• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

To denote when two or more threads have been merged
You write as though everything was happy and peaceful before 7 October 2023. Really? Did the conflict have no prior history?
Look at the thread title. "Unprovoked" is right there.

I objected strenuously to this, some 5,300 posts ago, and was soundly ignored.

Apoarently it's the official position of this board that 7 October 2023 was the very first time anyone did anything mean, cruel, or wrong, to anyone else, anywhere in the Middle East.
We could go back to 120-130AD when the Romans expelled the Jews from Judea. That was very mean and cruel.
 
Yet somehow it's Israel's fault what's happening even though you admit Israel isn't in a position to make peace.

Is everything black and white? Must there be exactly one side that is right and one side that is wrong?

You write as though everything was happy and peaceful before 7 October 2023. Really? Did the conflict have no prior history?

Palestinians are resentful of the approx. One Million Israelis who have confiscated Palestinian houses and territory in the West Bank for their own dwellings. Can you understand that? Those settlements are in violation of international law. Last time you were asked about this matter, your reply amounted to "Might makes right. Ha ha ha!" Is that still your position?
These settlements must be stopped in the current environment.
Long before Hamas attacked a year ago, the conditions imposed by Israel on the Palestinians had similarities to the Warsaw Ghetto under Hitler.

Do you have any hope for the Palestinians' future? Are Netanyahu's actions the way to build trust and friendship?
I would like to have hope for the future but not with the current crop of 'leaders' and their followers.
 
Last edited:

And no one here has denied the IDF and the government of Israel should, and indeed must, defend Israel, including waging war against organizations like Hamas that attack its citizens.
I am glad you have said that.

I have said it repeatedly in this thread and others for over 20 years.

Did you just now notice?

More importantly, will you remember that I said it so I don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again?
You pretend you accept Israel defending themselves but you demand they follow impossible standards in doing so.
Arctish et. al would make a good pairing with the Hon. Penny Wong, Foreign Minister of Australia. She too constantly repeats the refrain that Israel is allowed too, and must defend its citizens. Yet as soon as Israel does anything to defend itself there is the blather about possible war crimes, disproportionate response etc., etc..
I must acknowledge the fastidious care that such people take to ensure that there is no possibility of determining what actions, if any, Israel could do that they would find acceptable.
 

Hamas is not interested in peace. Radical Islamists are not interested in peace. That is the reality of the Middle East. Nothing Israel does will change that unless Israel manages to kill everyone in the Middle east and then prevents any Islamist from moving there. Killing doesn'[t solve their problem - it postpones it until it returns larger and more deadly.
Glad you have said that. We can certainly agree on that.
I will make it easy for you.
What are 3 (three) things that Israel could do concerning Hamas and the hostages of which you would approve?
(Israel disappearing is not one of the three)
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
Then the Palestinians will kidnap a bunch more Israelis.
Again.
Because kidnapping gets them what they want. And nobody from the UN to American university students will do anything but tell Israelis how evil and genocidal they are.

Fuck that noise.
Tom
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
Then the Palestinians will kidnap a bunch more Israelis.
Again.
Because kidnapping gets them what they want. And nobody from the UN to American university students will do anything but tell Israelis how evil and genocidal they are.

Fuck that noise.
Tom
“the Palestinians”? Fuck THAT noise.

Someone(s) is always tries to disrupt the path to peace.

I was asked a wuestion, and I answered the question as asked. Do I think anyone in that region who really wants peace and is in a position to act will do anything at this time? No.
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
Then the Palestinians will kidnap a bunch more Israelis.
Again.
Because kidnapping gets them what they want. And nobody from the UN to American university students will do anything but tell Israelis how evil and genocidal they are.

Fuck that noise.
Tom
“the Palestinians”? Fuck THAT noise.
So,
You think that those Israelis were kidnapped by people other than Palestinians?

I don't understand what else you could mean.
Tom
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
Then the Palestinians will kidnap a bunch more Israelis.
Again.
Because kidnapping gets them what they want. And nobody from the UN to American university students will do anything but tell Israelis how evil and genocidal they are.

