Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You weren't ignored, you were simply wrong.

Nothing justifies the 10/7 massacre. Thus it can not be a proper response to anything Israel did.

That word was "unprovoked" not "unjustified". Bilby is our lead pedant and he'll call you on that switch of words. Even I caught on to it.

That's rather a nitpick.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This notion that “people” don’t care if children are starving unless they are Gazan is malarky. There are dozens of NGOs dedicated to just that, including one called Feed the Children.

The point is it's not news.

If "it" (whatever "it" is) is not news, why are you bringing it up?

We are pointing out that it's very selective prosecution. It's the cop stepping over the dead body to arrest a litterer.

What on earth is that about? No one is prosecuting anything.

No one is required to meet your or anyone else's standards of acceptable levels of protest. Implying that it can only be anti-semitism that explains the visible recent concern over starvation and malnutrition in Gaza is sloppy thinking at best.

Once again, nitpicking a comparison. How about addressing the point rather than engaging in pointless disputes because a comparison isn't absolutely perfect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This notion that “people” don’t care if children are starving unless they are Gazan is malarky. There are dozens of NGOs dedicated to just that, including one called Feed the Children.

The point is it's not news.

If "it" (whatever "it" is) is not news, why are you bringing it up?

We are pointing out that it's very selective prosecution. It's the cop stepping over the dead body to arrest a litterer.

I fucking hate analogies and hypotheticals in discussions about actual suffering.

I note neither of you addressed the selective nature of it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You sure must like seeing Jews tortured.

You sure must like using vicious slurs and ad hom.

He's advocating for a position that certainly would lead to it.

For Israel to give any concessions beyond peace for the hostages would be to strongly encourage another 10/7.

Did it ever occur to you that what Israel is doing NOW is encouraging another 10/7 — tons of them, as a matter of fact?

It isn't. Large scale terrorism is never about actual wrongs, it's always about somebody wanting to cause trouble. Any minor actions of Israel are not going to change things. To truly change things they would either have to cease to exist or they would have to take down Iran--and that would mean going nuclear. Since they are not going to do either of those nothing they do will provoke war or provoke peace.

The world keeps demanding that Israel engage in appeasement.

No, it doesn’t. It keeps demanding that they stop starving and slaughtering innocent men, women, and children.

But no path to do that short of appeasement is ever presented. If there's a third path how are we a year into it and nobody presented any reasonable third path?

That brought about 10/7 and now they're saying fuck you to the demands for appeasement.

Did it ever occur to you that what Israel is doing NOW is encouraging another 10/7 — tons of them, as a matter of fact?

It's not.

And quit it with the "good faith" bit--you're assuming peace can be reached despite the fact that in an earlier post you admitted it's effectively impossible.

Is your advice to domestic violence victims to just let him rape you so there isn't a problem?

Innocent men, women and children did not “rape” Israel.

People suffer in war. Why is only Israel held to a standard that you can't harm any civilian even when they're being used as a human shield?

 

[laughing dog]

This notion that “people” don’t care if children are starving unless they are Gazan is malarky. There are dozens of NGOs dedicated to just that, including one called Feed the Children.

The point is it's not news.

If "it" (whatever "it" is) is not news, why are you bringing it up?

We are pointing out that it's very selective prosecution. It's the cop stepping over the dead body to arrest a litterer.

What on earth is that about? No one is prosecuting anything.

No one is required to meet your or anyone else's standards of acceptable levels of protest. Implying that it can only be anti-semitism that explains the visible recent concern over starvation and malnutrition in Gaza is sloppy thinking at best.

Once again, nitpicking a comparison.

You must be immune to irony because you are nitpicking about nitpicking.

How about addressing the point rather than engaging in pointless disputes because a comparison isn't absolutely perfect.

There is no point to address other than it is just a desperate attempt to slander people with whom you disagree.

 

[TomC]

Did it ever occur to you that what Israel is doing NOW is encouraging another 10/7 — tons of them, as a matter of fact?

