Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[laughing dog]

To the functionally literate who understand the term fanatic, bilby’s observations clearly explain it - fanatics and the useful dupes keep it going.

If being a fanatic is the norm in a population then most people in that population are guilty of keeping a conflict going. Its then silly to try to blame the conflict on a small subset of the Palestinians.

Because of western racism and tokenism the western left have embraced Muslim immigrants while ignoring what they are saying.

What an ironic, idiotic and bigoted theory.

Stop placing your liberal fantasy into the mouths of the Palestinians. Listen to what they are saying

You are a self-proclaimed liberal. I suggest you stop confusing your liberal fantasies with reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

I already said what should be a reasonably expected return.

No. Your position has been one of shall-not's. You persist in thinking there's a better answer is just the evil Jews would look for it.

There is a better answer and it's already required by international law.

What better answer? You're simply deciding one exists because you don't like the current result.

Yes, because it is a better answer.

But you haven't presented an answer. Just thou-shalt-nots.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

I'm aware of only one incident that might reasonably be described as a city block full of people dying--and it was from indiscriminate shooting by Hamas. The Israeli troops were disguised, they couldn't have been carrying heavy weapons.

Another dry statement that doesn't provide the confirmation I asked for.

Unfortunately, Google isn't good at specialized but basic information.

But you said you already had the information. Were you just blowing smoke up our asses when you said this?

It's one of the basic realities of war, I do not recall when or where I learned it. But remember that Biden didn't want Israel going in on the ground--if ground war was better for the people you think he would be opposed to it??

I also provided an authoritative source that contradicted you.

You provided a source that didn't back itself up at all. It proclaimed it worked but everything it talked about showed otherwise. The only cases they presented for ground war not being deadly for the inhabitants were cases where the inhabitants had already fled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Urban Myths? Exploring assumptions in the literature of urban Warfare: Part 2

????

In 1994, the Russians were invading a city with a high ethnic Russian population, so, while they bombarded, they refrained from advancing behind the curtain of explosives (which historically had such a proven protective effect). And the Somalis simply didn’t own the ordnance. In its absence they both suffered fearsome casualties. The Russians returned to Chechnya in 1999 and reverted to the proven formula, effectively destroying the city of Grozny - and were condemned for doing so by the international community.

They claim urban warfare isn't particularly bloody, yet they aren't finding examples of it other than where the city has already been smashed from the skies. Of course it's not that bloody if you're just mopping up.

You're ignoring the entirety of the rest of the article.

Israel still wants our 2000 lb bombs. Biden has refused to provide them for humanitarian puposes.

Where does it provide any examples of intact cities being taken without it being horribly bloody??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas apologetics

???

Anything Israel does is wrong. Hamas is wrong but an understandable reaction to oppression.

"Apologetics" is a reasonable term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just curious, if Israel was to stop Hamas, what method would be better, and less traumatic for the Palestinian people, than what is being done now? Negotiating with them is a waste of time. The fact that they keep using the Palestinian people as human shields, proves that the sooner they're gone the better. Backing off is just encouraging Hamas to keep using cilivilians as human shields. In spite of this Israel is going to extreme lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualities. If Hamas uses refugee camps as a rocket staging bases, Israel will hit back. Anything else would be suicide for Israel.

I find the Hamas apologetics in this thread saddening. It's so calous.

This perspective makes far more sense than the rhetoric suggesting that all Palestinians deserve consequences simply because some voted for Hamas. I fully support this approach. What I can't support is when people fail to distinguish between Hamas as an organization and the Palestinian individuals who voted for or against them.

I don't see anyone saying they "deserve" consequences. But rather that they should accept that they chose the path that is causing them problems. Consider the Felon voters that are probably going to lose their healthcare due to his actions. There are two separate questions: Do they deserve to be denied healthcare? and Do they deserve sympathy for losing their healthcare? You can easily answer no to the first and yes to the second--and that's the position we are in with Gaza.

 

[laughing dog]

Hamas apologetics

???

Anything Israel does is wrong. Hamas is wrong but an understandable reaction to oppression.

