Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,. A rational person can be against hostage taking and against killing civilians.

Using your "reasoning", the people on this forum who defend Israel think killing civilian children is ok because you cannot have it both ways. Of course that is fucking ridiculous, but it is a direct application of your argument,

 

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

That's just stupid black and white thinking.

I disagree. It is not thinking at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why doesn't the UN and USA instead put up the pressure on Hammas to release the hostages?

If the bombing and destruction of Gaza so far hasn’t been enough what kind of pressure do you suppose would?

That's because IDF has to move slowly to minimise Palestinian civilian casualties. Hammas is making it as hard as possible for them.

You didn't answer the question.

You asked why the UN and the US don't increase the pressure on Hamas to release the hostages. If the bombing and destruction of Gaza so far hasn't been enough pressure, what kind of pressure do you suggest?

While I agree that there's nothing the US can really do to put pressure on Hamas that doesn't make putting pressure on Israel to be the right answer.

I think the best outcome for everyone is if Israel just keep going until they are done. Hammas is also bad for the Palestinians

You think Israel should just keep going until they are done what? Destroying all of Gaza? Killing all the adults who might be members of Hamas, or related to members of Hamas, or conceivably maybe-might be Hamas sympathizers? Killing the kids as they reach adolescence to prevent Hamas from recruiting them? Killing them now while it's still easily done?

What benchmark are you proposing for determining when Israel should stop?

The most obvious is getting the hostages back. And they've already offered this. The idea that Israel should simply be expected to write off the hostages is bonkers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my interpretation, the statement by Israel's representative is not incompatible with the UN resolution. A war can proceed later on after a ceasefire if the ceasefire either happens or fails and the goals of dismantling Hamas and getting all hostages can be done with negotiation, or at least mostly be accomplished by these means.

It means giving up all the territory the IDF has taken--simply for a promise to talk. Bonkers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It disturbs me that BBC leads with that Israel made an airstrike on a crowded refugee camp. Why don’t they lead with condemning Hammas for holding the hostages in refugee camps, putting Palestinian civilians in harms way?

I find the current western antisemitism disturbing.

How Gaza hostage raid ended with Israel striking crowded streets

Air strikes were called in after special forces became trapped, killing scores of Palestinians.

www.bbc.com

. I see, A report of a successful IDF action is an example of antisemitism because it didn’t lead with a blistering editorial condemning Hamas.

His point was that the lead was about the airstrike rather than the hostage rescue. Airstrikes are far more common than hostage rescues, the latter is the news.

And while we are looking at that hostage rescue:

(Note: Three of the hostages were in this guy's place)

Al Jazeera rejects accusations hostage captor was a journalist on their platform

Al Jazeera, early Monday morning, denied accusations that it employed Abdullah Al-Jamal; who held the recently

www.jpost.com

If he had nothing to do with Al Jazeera why is he listed as a correspondent on their website?

Abdallah Aljamal | Al Jazeera News | Today's latest from Al Jazeera

Abdallah Aljamal

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Loren Pechtel]

. Its the side using civilians as human shields that should be condemned

is anyone here praising the use of human shields?

No, but they are saying that Israel should simply give up when faced with human shield tactics.

There's still been no meaningful reply to that cartoon about Hamas with a baby in their plate carrier. Of course it's a cartoon--but it's a simplified but accurate description of what's going on. And most of you will not address the hard question.

BTW, not that it's really news but Hamas even admitted to benefiting from civilian casualties:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/middleeast/sinwar-hamas-israel-ceasefire-hostage-talks-intl

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's an inevitable outcome of Hammas' tactics.

Is there a reason you consistently put two m's in Hamas?

/derail

I don't know the exact situation here but there is no universally-accepted translation of many Arabic names to the roman alphabet. Thus it is not unusual to see slightly different spellings of Arabic names.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This was a high risk operation by special forces. Two groups went in. This group fucked up somehow and got trapped. The other group managed to get extracted without a mess

Israels position seems to be to extract the hostages dead or alive. Because they refuse to negotiate with terrorists. Which is fair imho

I don't see this as "fucked up"--they were spotted. That doesn't mean they fucked up, though. Perfect sneaking doesn't exist.