Not like giving in to Iran and their militant proxies in Palestine would be encouraging more missiles and kidnapping. Tons of them, as a matter of fact.

The history is right there in front of everyone and God.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Since you are trying to disrupt the question let's reframe it:

10 terrorists are coming to kill your baby. They have 14 captives they are using as human shields. Do you throw the grenade or not? Do not keep trying to wiggle, this is only a comparison and thus by definition is imperfect. It is simply a problem with only horrible answers. There's no sky daddy that will give you and out if you're just good enough.

The baby and I kill them ala  Lone_Wolf_and_Cub. Not only does it disrupt their plans, I hope it ends your inane hypothetical,

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Yet you seem to think Israel should engage in appeasement. It never works, yet you keep demanding it.

If you had actually read my response, you'd realize it rebuts your straw man. I even bold-faced and italicized it for you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You weren't ignored, you were simply wrong.

Nothing justifies the 10/7 massacre. Thus it can not be a proper response to anything Israel did.

That word was "unprovoked" not "unjustified". Bilby is our lead pedant and he'll call you on that switch of words. Even I caught on to it.

That's rather a nitpick.

I said bilby is our leading pedant!

 

[laughing dog]

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.

[Mod Edit]

Please stop slandering posters with whom you disagree. It is more than unseemly for a moderator to engage in such egregious behavior.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

There's no place to run, leaving with your baby isn't an option.

So you choose to die.

. I explicitly said I kill the terrorists if I must. So there is no choice to die. Try reading the posts to which you respond.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This notion that “people” don’t care if children are starving unless they are Gazan is malarky. There are dozens of NGOs dedicated to just that, including one called Feed the Children.

The point is it's not news.

If "it" (whatever "it" is) is not news, why are you bringing it up?

We are pointing out that it's very selective prosecution. It's the cop stepping over the dead body to arrest a litterer.

I fucking hate analogies and hypotheticals in discussions about actual suffering.

I note neither of you addressed the selective nature of it.

Fuck the nature of those fucking useless hypotheticals. We have a theater where over one thousand actual Israelis were slaughtered in an attack, where actual millions of Palestinians are neglected and suffering, the displacement of actual Israelis, Gazans, and Lebanese.

The Middle East is a real thing with a history mired in crap, not some fantasy world where moral ambiguity can be washed away with hypotheticals.

 

[bilby]

Large scale terrorism is never about actual wrongs, it's always about somebody wanting to cause trouble.

Where the everlasting fuck do you get these little truthy-sounding nonsense claims from?

That's the most insanely counterfactual idea in history.

Terrorism is ALWAYS about actual wrongs.

It may be directed at easy (but inappropriate) targets, when the appropriate targets for it are too well protected; But it always has a genuine grievance at its root.

Terrorists aren't just bored kids acting out to get attention. They are people so enraged by what has been done to them that they are prepared to kill - perhaps even to die - in an effort to fight back.

Nobody is waking up one day and saying to themselves "Well, I was planning to get a job in my uncle's workshop as an apprentice, but then I remembered that I was born evil, so I had better go and kill some random people instead, for no other reason than to cause trouble".

 

[bilby]

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.

You weren't ignored, you were simply wrong.

Nothing justifies the 10/7 massacre. Thus it can not be a proper response to anything Israel did.

That word was "unprovoked" not "unjustified". Bilby is our lead pedant and he'll call you on that switch of words. Even I caught on to it.

I may be a pedant, but I deny having ever been made of lead, or of any other heavy metal.

Well, maybe uranium.

Of course, you are right. If the thread title said "unjustified", I would have no problem with it. But "unprovoked" is utter drivel.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Large scale terrorism is never about actual wrongs, it's always about somebody wanting to cause trouble.

Where the everlasting fuck do you get these little truthy-sounding nonsense claims from?

That's the most insanely counterfactual idea in history.

Terrorism is ALWAYS about actual wrongs.

It may be directed at easy (but inappropriate) targets, when the appropriate targets for it are too well protected; But it always has a genuine grievance at its root.