Fuck that noise.
Tom
“the Palestinians”? Fuck THAT noise.
So,
You think that those Israelis were kidnapped by people other than Palestinians?

I don't understand what else you could mean.
Tom
That’s curious because you omitted “the” in front of “Palestinians “ in your question.
 
Last edited:
I think there is even less of a chance now that Hamas will agree to peace. Of course, I think that chance has always been epsilon away from zero,
Yet somehow it's Israel's fault what's happening even though you admit Israel isn't in a position to make peace.
What is Israel's fault? Are you under the impression that because Hamas will not agree to peace that Israel has no choice to oblige Hamas and kill noncombatants at the rate at which they do?

Hamas is not interested in peace. Radical Islamists are not interested in peace. That is the reality of the Middle East. Nothing Israel does will change that unless Israel manages to kill everyone in the Middle east and then prevents any Islamist from moving there. Killing doesn'[t solve their problem - it postpones it until it returns larger and more deadly.
If peace is not an option it simply comes down to where the fighting is. In Israel, killing Israeli civilians, or in Gaza, killing Palestinian civilians.

If you're going to go with the option of the lowest death toll being the right answer Iran would love it--trade 9 million Muslims for 9 million Jews and accomplish their genocide.

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?
 
10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?
I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.
 
Is everything black and white? Must there be exactly one side that is right and one side that is wrong?
There are shades of gray, but that does not mean they are similar shades. Big difference between #D0D0D0 and #303030.
You write as though everything was happy and peaceful before 7 October 2023. Really? Did the conflict have no prior history?
There is. Hamas have been murdering Israeli civilians for decades. That's why so many of them are in prison.
One of the goals of the 10/7 massacre and hostage taking was to effect the release of all the Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons. And not for nothing, that was also a common demand on picket signs at western protests.
F78z_DoXQAAMswP

Almost as if there was some kind of collusion between Hamas and the protest movement. Hmmm.
The prisoner issue had been very near and dear to Yahya Sinwar btw. because he himself imprisoned for over two decades and foolishly released in the Shalit deal. See, I can criticize Netanyahu too when he does something stupid!

Upshot is that a new Hamas leader might be less obsessed with the issue of prisoners and more amenable to a reasonable deal. Time will tell.

Palestinians are resentful of the approx. One Million Israelis who have confiscated Palestinian houses and territory in the West Bank for their own dwellings. Can you understand that?
Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank) is a very different issue than Gaza. Gaza Strip is in the southern coastal plain, an area traditionally associated with Philistines. Judea and Samaria are core Israelites lands historically, so there is much more emotional attachment to those lands. Moreover, the area was never part of a state of "Palestine". Before Israel, it was controlled by Jordan, then Brits, then Ottomans and a series of foreign empires down to the Romans. Last time the land was natively ruled was the Hasmonean Kingdom of, yes, Israel.
So giving up WB would be very difficult to sell to the Israeli public. At the same time, disengagement from Gaza proved disastrous. A unilateral withdrawal from WB would open it to becoming a larger Gaza from which Palestinian terrorists would launch rockets and other attacks.
I do understand some kind of negotiated settlement should be made. A way to have part of WB annexed to Israel while giving most of it to the Palestinians. But it must be a negotiated deal and one where there is reasonable certainty that this State of Palestine would not become a cesspool for terrorists. Given that not even Lebanon is willing and/or capable of getting rid of Hezbollah, I do not rate the ability and willingness of a future Palestinian government to get rid of terrorists very highly. Especially when even Fatah, the supposedly moderate party, maintains a terror wing, and when PLO has mourned Yahya Sinwar's death.
Abbas’s PLO mourns ‘martyrdom’ of Hamas chief Sinwar, a ‘great national leader’
Can these people really be legitimate partners for peace given this attitude?
Those settlements are in violation of international law. Last time you were asked about this matter, your reply amounted to "Might makes right. Ha ha ha!" Is that still your position?
They are disputed territory. Technically, Israel won it from Jordan, but they relinquished claims to it. Final status should be negotiated, rather than pressuring Israel into a unilateral withdrawal.
Long before Hamas attacked a year ago, the conditions imposed by Israel on the Palestinians had similarities to the Warsaw Ghetto under Hitler.
Bullshit. It is Godwinesque hyperbole like this that makes discussion of this issue so difficult.

