Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not slandering, just calling attention to your cherry-picking. And you continue to blame Israel for what Hamas intended to happen.

Since there was no cherry-picking and there was no blame, so you add to your slander. One would think a moderator would know better.

Maybe you're not the one that picked the cherries but there's cherry picking here

Yes, and you should stop it.

--the situation changed. Israel had the civilians move around because that gave Israel a chance to filter out Hamas people hiding amongst them. Hamas of course hated that and reports it as Israel bombing the safe zones.

You are arguing that Israel sent people to "Filtering Hamas zones" but that is not what they were called. Calling them "safety zones" is misleading (to put it charitably). It almost sounds to me like you are accusing Israel of deliberately mislabeling the zones for international public relations purposes.

What you continue to ignore is that things can change. Today's safe zone doesn't mean it's always going to be a safe zone.

It is a safe zone until the IDF informs the inhabitants it is no longer one. The onus of proof is on you.

You are making an unsupported claim here: that there were no other messages about safe zones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea if a deal could have been arranged nor what might have entailed if it had materialized. Neither do you. But since you invoke history, it is pretty clear from history that Hamas takes hostages in order to make prisoner swaps.

My point was that if a prisoner swap had been done, some of the death and destruction would likely have been avoided. Nothing in your response rebuts that.

The last prisoner swap ended up killing a lot more Israelis than the prisoners they got back. Thus it was a very bad deal for Israel--so of course the world is trying to cram it down their throat.

The only entity cramming anything down anyone’s throats is you with your straw men.

Nothing you have written rebut the observation that an exchange would have likely avoided the massive destruction and death of the IDF’s war.

You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.

The reality is the prisoners released last time around killed more during 10/7 than Israel got back from that previous exchange. Why should we expect a different outcome this time around?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have not referenced a single quote of mine. Not one. Either you don’t understand what evidence is or you don’t have any. All you need to do is produce a quote of mine (hopefully in context) that leads you to your conclusion but only if you wish to your post taken seriously instead of being viewed as the rantings of a raving bigot.

My maternal great grandparents and great uncle were killed by Nazis because they were Jews. Frankly, if we were discussing this in person, after the 2nd slander, I’d be facing criminal charges.

How about your continual demand that Israel find better ways of protecting civilians despite there being no indication that there is any better answer? They're already the world's best and you act as if they are atrocious.

Even if your straw man about my”continual demands” was true, and your hand waved claims of fact (no indication and “world’s best) were true, none of it is evidence of antisemitism.

My position is that killing innocents is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who is killed. That means whoever knowingly does it is doing wrong.

The problem is that you are demanding perfection. A strict enforcement of your approach means evil always prevails.

There is nothing antisemitic about that position.
I and others, including Israeli and Jews, think Israel could act to avoid the level of carnage and destruction. That does mot make anyone anti-semitic.

You think. Doesn't make it so. Lots and lots of military minds are in a position to evaluate what's happening--and nobody's presented specifics as to what Israel should do differently. I find that silence very meaningful.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no idea if a deal could have been arranged nor what might have entailed if it had materialized. Neither do you. But since you invoke history, it is pretty clear from history that Hamas takes hostages in order to make prisoner swaps.

My point was that if a prisoner swap had been done, some of the death and destruction would likely have been avoided. Nothing in your response rebuts that.

The last prisoner swap ended up killing a lot more Israelis than the prisoners they got back. Thus it was a very bad deal for Israel--so of course the world is trying to cram it down their throat.

The only entity cramming anything down anyone’s throats is you with your straw men.

Nothing you have written rebut the observation that an exchange would have likely avoided the massive destruction and death of the IDF’s war.

You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.

Yet another straw man.

The reality is the prisoners released last time around killed more during 10/7 than Israel got back from that previous exchange. Why should we expect a different outcome this time around?

