Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

This about sums it up

 

[Gospel]

This about sums it up

What that sums up is the views of Hamas and other fundamentalist groups in Gaza.

While violence is necessary, responding with violence alone only serves to strengthen these fundamentalists. Giving voice to only Hamas and fundamentalist as if they are the only voices in Gaza only helps Hamas and other fundamentalist groups in Gaza.

I’m not suggesting that violence isn’t necessary, nor am I denying that Hamas and its supporters promote a dangerous vision of a religiously governed state led by extreme fundamentalists. However, I’m arguing that Israel and the international community need to approach this with greater strategic foresight to avoid playing into their hands while working to neutralize them.

Although international organizations have criticized Israel's efforts as inadequate, Israel has taken steps to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. This suggests that its leadership recognizes that violence alone is not the solution. In my opinion, we are likely to see Israel take the next steps I've been advocating for. When that happens, I look forward to seeing your support extend to those efforts just as strongly as you support their right to self-defense with violence. When that time comes, I promise I won’t say, 'I told you so,' because this is about lives being lost, and that’s far too serious for point-scoring.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why is the ICC going for a war crimes prosecution without first considering whether there are war crimes?

In all fairness the ICC prosecution is to evaluate whether there has been war crimes. Any nation who subscribe to it can make an accusation.

Because idiots don't understand how courts work they often confuse an accusation with guilt

I think its good to try Netanyahu. I think he won't be found guilty

The thing is an accusation should be backed by evidence before it reaches a court. Courts do not seek evidence, they evaluate already-presented evidence. You don't bring a case and then say, wait, we need more time to get the evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And why is the ICC going for a war crimes prosecution without first considering whether there are war crimes?

Why do you think they didn't?

Because South Africa (the ones that made the complaint) didn't have the evidence to bring a complaint.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But realistically, what other options are there? Staying in Gaza isn’t viable, the international community wouldn’t tolerate it, and it would only deepen hatred and distrust among Palestinians. Moving or killing the population is, of course, way out of the question.

Those aren’t just suggestions—they’re the reality.

As I said before, the need to do something drives a lot of wrong.

Ugly as it is the status quo of Israel periodically smashing the terrorists is almost certainly the best attainable outcome.

In my opinion, Israel could collaborate with the PLO to help them regain the trust of Palestinians by supporting their humanitarian efforts. Another good starting point might be agreeing to end and dismantle Jewish settlements while completely lifting restrictions on fishing. However, when it comes to other matters, such as control over imports, airspace, and borders, Israel has little incentive to relinquish control, as Gaza will continue to pose a security threat due to the ideology that frames the liberation of Palestine from Israeli control as a religious duty.

As always, make the Jews do something. They're tired of always being asked to do something.

And it's the overall religious ideology, not specifically the Palestinian religious ideology. Islam hates the notion of losing land and Israel is an extreme case of it. This isn't about the people, it's about what religion controls the land.

And Israel doesn't care about fishing, they care about "fishermen" smuggling in weapons.

So your suggestion is for Israelis to just keep getting killed and retaliate. Sorry but you're also asking them to do something but not only that, but to keep doing that same something indefinitely.

It's the status quo because they haven't found any way to get a better outcome. You're not providing any reason to think they can do better, you're just blaming them because you don't like what's happening.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea why Loren keeps replying to my posts when almost everything Loren adds is something I’ve already said. Loren essentially restates my points in a different way and then claims I have expectations of Israel that I don’t apply to Gaza. I’ve literally mentioned the extremists in Gaza, stressing that Gazans (Palestinians) need to "do something" about that extremism. Loren seems oddly fixated on the phrase 'doing something,' I'm just suggesting that Gazans take action against the extremists and Israel leverage the opportunity Israel created when 'doing something' that just so happened to free Gazans from Hamas' oppression. Both with the goal of forcing Iran and other extremists to abandon using Gaza. I’ve already acknowledged that this may not be easy, nor have I suggested it’s a perfect solution.

I wonder what it is about me that leads Loren and Zoidberg to assume I’m ignorant or that I hold Israel to higher expectations than Gazans, along with the other accusations they’ve thrown my way. Neither seems particularly interested in answering the question of what else can be done. Instead, they keep repeating the point that 'they will never stop trying to destroy Israel'—an ideology I’ve already acknowledged and mentioned multiple times!