They succeeded in their rescue but their vehicle was hit and disabled on the way out. Bullets rarely take out vehicles but RPGs do.

 

[Arctish]

Why doesn't the UN and USA instead put up the pressure on Hammas to release the hostages?

If the bombing and destruction of Gaza so far hasn’t been enough what kind of pressure do you suppose would?

That's because IDF has to move slowly to minimise Palestinian civilian casualties. Hammas is making it as hard as possible for them.

You didn't answer the question.

You asked why the UN and the US don't increase the pressure on Hamas to release the hostages. If the bombing and destruction of Gaza so far hasn't been enough pressure, what kind of pressure do you suggest?

While I agree that there's nothing the US can really do to put pressure on Hamas that doesn't make putting pressure on Israel to be the right answer.

I think the best outcome for everyone is if Israel just keep going until they are done. Hammas is also bad for the Palestinians

You think Israel should just keep going until they are done what? Destroying all of Gaza? Killing all the adults who might be members of Hamas, or related to members of Hamas, or conceivably maybe-might be Hamas sympathizers? Killing the kids as they reach adolescence to prevent Hamas from recruiting them? Killing them now while it's still easily done?

What benchmark are you proposing for determining when Israel should stop?

The most obvious is getting the hostages back. And they've already offered this. The idea that Israel should simply be expected to write off the hostages is bonkers.

Wow, that is bonkers!

Who suggested doing that?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

I don't believe we have any Hamas supporters on here. Rather, what we have are a bunch of people who care more about not having to make hard choices than about a good outcome. It's a matter of faith: There is a good outcome. Therefore, any not-good act by the good guys is wrongful. They're about as accurate as the pro-lifers who say there's never a need for an abortion.

Sorry, but reality isn't a D&D game with a GM that makes sure the paladin doesn't face any impossible choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It may be culturally insensitive, the region is a shit hole of religious fanaticism, nationalism, and centuries old ethnic, racuil, and religious grudges.

The idea that we or anyone in the west will bring any lasting peace is a pipe dream ad political propaganda. In the past Europeans word out agreements that in end nobody lived up to regrading Israel and Palestine. Camp David Accords, Oslo Accords. All came and went.

Sudan (note that it's Iran behind the current genocide.) Nigeria. Western Sahara. Pakistan. Yemen.

It's not the region that's the problem. It's the result of countries exporting radical Islam.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's an attempt to force people to either give Israel a free pass to commit atrocities or to give Hamas a free pass to commit them. It's an excluded middle fallacy being employed as a means of defending the committing of atrocities by attacking the character of people who object to them.

It's a matter of pretending there is a middle that's being excluded.

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the best outcome for everyone is if Israel just keep going until they are done. Hammas is also bad for the Palestinians

You think Israel should just keep going until they are done what? Destroying all of Gaza? Killing all the adults who might be members of Hamas, or related to members of Hamas, or conceivably maybe-might be Hamas sympathizers? Killing the kids as they reach adolescence to prevent Hamas from recruiting them? Killing them now while it's still easily done?

What benchmark are you proposing for determining when Israel should stop?

The most obvious is getting the hostages back. And they've already offered this. The idea that Israel should simply be expected to write off the hostages is bonkers.

Wow, that is bonkers!

Who suggested doing that?

Look in the mirror. That's what you're asking for.

You can hide behind "talks", but fundamentally you are asking Israel to give up on getting their hostages back. You're lying to yourself because reality is too painful.

If Hamas won't give them up now why in the world would you expect them to give them up when they're in a much better position??

 

[Arctish]

It's an attempt to force people to either give Israel a free pass to commit atrocities or to give Hamas a free pass to commit them. It's an excluded middle fallacy being employed as a means of defending the committing of atrocities by attacking the character of people who object to them.

It's a matter of pretending there is a middle that's being excluded.