That does not rebut my observation about the reduction in death and destruction.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm not slandering, just calling attention to your cherry-picking. And you continue to blame Israel for what Hamas intended to happen.

Since there was no cherry-picking and there was no blame, so you add to your slander. One would think a moderator would know better.

Maybe you're not the one that picked the cherries but there's cherry picking here

Yes, and you should stop it.

--the situation changed. Israel had the civilians move around because that gave Israel a chance to filter out Hamas people hiding amongst them. Hamas of course hated that and reports it as Israel bombing the safe zones.

You are arguing that Israel sent people to "Filtering Hamas zones" but that is not what they were called. Calling them "safety zones" is misleading (to put it charitably). It almost sounds to me like you are accusing Israel of deliberately mislabeling the zones for international public relations purposes.

What you continue to ignore is that things can change. Today's safe zone doesn't mean it's always going to be a safe zone.

It is a safe zone until the IDF informs the inhabitants it is no longer one. The onus of proof is on you.

You are making an unsupported claim here: that there were no other messages about safe zones.

If there were no other messages, then those zones that have been designated as safe should still be considered safe.

 

[laughing dog]

You have not referenced a single quote of mine. Not one. Either you don’t understand what evidence is or you don’t have any. All you need to do is produce a quote of mine (hopefully in context) that leads you to your conclusion but only if you wish to your post taken seriously instead of being viewed as the rantings of a raving bigot.

My maternal great grandparents and great uncle were killed by Nazis because they were Jews. Frankly, if we were discussing this in person, after the 2nd slander, I’d be facing criminal charges.

How about your continual demand that Israel find better ways of protecting civilians despite there being no indication that there is any better answer? They're already the world's best and you act as if they are atrocious.

Even if your straw man about my”continual demands” was true, and your hand waved claims of fact (no indication and “world’s best) were true, none of it is evidence of antisemitism.

My position is that killing innocents is wrong no matter who does it and no matter who is killed. That means whoever knowingly does it is doing wrong.

The problem is that you are demanding perfection. A strict enforcement of your approach means evil always prevails.

Since I don’t demand perfection, your conclusion is s straw man.

There is nothing antisemitic about that position.
I and others, including Israeli and Jews, think Israel could act to avoid the level of carnage and destruction. That does mot make anyone anti-semitic.

You think. Doesn't make it so.

None, basic reason makes it so.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And here's a news flash, on average Palestinians aren't a modern liberal western community. They are Muslim. They have different values. They have the same values that led to every Arab spring uprising going to shit. For whatever reason Arabs/Muslims aren't so good at democracy and respecting liberal values. Muslim culture seems to be inherently imperialistic. A relentless unstoppable force that continuously pushes toward world domination. My Jewish Israeli ex-wife said that many Israelis see the the Muslims as weeds that need to be trimmed now and again. I now understand what she meant. If you're dealing with unreasonable people, there's just no point to engage with them.

Every Arab Spring uprising went to shit because the fundies were poised to take over. It says nothing about the people, but rather the size of the effort to "restore" Islamic power. Just look at some of the conservative voters on here--we see the same thing, supporting The Felon while pretending all the bad things aren't going to happen.

Ok, then. How come the Islamic fundies are the only credible organisations able to take control in the Middle-East? Don’t you think it's because of popular support?

I think the main problem is that enlightenment and liberal values are linked with colonialism. And therefore the idea of personal freedoms are tainted. Which is unfortunate. Fun fact though, the idea of nationalism is also a European import. But they seem to let that slide. Popular narratives are weird that way. Classic meme theory

 

[DrZoidberg]

I understand that you believe the deaths of children in Gaza are entirely the fault of Hamas. I agree that Hamas's actions, such as using civilians as shields, are reprehensible and contribute to the suffering of innocents. However, we cannot overlook the broader reality of what this argument implies.