You're suggesting what's clearly impossible. The Gazans are pawns in this, they do not have the power to take action against the extremists. Every time Israel has bowed to world pressure and engaged in any form of pullback the end result has been bad for Israel. Yet we continue to see calls for Israel to pull back.

 

[Gospel]

The thing is an accusation should be backed by evidence before it reaches a court. Courts do not seek evidence, they evaluate already-presented evidence. You don't bring a case and then say, wait, we need more time to get the evidence.

Could you do us all a favor and approach this thread like it's a courtroom?


Here’s a random thought that might sound a little crazy: Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk admitted that the tunnels in Gaza were built to protect Hamas fighters, claiming that safeguarding civilians is the responsibility of the United Nations and Israel. To my knowledge, Gazans have attempted to protest and overthrow the regime (albeit for economical reasons (which I think they aimed for to avoid being immediately labeled traitors) but were met with violent retaliation from both loyal civilians and Hamas forces. In my opinion, if Israel had stepped in during those critical moments to protect civilians (by civilians I mean Gazans and Israelis at home), it would have been a strategic move. Such an action would not only have served to protect lives but also given Israel an nearly indisputable moral high ground when obliterating Hamas, especially considering Hamas's own claim that civilian protection is not their responsibility but Israel's. It's not as if Israel lacked experience in supporting a regime against an alleged Palestinian Authority.

I have no idea why Loren keeps replying to my posts when almost everything Loren adds is something I’ve already said. Loren essentially restates my points in a different way and then claims I have expectations of Israel that I don’t apply to Gaza. I’ve literally mentioned the extremists in Gaza, stressing that Gazans (Palestinians) need to "do something" about that extremism. Loren seems oddly fixated on the phrase 'doing something,' I'm just suggesting that Gazans take action against the extremists and Israel leverage the opportunity Israel created when 'doing something' that just so happened to free Gazans from Hamas' oppression. Both with the goal of forcing Iran and other extremists to abandon using Gaza. I’ve already acknowledged that this may not be easy, nor have I suggested it’s a perfect solution.

I wonder what it is about me that leads Loren and Zoidberg to assume I’m ignorant or that I hold Israel to higher expectations than Gazans, along with the other accusations they’ve thrown my way. Neither seems particularly interested in answering the question of what else can be done. Instead, they keep repeating the point that 'they will never stop trying to destroy Israel'—an ideology I’ve already acknowledged and mentioned multiple times!

You're suggesting what's clearly impossible. The Gazans are pawns in this, they do not have the power to take action against the extremists. Every time Israel has bowed to world pressure and engaged in any form of pullback the end result has been bad for Israel. Yet we continue to see calls for Israel to pull back.

I'm not suggesting that Israel backs down. Why don't you take that up with the people actually making those demands? This constant habit of putting words in my posts is really starting to get annoying. Is it some kind of fetish of yours?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was a pretty good economy. The militants wrecked it. Until the terror money is removed there is no fixing the situation.

Exactly. Regrettably. you seem opposed to any efforts by Israel to disrupt the flow of terror funding. It seems you believe Israel should continue tolerating the hostile ideology in Gaza, perpetuating the cycle of attacks and invasion, an approach that does nothing to remove terror money. Here’s a hint: to eliminate terror funding, you need an environment where people are no longer willing to accept it.

I'm all for efforts to disrupt the terror funding, but your "solution" is part of the problem.

Terror wars have nothing to do with how the people are treated and can't be solved by fixing anything about how they are treated. Terror wars exist because somebody is funding them. They end with victory or with cutting the funding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would we accept that when you haven't shown us opinion pieces or interviews with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that indicate widespread determination to do anything other than have their human rights respected and their lives valued?

A completely impossible standard.

I don't think the Palestinians can be reasoned with.

Bigotry aside, why is that?

They're human beings, just like the rest of us. They are as reasonable as we are.

1) They have had a lifetime of brainwashing.

2) Any voice for peace gets stomped out by Hamas.