Do you have any hope for the Palestinians' future? Are Netanyahu's actions the way to build trust and friendship?
There can only be a future for Palestinians if they give up terrorism and also give up notions of destroying Israel, or of so-called "right of return" etc.

Take Gaza. How can Gaza have any future whatsoever? Surely, the necessary condition is that Hamas is no longer in charge or active in the Strip. Rebuilding Gaza is a project that will last 25-30 years and cost upward of $50G. It would be foolish for international community to commit that kind of money if Hamas is still in charge or active in the Strip. They can divert funds and material to rebuilding tunnels instead of apartments for example. And if they decide to attack Israel again in five years, all the rebuilding efforts will be for naught.

Germany wasn't allowed to keep their Nazi government. Neither should the Palestinians.
 
Last edited:
10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?
I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.
Who are the 40 innocent bystanders?

What if the terrorists have you surrounded and you can not leave with your baby?
 

No, I don't support Netanyahu. I don't think that it's possible to completely wipe out Hamas. However, this is hamas's doing. They are too blame. But people don't care about children starving unless they are gazians. 10,000 starve every day. Where are the posts regarding this?
And why did nobody care when I posted about what's happening in Sudan?
I have asked that question twice earlier and heard nothing.

Muslims fighting Muslims - the west does not care (see Syria, Afghanistan etc.)
Muslims/Jews fighting - suddenly the rest of the world cares.
Somehow get a western country to blame - suddenly the rest of the world cares.
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
One live hostage? Very generous of you. That's not a show of good faith. That is spitting in the faces of the other hostages and their families.
 
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
One live hostage? Very generous of you. That's not a show of good faith. That is spitting in the faces of the other hostages and their families.
Perhaps the issue with your hasty ill-considered response is that a show of good faith is necessary to build trust to proceed to more extensive exchange or do you think parties that have a long history of mistrust will instantaneously start hugging and trusting each other?


10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?
I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.
Who are the 40 innocent bystanders?
40 innocent bystanders. How come you are not asking who are the terrorists.
What if the terrorists have you surrounded and you can not leave with your baby?
Then you are changing the scenario because they are not coming to kill me.

To answer your question - it wouldn't happen because of my early warning system.

 

And no one here has denied the IDF and the government of Israel should, and indeed must, defend Israel, including waging war against organizations like Hamas that attack its citizens.
I am glad you have said that.

I have said it repeatedly in this thread and others for over 20 years.

Did you just now notice?

More importantly, will you remember that I said it so I don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again?
You pretend you accept Israel defending themselves but you demand they follow impossible standards in doing so.
Arctish et. al would make a good pairing with the Hon. Penny Wong, Foreign Minister of Australia. She too constantly repeats the refrain that Israel is allowed too, and must defend its citizens. Yet as soon as Israel does anything to defend itself there is the blather about possible war crimes, disproportionate response etc., etc..

Governments exist to facilitate cooperation between individuals so that multiple individuals can benefit through joint efforts and pooled resources, to acquire and defend access to resources, and to protect the individuals who are full members of that society. The characteristics of each government can vary greatly, but the purpose is pretty much the same everywhere. So while a government can be democratic, theocratic, autocratic, aristocratic, etc., the most important functions of every government is to defend territory and protect the favored populace.

That does not mean that every government is equally good, equally bad, or equally functional. It does not mean that every policy one promotes or action one takes is equally good, bad, or inconsequential in their effects on their own people and others. It does not mean that specific actions of a specific government or specific leader can't be criticized. They can, and indeed, they should.

What Israel does, what Netanyahu and his allies say, and what policies they promote, are as subject to scrutiny and criticism as the policies of every government in the world and the musings of every world leader or Cabinet member. To attempt to carve out exceptions for Israel is special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

It seems absurd that those basic points need to be expressed every few months but apparently it's necessary because some folks around here absolutely insist on employing double standards.