You're the one ignoring the broader reality of what the argument implies. If you get your way the Israel - Palestine conflict will never be resolved

When you argue the deaths of children are "entirely" the fault of Hamas, you risk absolving the IDF of any moral responsibility for the outcomes of their actions. It’s a fact that the IDF chooses when and where to strike. These choices, even in the face of a ruthless adversary like Hamas, result in the deaths of innocent children. If the IDF knows that their actions will likely lead to children casualties and they proceed anyway, responsibility cannot be placed on Hamas alone.

Imagine this scenario: if someone deliberately places a child in harm’s way, and another person knowingly shoots through the child to hit their target, does the shooter bear no responsibility for the child's death? Most would argue that both parties hold responsibility, the one using the child as a shield and the one who made the deliberate choice to shoot, knowing the likely outcome.

"Most". Lol. No, not most. Both parties do not share responsibility

Your moral compas seems completely broken

Blaming Hamas entirely also risks dehumanizing the victims, these children, by treating their deaths as an inevitable collateral damage of war. But every child killed is a tragedy, a life lost that could have been spared with greater care and restraint. This isn't to minimize the challenges of fighting a group like Hamas, but to ask: is there not a shared duty to avoid children casualties, even under the most difficult circumstances?

Placing all the blame on Hamas shifts focus away from the harm caused by the very actions of those carrying out the strikes. It implicitly suggests that as long as Hamas is at fault, any outcome, even the killing of children, is justifiable. But can we really accept that? Is this the standard we want to uphold for ourselves, for humanity?

The death of children, no matter the circumstances, should cause us to pause, to question, and to demand better from everyone involved. It is not enough to point fingers. Unless of course you're ok with killing children to get to Hamas. Clearly both you DrZoidberg and TomC are.

But you are the one who doesn't care about the suffering and dying children in Gaza. You.

Yes, it should make us stop and pause. So why don't you stop and think about how the Palestinian children can best be protected?

When parents are unfit to take care of their children we remove custody and put them in a safer home. Right now IDF is removing the unfit parents. The fact that Hamas keeps putting children in harms way just means IDF should get it over with as soon as possible. The longer it takes the more will the Palestinian people suffer

 

[DrZoidberg]

I’m just saying out loud what they refuse to admit: they don’t care about Palestinian children and effectively endorse their deaths to wipe out Hamas’s ideology. Meanwhile, Loren, DrZoidberg, and TomC hide behind calling me a ‘Hamas apologist’ as a smokescreen for their own stance. Hamas apologists don’t call for Hamas’s destruction, yet I’ve explicitly done so multiple times. Despite that, these three want readers to ignore my clear stance against Hamas and instead focus on this supposed ‘propaganda’ they claim I’m spreading, all so they can justify the indiscriminate killing of children in Gaza. It’s especially telling that, while they demand unwavering support for Israel’s actions, they don’t show the same blind faith in their own government.

Because of IDF now we have a chance to destroy Hamas. But you don't want that to happen.

In what way do you want to destroy Hamas? Asking them nicely?

Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. They’re going to get hurt if we want to remove Hamas. The alternative is to prolong the conflict longer which will lead to more Palestinian suffering. And sooner or later Hamas has to go, which means suffering and dying children later.

You seem to have constructed some sort of fantasy scenario. You seem to completely ignore what Hamas say they want to do and have done. Hamas is not the organisation you think it is. They cannot be negotiated or reasoned with.

 

[Swammerdami]

unknowing antisemites.

What is an "unknowing antisemite"? Someone who hates the Jews but doesn't know he hates them?

Someone who blindly believes all the anti-Jewish propaganda and thinks they have a legitimate gripe with Israel's actions.

Do you include the former Israeli Defense Minister and others who respect ICC indictments among those "who blindly believe all the anti-Jewish propaganda"?

And why do anti-Netanyahu and anti-Israel morph in your mind into "anti-Jewish"?

If I reject some of Trump's actions does that make me anti-Christian? (555^*)

@Loren Pechtel -- Perhaps I missed it, but where did you address the question I've emphasized above?