3) Somebody will take the money even if you somehow eliminate the current crowd. The terror money is simply too great a force for Gaza to overcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why would we accept that when you haven't shown us opinion pieces or interviews with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that indicate widespread determination to do anything other than have their human rights respected and their lives valued?

You've got recent history, since the mid 40s, as evidence.

It's certainly evidence the Palestinians want their human rights respected and their lives valued. But seeing as how that history includes Palestinian recognition of the State of Israel and ceding the land inside the 1967 border to it, an affirmation from the Palestinian leadership that Israel has the right to exist in peace and security, and the PA's pursuit of a diplomatic solution via working with the international community, DrZoidberg's claims about the baseline opinion of the Palestinians is unsupported and, at the very least, partially refuted.

Your "history" has no reality.

Bigotry aside, why is that?

They're human beings, just like the rest of us. They are as reasonable as we are.

So are the Trumpistas.

Unfortunately for the human situation, the people most inclined to use violence are going to run things.
It would not matter if 90% of Gazans just wanted to have a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Israel. As long as the ones who matter don't want that, even if only 10%, they will get their way.
Tom

The same is true of the most violent settlers and Netanyahu supporters. Does that mean the Israelis who want peace don't matter? Or does that simply mean the only Israelis who matter are the politically connected ones who idolize terrorists and celebrate the death-by-burning of an infant?

Who gets to decide who matters and who doesn't, anyway? I mean, I understand that you're the only person who can say which individuals matter to you personally, but the way you were talking about people who matter indicated you meant 'people who matter in general'. Who gets to decide that?

The fundamental difference is the terror money.

Could 10% of Israel force war against the wishes of 90%? No. Could 10% of Gaza backed by much of Gaza's economy force war against the wishes of 90%? Certainly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I just saw a clip of guys riding on trucks shooting at wild boars and getting lots of head shots. I have seen similar video of the same with helicopters.

This is EXACTLY how the Israelis are viewing the Gazans. As wild boars to be eliminated.

If Israel were actually doing this it would be reflected in the casualty counts. Yet again and again we get claims that don't hold up. If the atrocities were happening some of the claims would hold up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The negotiation and implementation of Oslo Accords were the closest Israelis and Palestinians came to peace. It is the peace process by which Israel's right to exist was formally recognized by the governing party of the Palestinian people, and the land inside the 1967 borders were formally and officially ceded to it.

Oslo was the closest to peace--but note that it did not do what you claim. It kicked the can on everything important.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It will soon be 2025, and there are still those who believe violence is the only solution. History is filled with empires that shared this belief, and most of them have long since fallen.

You are proposing more of what's already been an abject failure. Israel makes concessions to make Gazans happier, the Muslim world will take that as a signal to do more of the same since it worked last time. You're asking for another 10/7.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This conflict is fundamentally a war of ideological attrition,

Well, that’s just my completely uninformed, terrorist-sympathizing perspective.

Since you are fundamentally wrong in the first part (fundamentally, this is Islam reacting to the victim who escaped) I'll agree you're uninformed. I do not consider you a terrorist sympathizer, but rather duped by the terrorists into doing what they want. You do not intend to be on the side of the terrorists, but you've fallen for their propaganda.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember those "three" aid vehicles hit some time ago? (I put quotes because one has damage inconsistent with anything in play.)

IDF strikes World Central Kitchen employee who participated in Oct. 7 attack

The WCK issued a statement saying they had no knowledge of any individual in the vehicle having ties to the October 7 massacre.

www.jpost.com

Israel just hit one of their employees that was a terrorist. If one is doesn't that suggest more were?

 

[Arctish]

Palestinians did not "overwhelmingly" vote for Hamas.

Hamas got 44% of the vote while Fatah got 41%. However, you do have a point about the PLO/Fatah losing popularity. The failure of the PLO to secure a Palestinian State caused a lot of former supporters to vote for the party promising a new effort to secure one. And as we now know, that drop in support for Fatah was helped along by Israel covertly supporting Hamas as a way to sow division among Palestinians.

Oh, those conniving sneaky Jews and their conspiracys

Hamas are a Shia movement. Palestinians are Sunni. They must be extremely well motivated to vote against their own

No one besides you is making an argument based on racist tropes.