"Apologetics" is a reasonable term.

Your conclusion is based on ridiculous straw men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm just curious, if Israel was to stop Hamas, what method would be better, and less traumatic for the Palestinian people, than what is being done now? Negotiating with them is a waste of time. The fact that they keep using the Palestinian people as human shields, proves that the sooner they're gone the better. Backing off is just encouraging Hamas to keep using cilivilians as human shields. In spite of this Israel is going to extreme lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualities. If Hamas uses refugee camps as a rocket staging bases, Israel will hit back. Anything else would be suicide for Israel.

The first step to stopping Hamas is coming to the realization that Israel isn't stop Hamas.

Iran has to. How many bombs and dead in a year... and we still have Hamas. Hamas is weaker, but it still exists.

I find it tragic that when things are difficult, sometimes people triple down on what hasn't worked before as the obvious and only answer. Stopping Hamas is a diplomatic thing. Not a military thing,

Yes, but you're making the standard mistake of thinking there is a diplomatic solution.

Israel might talk of destroying Hamas but they know it's simply one front on a larger war and that realistically the only thing they can do is keep the scale of the attacks against them down. Think of it like pulling weeds--makes the situation better even though ultimate victory is impossible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Israel, Egypt prove diplomacy isn't impossible. It can be costly though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I see it, the fundamental flaw of Palestinian thinking is the belief that they are part of a dominant majority, (Muslims) who can threaten and terrorise Israel into submission. Which is a old Ottoman fantasy. The Muslim world has always been fractured. This is coupled with the narrative of Muslims (and colonials) resisting and defeating powerful colonial overlords, which also doesn't apply to Israel. These two powerful narratives are preventing Palestinians to accept that Jews are going to be their neighbours now.

Fantasy? That was pretty much the reality before 1948.

These stories can change. Until they change Israel cannot afford to be complacent.

We often forget that the Muslim world sharply swung towards atheistic communism in the 60'ies to 80'ies and then swung back towards Islamism. Ie, Hegelian dialectics. Islam isn't an unchanging obstinate army of Jihad. The Middle-East is a region that has been in rapid and dramatic social and political changes the last hundred years. The Middle-East is going to keep changing. But right now it's a source of terrorism and instability. We shouldn't ignore that

They got oil money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

They seem to have become the international mouthpieces for tyrannical government and violent terrorism.
Tom

Last several years? I haven't lost any respect for them in that period because I had already lost it all before then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

UN had one job, prevent WWIII. It has worked so far.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

And if there was not a single civilian in the hospital, has destroying it brought Israel logistically closer to ending Hamas?

I don't know which hospital you're talking about but I do recently recall Israel capturing a lot of Hamas when they took a hospital.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earllier Dr.Zoidberg wrote something about what a nice, well-behaved army IDF is.

Right, then.

I'd lost a bunch of respect for the UN over the last several years.

This was just another episode. They managed to bitch about the destruction of hospitals and such without mentioning human shields.

They seem to have become the international mouthpieces for tyrannical government and violent terrorism.
Tom

You do know the UN is not a tabloid right? You speak as if it's a single organization posting clickbait rather than a group of nations. The UN has mentioned Hamas using human shields.

TOM TUGENDHAT, Minister of State for Security of the United Kingdom
We know that Hamas are using innocent Palestinian civilians as human shields; they have embedded themselves in civilian communities,”

ANNALENA BAERBOCK, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany,
In doing so, we must not be fooled by Hamas’ playbook,” she said, pointing to their use of women and children in Gaza as human shields, and their hiding of weapons under supermarkets, apartment blocks and even hospitals.

SERGIY KYSLYTSYA (Ukraine) He also condemned the taking of hostages and demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all captives. Hamas has plunged the region into hostilities and is using civilians as human shields.

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State of the United States
Palestinian civilians must be protected, and Hamas must cease to use them as human shields.

There’s plenty more out there for anyone genuinely interested in finding it.

Very much minority opinions. Just because there are some sane ones doesn't mean the sane ones have a meaningful voice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.