 

[Gospel]

I’m just saying out loud what they refuse to admit: they don’t care about Palestinian children and effectively endorse their deaths to wipe out Hamas’s ideology. Meanwhile, Loren, DrZoidberg, and TomC hide behind calling me a ‘Hamas apologist’ as a smokescreen for their own stance. Hamas apologists don’t call for Hamas’s destruction, yet I’ve explicitly done so multiple times. Despite that, these three want readers to ignore my clear stance against Hamas and instead focus on this supposed ‘propaganda’ they claim I’m spreading, all so they can justify the indiscriminate killing of children in Gaza. It’s especially telling that, while they demand unwavering support for Israel’s actions, they don’t show the same blind faith in their own government.

Because of IDF now we have a chance to destroy Hamas. But you don't want that to happen.

In what way do you want to destroy Hamas? Asking them nicely?

Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields. They’re going to get hurt if we want to remove Hamas. The alternative is to prolong the conflict longer which will lead to more Palestinian suffering. And sooner or later Hamas has to go, which means suffering and dying children later.

You seem to have constructed some sort of fantasy scenario. You seem to completely ignore what Hamas say they want to do and have done. Hamas is not the organisation you think it is. They cannot be negotiated or reasoned with.

Your argument relies on a false binary (destroy Hamas by any means necessary or do nothing) and a straw man (that I don’t want Hamas defeated). It ignores ethical considerations around civilian protection and the predictable fallout of killing innocent children, which could easily breed more extremism instead of preventing future violence. I fully acknowledge Hamas’s brutality and still insist on the moral imperative to protect children. You sidestep that moral question entirely by misrepresenting purposefully and repeatedly my stance (that's what propagandist do btw). Again you claim that I “don’t want” Hamas destroyed. In reality, I've repeatedly stated the opposite so continuing to call me a Hamas apologist is simply untrue, since apologists don’t call for the group’s destruction at all. You frame the issue as if child casualties are the only path to eliminating Hamas, ignoring any possibility of reducing or avoiding civilian deaths. It’s a simplistic “kill or be killed” narrative that dismisses legitimate ethical concerns about BOMBING CHILDREN. So again, I'd rather be labeled antisemitic than a child killer.

 

[Gospel]

I understand that you believe the deaths of children in Gaza are entirely the fault of Hamas. I agree that Hamas's actions, such as using civilians as shields, are reprehensible and contribute to the suffering of innocents. However, we cannot overlook the broader reality of what this argument implies.

You're the one ignoring the broader reality of what the argument implies. If you get your way the Israel - Palestine conflict will never be resolved

When you argue the deaths of children are "entirely" the fault of Hamas, you risk absolving the IDF of any moral responsibility for the outcomes of their actions. It’s a fact that the IDF chooses when and where to strike. These choices, even in the face of a ruthless adversary like Hamas, result in the deaths of innocent children. If the IDF knows that their actions will likely lead to children casualties and they proceed anyway, responsibility cannot be placed on Hamas alone.

Imagine this scenario: if someone deliberately places a child in harm’s way, and another person knowingly shoots through the child to hit their target, does the shooter bear no responsibility for the child's death? Most would argue that both parties hold responsibility, the one using the child as a shield and the one who made the deliberate choice to shoot, knowing the likely outcome.

"Most". Lol. No, not most. Both parties do not share responsibility

Your moral compas seems completely broken

Blaming Hamas entirely also risks dehumanizing the victims, these children, by treating their deaths as an inevitable collateral damage of war. But every child killed is a tragedy, a life lost that could have been spared with greater care and restraint. This isn't to minimize the challenges of fighting a group like Hamas, but to ask: is there not a shared duty to avoid children casualties, even under the most difficult circumstances?