I must acknowledge the fastidious care that such people take to ensure that there is no possibility of determining what actions, if any, Israel could do that they would find acceptable.
I must acknowledge your apparent unwillingness to engage in a discussion of that very thing. Let me know if you decide to read any of the articles I linked or the book I suggested, or if you have any material you'd like to offer instead.
 
Last edited:
IMO, a game changing offer to leave the West Bank in exchange for live hostages. As a show of good intentions, stop any building and atrest any settlers implicated in violence. In return, get one live hostage as a show of Hamas’s good faith.
One live hostage? Very generous of you. That's not a show of good faith. That is spitting in the faces of the other hostages and their families.
Perhaps the issue with your hasty ill-considered response is that a show of good faith is necessary to build trust to proceed to more extensive exchange or do you think parties that have a long history of mistrust will instantaneously start hugging and trusting each other?
What will happen to the rest of the hostages?
Israel has evacuated the west bank, arrested some settlers, presumably stopped bombing in Gaza for one hostage. Hamas will not need to do anything else. And still have the rest of the hostages. Good deal for them.

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. Do you throw the grenade, killing the 10 terrorists, or do you let them kill your baby because one death is better than ten deaths?
I leave with my baby. If I must, I kill the terrorists but not the 40 innocent bystanders.
Who are the 40 innocent bystanders?
40 innocent bystanders. How come you are not asking who are the terrorists.
What if the terrorists have you surrounded and you can not leave with your baby?
Then you are changing the scenario because they are not coming to kill me.
Agreed. I did not realise that Loren started that scenario.
To answer your question - it wouldn't happen because of my early warning system.

 

And no one here has denied the IDF and the government of Israel should, and indeed must, defend Israel, including waging war against organizations like Hamas that attack its citizens.
I am glad you have said that.

I have said it repeatedly in this thread and others for over 20 years.

Did you just now notice?

More importantly, will you remember that I said it so I don't have to keep saying the same thing over and over again?
You pretend you accept Israel defending themselves but you demand they follow impossible standards in doing so.
Arctish et. al would make a good pairing with the Hon. Penny Wong, Foreign Minister of Australia. She too constantly repeats the refrain that Israel is allowed too, and must defend its citizens. Yet as soon as Israel does anything to defend itself there is the blather about possible war crimes, disproportionate response etc., etc..

Governments exist to facilitate cooperation between individuals so that multiple individuals can benefit through joint efforts and pooled resources, to acquire and defend access to resources, and to protect the individuals who are full members of that society. The characteristics of each government can vary greatly, but the purpose is pretty much the same everywhere. So while a government can be democratic, theocratic, autocratic, aristocratic, etc., the most important functions of every government is to defend territory and protect the favored populace.

That does not mean that every government is equally good, equally bad, or equally functional. It does not mean that every policy one promotes or action one takes is equally good, bad, or inconsequential in their effects on their own people and others. It does not mean that specific actions of a specific government or specific leader can't be criticized. They can, and indeed, they should.

What Israel does, what Netanyahu and his allies say, and what policies they promote, are as subject to scrutiny and criticism as the policies of every government in the world and the musings of every world leader or Cabinet member. To attempt to carve out exceptions for Israel is special pleading, and it's a fallacy.

It seems absurd that those basic points need to be expressed every few months but apparently it's necessary because some folks around here absolutely insist on employing double standards.
The double standard seems to be that Israel can do nothing to defend its self without being accused of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. Constantly Israel is told not to escalate, defend or retaliate. That will not get the hostages back nor bring peace to the region.
I must acknowledge the fastidious care that such people take to ensure that there is no possibility of determining what actions, if any, Israel could do that they would find acceptable.
I must acknowledge your apparent unwillingness to engage in a discussion of that very thing. Let me know if you decide to read any of the articles I linked or the book I suggested, or if you have any material you'd like to offer instead.
So you still can/will not tell us what acceptable actions to you Israel can do? Referring to rules of engagement does not tell me what you consider acceptable. A good fig leaf to hide behind though.
 
Back
Top Bottom