*ponders all those other times bombings and bullets didn't work*

• Vietnam
• Afghanistan (USSR)
• Afghanistan (USA)
• Iraq
• Israel (last 20 years)

Bombs and guns didn't impede the insurgency. Working with the people did.

When has working with the people ever worked?

What insurgency has ever been defeated by working with the people? Insurgencies are defeated by removing their source of support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

No. Suppose Israel stops shooting. Gaza would still hold the hostages, it wouldn't be over. You would be handing a hell of a victory to Hamas and ensure more 10/7s. You have consistently refused to address the fact that your "solutions" lead to more atrocities.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

I think it is more reasonable to suggest that if there is no end to the IDF strikes, then the IDF strikes aren't achieving the goal.

I don't disagree, but reason requires acknowledgement of reality. Whether stopping the violence is a wise move on the part of Israel is a different question of whether Israel can stop its violence.

Goalposts!!!

You are correct that it would be possible for Israel to stop it's violence. But the claim earlier was that Israel could stop the war. At this point the only way they could stop the war is to commit suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going. So it is. But blowing up a military installation brings IDF closer to ending the threat to Israel, if only by a small amount.

*ponders all those other times bombings and bullets didn't work*

• Vietnam
• Afghanistan (USSR)
• Afghanistan (USA)
• Iraq
• Israel (last 20 years)

Bombs and guns didn't impede the insurgency. Working with the people did.

In any of those cases,
Were the "victims" also the attackers?

In all of them, depending on how loosely we are labeling victims and attackers.

Your first four cases are clear wins for the insurgency. How do you say that's defeating the insurgency?

Also, why pinch off Israel history at 20 years?

Because the last 20 years has been cyclical regarding attacks from Hamas, responses from IDF.

The character of the war has changed over time but it's been a pattern of attacks against Israel followed by responses for more than 70 years.

Looks like a transparent attempt to white wash Islamic terrorists and the results of all that violence that they perpetrated.

As a person who knew someone who was murdered by Islamic Terrorists, I think you know where to shove those callous sentiments. It is just so fucking easy for people like you to throw that shit about like it was nothing.

So you knew a victim of the terrorists and yet don't see the terrorists as evil?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I realize this is hard, if Israel stopped the bombing and invasion, this war would be over.

I realize you prefer not to grasp the big picture, so this is hard. But Israel stopping their defense while Gazans (whether lead by Hamas or not) continue their attacks will Not end the war. It will be giving a victory to the violent Muslim extremists.
Tom

That’s true. Israel is in a position where stopping now would likely allow Hamas to regroup, so they need a sustainable path forward. I’m curious—what do you think that might look like?

There isn't one. That's what the liberals do not get.

Realistically, there will be war for the foreseeable future, the only question is the intensity of the war. Israel understands this and seeks to minimize the overall intensity--but the only way to do that is to minimize Hamas' and Hezbollah's ability to attack them. Remember, for years Israel has been saying about the tunnels. For years they have been saying about the towns full of rockets in Lebanon. Nobody would listen, now Israel went in and dealt with them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How can Israel end a war that their enemies have sworn to keep going until Israel is destroyed?
I realize this is hard, if Israel stopped the bombing and invasion, this war would be over.

It would not be over. Hamas would not hand the hostages back. It's is amazing that you truly believe that.

Same reason we elected The Felon. People are very prone to believing what they want to hear. People want to do something and are very prone to choosing a bad option over inaction.

 

[laughing dog]

How so? All the bombs and bullets in 13 months, Hamas is still here.

Gazans insist on keeping the war going.

That is literally counterfactual. At this time, the IDF is continuing the violence. The IDF has the ability to stop anytime. That does not stop the hostilities nor prevent future acts of war, but at this moment, either side can stop the war.

No. Suppose Israel stops shooting. Gaza would still hold the hostages, it wouldn't be over. ....

Either side can stop the ARMED CONFLICT (i.e. war). Whether that is a good idea for one party or the other is a completely different matter. Nothing you wrote contradicts that. Your response ignores basic reality. Responses that ignore reality are, by definition, unrealistic.