The PLO is a secular political party. Hamas' roots are religious, but the party isn't ruled by imams or religious scholars. The disagreements between the two political parties don't fall along Shia/Sunni lines, and neither do their supporters.

Where do you get all this shit from?

I post links to sources of information that provide support for my claims. I use the acronym 'IMO' when I'm posting my own opinion.

I typically presume that people I've engaged in conversations with on prior occasions remember enough about our conversations that I don't have to repeat the same things over and over, unless I believe I'm talking to someone who is deliberately evading a particular point or unable to grasp it. When that happens I either repost old links or provide links to more corroborating information.

And I ask people for links to information that supports their claims so I can add to my own knowledge base and/or see if they're repeating counterfactual propaganda. And I'm interested in their opinions of what I post. That's why I asked you to please point out what you believe is being overlooked or misrepresented in one of the articles I posted.

And just so you have a little background on when and how I formed most of my opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'll tell you a bit about that: I was born in the 1950s and grew up with very shallow, romanticized, and largely ignorant ideas of what the creation of Israel entailed. In my mind Israel was "a land without a people for a people without a land" and the movie Exodus was a good representation of historical facts. I wasn't shocked when I heard people calling Menachim Begin a terrorist because that was a common slur in those days, but I was very shocked when I found out he really was one and he'd been elected Prime Minister of Israel by people who knew it, and he wasn't the only one, either. I grew up hearing people say that if only the Palestinians would agree Israel had a Right to exist and would let it have the lands around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem there would be peace, but then when it happened those same people moved the goalposts. People said "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" and it took me far too long to ask "an opportunity for what?" When I joined this discussion board the failure of the Oslo Accords and the Wye River Memorandum were recent events, and I have been discussing them with other posters here ever since.

Palestinians are almost completely conservative. They're not remotely liberal. Like Arabs anywhere in the Middle-East. Remember Arab spring? It took the entire western world by surprise that the oppressive Arab rulers were forcing the Arabs to be more liberal than what they liked. That's what people were angry about. It turned out that baseline Arab culture is conservative to the extreme

Culture changes and evolves slowly. The Ottoman empire did everything they could to retard any reforms. And there's a cultural memory of this in the countries they ruled. That's not a racist opinion.

I'll tell you what I think is racist, its white westerners shoving their values down the throat of Palestinians, and not at all respecting what they want. And not listening to them at all. The actions of the Palestinians since the foundation of Israel have not been subtle.

We agree on the bolded part.

I think perhaps we disagree on whether the European Jews who emigrated to Palestine with the intention of creating a Jewish State in a place where Jews had not been a majority for over 1000 years, and the Europeans and Americans who aided and abetted them, are the white westerners who shoved their values down the throats of Palestinians. I think they are.

 

[Arctish]

The negotiation and implementation of Oslo Accords were the closest Israelis and Palestinians came to peace. It is the peace process by which Israel's right to exist was formally recognized by the governing party of the Palestinian people, and the land inside the 1967 borders were formally and officially ceded to it.

That's HUGE.

That was Number 1 on the Israeli to-do list: to get formal recognition that Israel has a Right to exist in peace and security on the lands Zionists had seized in order to create it.

The Oslo Accords were also why and how Israel recognized the PLO as representatives of the Palestinian people, and that the land outside Israel's 1967 borders isn't part of Israel.

That is also HUGE. And it's the reason Yitzhak Rabin was murdered.

Ok. What happened then? The Palestinians have just kept going as if nothing was agreed. They clearly have no respect for it.

I think you haven't taken a close look at the timeline, especially the 5 years following Rabin's assassination. The Palestinians pushed hard for implementation of the Accords to be resumed, but the situation in Israel (with the factions that called for Rabin's death gaining power) made it political suicide and quite possibly actual suicide to follow in Rabin's footsteps. When Netanyahu became Prime Minister the chances of the Accords being followed were nil, along with any chance of the formation and official recognition of a Palestinian State in Palestine.