Terrorists aren't just bored kids acting out to get attention. They are people so enraged by what has been done to them that they are prepared to kill - perhaps even to die - in an effort to fight back.

Nobody is waking up one day and saying to themselves "Well, I was planning to get a job in my uncle's workshop as an apprentice, but then I remembered that I was born evil, so I had better go and kill some random people instead, for no other reason than to cause trouble".

I don't disagree with you. But I also think that the Hamas attack was very deliberate. I think that it is no coincidence that this happened right before the Israel/Saudi Arabia normalization pact was to be signed. And they deliberately attacked a peace concert attended by Jewish kids who want peace with Palestinians. What does that tell you? It tells me that Hamas is against the normalization pact (no surprise here); and against any peace between Jews and Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

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.

You weren't ignored, you were simply wrong.

Nothing justifies the 10/7 massacre. Thus it can not be a proper response to anything Israel did.

That word was "unprovoked" not "unjustified". Bilby is our lead pedant and he'll call you on that switch of words. Even I caught on to it.

Post #3 of this thread:

"Unprovoked"?

The IDF and Hamas have been exchanging fire for weeks. The situation has been worsening since the economic crisis in Gaza sharply intensified in early September. Salaries were cut, the only way for Gazan goods to reach markets outside of Gaza was closed, people protesting their confinement began rioting and the soldiers confining them began shooting, etc., etc.

This is an ongoing conflict. Pretending everything was fine up until this morning is absurd.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Can you provide examples of this? Who has been telling Israel not to defend itself?

Also, what specific accusations of war crimes are we talking about? Do the people making those accusations cite evidence of war crimes, or are they making baseless assertions?

Look in the mirror. You've been one of the ones chanting war crimes.

What specific accusations of war crimes are you talking about, Loren? I have provided evidence from credible sources of specific incidents I've talked about. Are there others you want to discuss?

FFS, I'm trying to have a conversation with you about it and all you're doing is complaining that I haven't force fed you a textbook. Did you read the Law of War/ Introduction to Rules of Engagement pdf from the US Marine Corps I linked to? Did you take even a cursory glance at the article I linked regarding the Battle of Mogadishu?

At no time did the US forces in Somalia murder prisoners, some with their hands still tied, and dump their bodies in a mass grave, but it appears some soldiers in the IDF did. No grandmothers holding the hands of children waving white flags were shot by US forces in Mogadishu but there is solid evidence an IDF sniper shot one in Gaza. When militants and suspected militants in Mogadishu were identified, the US did not wait until they arrived home and then blow up the buildings they were in so that their families would die, too, but earlier in this thread we saw a report that the IDF is following that policy.

When you accept Hamas propaganda as fact of course you come up with wrong answers.
IDF dump prisoners with their hands tied in a mass grave? Mass grave: definitely true. Hands tied: we have no evidence. Prisoners: we have no evidence. IDF: clearly not--the Palestinians dug that grave and buried the bodies (pictures have been found on the web showing it well before Israel occupied the area.) The grave predates Israel's control of the area. Israel dug up the grave to see if any of the hostages were there, then put things back as they were.

Link, please.

Which mass grave are you talking about?

Grandmother shot? Definitely. Conveniently on camera--why? And where's the evidence the IDF was the shooter?? And why would they do that? Israel gains nothing but suffers bad PR. Thus who is the most likely shooter? Hamas! They have knowingly sacrificed civilians before, this would not be something unusual.

Unsupported assertion. The video comes from an area that was securely under IDF control at the time, and follows incidents in which IDF forces shot and killed unarmed people, including shirtless, barefoot escaping hostages trying to surrender to them.

Wait for them to arrive home? Where are there going to be fewer civilians about--where they're spotted on the street, or at their home?

Can you guess the reason for the difference? It's because the Rules of Engagement under which US forces operated in Somalia did not allow those war crimes to be committed, but apparently the ROE for the IDF in Gaza does.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the ROE under which the IDF operates in Gaza should PROHIBIT war crimes rather than permit them? If not, why not?

