is balanced. The rest are pure propaganda.

You say "balanced"--in other words, you admit the first two are true. And what's unbalanced about them?

No, I did not. of the 5 sentences, I found the 3rd as as balanced which
means I found sentences 1, 3 , 4 and 5 as unbalanced. In fact, I found them to be oure propaganda.

Most people know propaganda is thought to be untrue.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. That refers to your overwhelming bias in your portrayal of the region's history which makes it pure propaganda.

Seems myopic.

What do you think “ myopic” means? And why do you feel that pointing out your one sided view of the region’s history makes my view “myopic”?

Myopic means near sighted.
Commonly used to describe people with a very small view of a much bigger picture.

Ah, you mean like people who equate current IDF action with self- defense.

It is not realistically possible to defend the border against all threats. The only defense possible is to remove the source of the threat.

Rather like people who think that Zionists must stop defending themselves against Muslim neighbors like Gazans. Because they don't want to see the history before October 9, 2023.
It interferes with their self righteous indignation concerning violence in the region.
Tom

I don’t know about people who think Israel must stop defending themselves. But for some reason, I doubt you do either.

Try a mirror. You claim Israel should have the right to defend itself but only in some fantasyland perfect way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who bombed a maternity ward? Recently the Russians and the IDF have bombed and carried out assaults and strikes at hospitals, including those with maternity wards. I'm sure even a shallow dip into history will reveal other instances.

Every hospital in Gaza is a Hamas base, but I do not recall any being bombed. They have been taken by ground assault. The one "bombing" of a hospital was that IJ rocket malfunction, probably touching off more rockets in the process.

Anyway, I think you may have missed the forest by focusing on the trees. Self defense is politically correct. A disproportionate response that needlessly kills tens of thousands of civilians is not.

Israel's response to the terror attack in October looks grossly disproportionate.

And you continue to think that proportionate is relevant. Proportionate in self defense means you use the least force you have available consistent with stopping the threat. There is no requirement that the amount of harm you inflict is not in excess of what they are trying to inflict on you. If a football team is trying to kill you you're legally fine in killing every member of said team even though that's 11:1.

Furthermore, no matter how lopsided an encounter so long as a deadly threat exists and they do not surrender you can continue to attack. Even if Hamas were to not fire another round the deadly threat exists to the hostages. Thus Israel is justified in shooting as Hamas so long as they have any hostages. They are already the world leaders on minimizing collateral damage, they are doing nothing wrong in that regard.

 

[Swammerdami]

... That illegal confiscation of Palestinian land -- Tom? Agree with LP that Might Makes Right? ...

It isn't a matter of might makes right.

I choose the side that is defending itself. I choose the side that isn't trying to engage in genocide.

You missed the point. We are NOT talking about the current War -- There are no easy solutions there.
We ARE talking about the abusive behavior over the decades which have led to Palestinian resentment.
in particular we are talking about the confiscation by religious extremists of West Bank land justified only by "God gave this land to me."

YOU are on record as supporting this confiscation on some legalistic grounds that it's a no-man's land. (Cite?)
BUT, what prevents Palestinians from grabbing that land back if neither side can claim it legally?
The answer to that is implicit in your claim: Might makes Right.

A far-fetched Dream? Surely so, ...

What are you smoking?!

What Arab nation would touch that with a 10' pole?? To even appear to act against Islamist violence would cause major internal trouble.

Is English your first language? I say, AGREEING with you, that a certain peace-keeping is "Surely a far-fetched Dream." You ask me what I'm smoking.

 

[laughing dog]

No. That refers to your overwhelming bias in your portrayal of the region's history which makes it pure propaganda.

Seems myopic.

What do you think “ myopic” means? And why do you feel that pointing out your one sided view of the region’s history makes my view “myopic”?

Myopic means near sighted.
Commonly used to describe people with a very small view of a much bigger picture.

Ah, you mean like people who equate current IDF action with self- defense.

It is not realistically possible to defend the border against all threats. The only defense possible is to remove the source of the threat.

Rather like people who think that Zionists must stop defending themselves against Muslim neighbors like Gazans. Because they don't want to see the history before October 9, 2023.
It interferes with their self righteous indignation concerning violence in the region.
Tom

I don’t know about people who think Israel must stop defending themselves. But for some reason, I doubt you do either.

Try a mirror. You claim Israel should have the right to defend itself but only in some fantasyland perfect way.

Coming from the author “If you refuse to kill children in Gaza, you let Hamas massacre Jews” that is spectacularly hilarious.