You sound like Chamberlain proclaiming "Peace in our time" after his meeting with Hitler

Instead it was just seen, (by the Palestinians) as a first strategic move to be able to reclaim all Palestine, as everything they have done later proves

Or how about looking up what "the river to the sea" means?

Palestinian rhetoric on this is not subtle

I know what "the river to the sea" means. We've discussed it many times. We've seen the pictures of bigots and assholes showing their dream maps, and we've seen the texts of their papers, declarations, and speeches in which they express their utter contempt for other people and refusal to acknowledge any one's Rights except their own.

Do you not remember those previous discussions, or was your suggestion just an Ad Hominem?

I'm not the one who seems to have forgotten those conversations

Following this thread my analysis is that antisemitism must be pretty strong for the support of Israel to be this weak. That's the only reason left I can see

Support for Israel and support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies are two separate things. If you can't understand that, then this entire thread must be very puzzling.

And what makes you think I can't separate them?

You argue as though they are one and the same, just like other posters who argue as though Zionist = Israeli = Jew, so that a criticism of a Zionist militant is characterized as anti-Semitism.

Just one note, in Israel, the demonstrations against Netanyahu is mostly that he's not doing enough to get the hostages home. No, they don't mean to negotiate with Hamas. Like all politicians he serves his constituents

Initially I thought Netanyahu was heavy handed. But I have changed my mind. I now understand what the IDF is doing is necessary, and they are being as gentle as possible (without compromising the mission, ie bring the hostages back)

Here's a question to you. Why do you think Hamas isn't releasing the rest of the hostages?

Because the rest of the hostages are all Hamas has left with which to bargain. Also, because terrorists use human suffering as weapons and for leverage.

 

[Arctish]

Why would we accept that when you haven't shown us opinion pieces or interviews with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that indicate widespread determination to do anything other than have their human rights respected and their lives valued?

A completely impossible standard.

If it's impossible for DrZoidberg to support his claims by providing links to corroborating evidence or news reports from reputable sources, then the problem lies in the claims being made, not the request for evidence to back them up.

The same goes for your assertions. You've been repeatedly asked for links to evidence that backs up your claims. It would be helpful if you did it automatically when you are posting something factual or to use the acronym IMO when you're offering an opinion.

Like this for example:

I don't think the Palestinians can be reasoned with.

Bigotry aside, why is that?

They're human beings, just like the rest of us. They are as reasonable as we are.

IMO 1) They have had a lifetime of brainwashing.

2) Any voice for peace gets stomped out by Hamas.

3) Somebody will take the money even if you somehow eliminate the current crowd. The terror money is simply too great a force for Gaza to overcome.

*orange bold added

 

[Arctish]

The negotiation and implementation of Oslo Accords were the closest Israelis and Palestinians came to peace. It is the peace process by which Israel's right to exist was formally recognized by the governing party of the Palestinian people, and the land inside the 1967 borders were formally and officially ceded to it.

Oslo was the closest to peace--but note that it did not do what you claim. It kicked the can on everything important.

Please support your claim by listing "everything important" on which it "kicked the can". Also, please explain why direct negotiations between the governing authorities of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, official recognition of Israel's Right to exist on land Zionists had claimed by force, and the ceding of that land by the Palestinians to the Israelis, wasn't important.

Remember that thread I started on the Oslo Accords that had all those links to the Jewish Virtual Library and the text of the Accords themselves? The impression I got from your posts is that you never actually read the Accords or any subsequent agreements and had no interest in reading what participants in the negotiations had to say about them. So if you're offering up an opinion here, I really don't see any reason to think it's an informed one.

 

[Swammerdami]

More sick anti-Semitism? Hatred of Israel is becoming rampant; here's a quote that showed up in my newsfeed. Apparently some pompous Jew-hating left-winger accused Israel's military of attempting ethnic cleansing in North Gaza; then went on to say:

I am compelled to warn about what is happening there and is being concealed from us. At the end of the day, war crimes are being committed. The road we are being led down is conquest, annexation and ethnic cleansing.

I assume Loren and Zoidy will be eager to condemn this guy as a Jew-hater. What did he say next? "Go back to Auschwitz, you kikes!" ?

Oops, I forgot to mention exactly who is being quoted here. It is former Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon (also a former Army Chief).