You have shown one thing known to be false, one thing that is probably false and one that isn't a war crime.

And again, I will repeat: governments exist for the benefit of their citizens, at least the favored ones. They defend territory and access to resources, and protect their citizens. That does not mean that everything a government does for the good of its preferred persons is moral or justified or acceptable according to modern notions of human rights and good governance, even if the people who benefit from it really, really like it when their government kicks the shit out of the non-favored people.

And you can't understand that applies to Hamas?

I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid and keep explaining things to you as though you were. I've been arguing against double standards on this board and it's offshoots for over 20 years and you damn well know it.

 

[Tigers!]

Everyone benefits from Hamas being destroyed. Even the Palestinians. Fun fact, In the Middle East the country where muslims are the most free to worship as they please is in Israel. Everywhere else in the Middle-East they are less free.

Damn it Dr. That is supposed to be a secret. Now everybody knows.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

Can you provide examples of this? Who has been telling Israel not to defend itself?

Sigh. I will say it again. People, including your self, keep saying that Israel can defend it itself. But when Israel uses a tank, bomb, shell, aircraft etc. to defend itself up pop cries of war crimes, disproportionate response etc. If on the one hand you say that Israel can defend itself and on the other hand complain when it does then you are actually not willing to let Israel defend itself. You want Israel to lie back and think of England.

Also, what specific accusations of war crimes are we talking about? Do the people making those accusations cite evidence of war crimes, or are they making baseless assertions?

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.

FFS, I'm trying to have a conversation with you about it and all you're doing is complaining that I haven't force fed you a textbook. Did you read the Law of War/ Introduction to Rules of Engagement pdf from the US Marine Corps I linked to? Did you take even a cursory glance at the article I linked regarding the Battle of Mogadishu?

I have been aware of that fine document for many years.
But what I am asking you, Arctish, is what actions would you would consider permissible for the Israelis to do to defend themselves? Not for you to hide behind a philosophical discussions of ways. What means would you find acceptable?

At no time did the US forces in Somalia murder prisoners, some with their hands still tied, and dump their bodies in a mass grave, but it appears some soldiers in the IDF did. No grandmothers holding the hands of children waving white flags were shot by US forces in Mogadishu but there is solid evidence an IDF sniper shot one in Gaza. When militants and suspected militants in Mogadishu were identified, the US did not wait until they arrived home and then blow up the buildings they were in so that their families would die, too, but earlier in this thread we saw a report that the IDF is following that policy.

What you seem to forget is that the US soldiers lived 12,000 kms from Mogadishu. They unlike the Israelis are not within rocket range. That affects the way you treat those in front of you. Which means the Israelis need to be more discriminate and sometimes they are not.

Can you guess the reason for the difference? It's because the Rules of Engagement under which US forces operated in Somalia did not allow those war crimes to be committed, but apparently the ROE for the IDF in Gaza does.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the ROE under which the IDF operates in Gaza should PROHIBIT war crimes rather than permit them? If not, why not?

War crimes should be prohibited and punished when found. Israel soldiers who used those prisoners as shields, for example, should be punished severely.

And again, I will repeat: governments exist for the benefit of their citizens, at least the favored ones. They defend territory and access to resources, and protect their citizens. That does not mean that everything a government does for the good of its preferred persons is moral or justified or acceptable according to modern notions of human rights and good governance, even if the people who benefit from it really, really like it when their government kicks the shit out of the non-favored people.

No argument from me. Do you consider Hamas to be the government of Gaza?

 

[laughing dog]

Everyone benefits from Hamas being destroyed. Even the Palestinians. Fun fact, In the Middle East the country where muslims are the most free to worship as they please is in Israel. Everywhere else in the Middle-East they are less free.

Damn it Dr. That is supposed to be a secret. Now everybody knows.

It is a secret because it is untrue. For example, I believe Oman has no restrictions on worship.