So in your opinion it simply isn't possible to say certain acts are bad and no one should commit them? You can criticize medieval Catholics or medieval Calvinists for burning people at the stake, but not both?

That's absurd.

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

No.

I don't expect perfection. I expect rules of engagement designed to protect the soldiers without committing mass murder of unarmed civilians, and without the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Your absurd excluded middle fallacy demands we choose which civilian population is to be slaughtered, and nevermind that most people here say "civilians shouldn't be slaughtered, wtf kind of question is that???"

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

Which cartoon? Also, was there a question asked of me that I refused to answer? When did that happen?

If refusing to answer a question means I support Hamas, then your refusal to support your claims must mean you worship Hitler. There's really no middle ground there. [/sarcasm]

 

[Arctish]

I think the best outcome for everyone is if Israel just keep going until they are done. Hammas is also bad for the Palestinians

You think Israel should just keep going until they are done what? Destroying all of Gaza? Killing all the adults who might be members of Hamas, or related to members of Hamas, or conceivably maybe-might be Hamas sympathizers? Killing the kids as they reach adolescence to prevent Hamas from recruiting them? Killing them now while it's still easily done?

What benchmark are you proposing for determining when Israel should stop?

The most obvious is getting the hostages back. And they've already offered this. The idea that Israel should simply be expected to write off the hostages is bonkers.

Wow, that is bonkers!

Who suggested doing that?

Look in the mirror. That's what you're asking for.

You can hide behind "talks", but fundamentally you are asking Israel to give up on getting their hostages back. You're lying to yourself because reality is too painful.

If Hamas won't give them up now why in the world would you expect them to give them up when they're in a much better position??

No one has suggested giving up on the hostages, although you have suggested giving up on getting them back alive.

And no one is hiding behind "talks". It was "talks" that got some hostages released in November. It was "talks" that got previously captured hostages released. You can pretend that hostages are only ever freed by special forces strike teams, but that's just a Hollywood movie fantasy.

I see no reason to think Hamas will be in a better position tomorrow than it is today. I have no idea why you think that's a likely outcome. Anyway, I have spoken of my belief Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box often enough to expect you to remember, so don't try playing the stupid card. I most certainly am not in favor of Hamas retaining any power, much less any hostages, anymore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In my interpretation, the statement by Israel's representative is not incompatible with the UN resolution. A war can proceed later on after a ceasefire if the ceasefire either happens or fails and the goals of dismantling Hamas and getting all hostages can be done with negotiation, or at least mostly be accomplished by these means.

It means giving up all the territory the IDF has taken--simply for a promise to talk. Bonkers.

So you want Israeli borders to include Gaza.

 

[jonatha]

It's an inevitable outcome of Hammas' tactics.

Is there a reason you consistently put two m's in Hamas?

/derail

I don't know the exact situation here but there is no universally-accepted translation of many Arabic names to the roman alphabet. Thus it is not unusual to see slightly different spellings of Arabic names.

There's only one mim in the long-form name so there's no reason to have two in the Roman version of the abbreviation. (Most of the variation comes with the various gutturals that don't occur in English...)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

I don't believe we have any Hamas supporters on here. Rather, what we have are a bunch of people who care more about not having to make hard choices than about a good outcome. It's a matter of faith: There is a good outcome. Therefore, any not-good act by the good guys is wrongful. They're about as accurate as the pro-lifers who say there's never a need for an abortion.

Sorry, but reality isn't a D&D game with a GM that makes sure the paladin doesn't face any impossible choices.

Ehe, bullshit. You can twist your Hamas support in whatever fucked up terms you want. It is still Hamas support.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

That's just stupid black and white thinking.

I disagree. It is not thinking at all.

Lol. Sometimes there are discreet choices. We can ignore all the hypothetical scenarios

 

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

That's just stupid black and white thinking.

I disagree. It is not thinking at all.

Lol. Sometimes there are discreet choices. We can ignore all the hypothetical scenarios

Framing complex issues into binary outcomes makes life easy for propagandists, their dupes, lazy thinkers, and thise who cannot handle complexity.