Placing all the blame on Hamas shifts focus away from the harm caused by the very actions of those carrying out the strikes. It implicitly suggests that as long as Hamas is at fault, any outcome, even the killing of children, is justifiable. But can we really accept that? Is this the standard we want to uphold for ourselves, for humanity?

The death of children, no matter the circumstances, should cause us to pause, to question, and to demand better from everyone involved. It is not enough to point fingers. Unless of course you're ok with killing children to get to Hamas. Clearly both you DrZoidberg and TomC are.

But you are the one who doesn't care about the suffering and dying children in Gaza. You.

Yes, it should make us stop and pause. So why don't you stop and think about how the Palestinian children can best be protected?

When parents are unfit to take care of their children we remove custody and put them in a safer home. Right now IDF is removing the unfit parents. The fact that Hamas keeps putting children in harms way just means IDF should get it over with as soon as possible. The longer it takes the more will the Palestinian people suffer

Dear Child Killer:

Your argument rests on a deeply flawed premise: accusing me of not caring about Gazan children simply because I question the indiscriminate violence against them. In fact, I’ve consistently called for their protection, which is the opposite of apathy.

Labeling all Gazan parents as “unfit” simply because Hamas governs their territory paints every civilian with the same brush. If the real goal is to protect children, suggesting their parents deserve to be targeted is both cruel and illogical.

Removing children from “unfit” parents typically involves social services and legal frameworks, not bombings. Pretending that killing parents is an act of safeguarding children is a chilling distortion of any genuine protective measure.

Hamas’s use of civilians as shields is reprehensible, but international law and basic morality still demand that efforts be made to spare innocent lives. Claiming children are bound to die anyway and urging a “quick end” dismisses the ethical and legal responsibility to minimize harm.

Even if massive force weakens Hamas temporarily, it often entrenches resentment and creates fertile ground for future extremism. That means children could be at risk again, hardly a lasting solution.

You imply that I’m the one ignoring children’s suffering, yet it is your argument that justifies turning a blind eye to their deaths. If anything, the stance that child casualties are an acceptable collateral damage is what truly shows disregard for their welfare.

Accusing me of indifference to Palestinian children does not absolve you of rationalizing their deaths. If you truly care about minimizing their suffering, you would advocate for strategies that protect these innocent lives, not ones that write them off as an inevitable cost.

Yours truly the anti-Semite

 

[Gospel]

I don’t understand why you, Loren, DrZoidberg, and TomC, are suddenly distancing yourselves from your earlier stance that it’s acceptable to kill children in order to eradicate Hamas, and resorting to labeling me a ‘Hamas propagandist.’ Let me make this crystal clear: like everyone else here, I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself and want Hamas gone. But you three insist on twisting any legitimate concern for civilian casualties into some form of support for Hamas, which raises serious questions about your motives. From my point of view you truly find the deaths of Gazan children acceptable and in fact encourage it.

I'm not distancing from a prior position and I don't think they are. Rather, you have ascribed a false position to us that we never agreed with in the first place to be distancing from.

And the problem is not with concern for civilian casualties. Civilian casualties are never a good thing, but that doesn't mean they can always be avoided. You are putting civilian casualties above Israel's defense--in effect, saying that Gaza can trade it's civilians for Israeli lives. That is what we object to. We do not encourage it, but we don't let ourselves be blinded by it to not see what's going on. The dead children are a Hamas weapon, fought in the press rather than the battlefield.

Look at what's been happening to the north, where they aren't so focused on human shield tactics and where they don't just call everyone a civilian: Around 90% of the dead are combatants. That's what would be happening in Gaza, also, if Hamas weren't so aggressively pursuing human shield tactics. It's the same Israel so you would expect similar ratios--the fact that they are very different is because of the tactics employed by Hamas. And it means that upwards of 80% of the civilian casualties (assuming the Hamas data is at least reasonably connected to reality) are in effect killed by Hamas, not Israel. But you're blaming Israel.

Your reply makes it painfully clear you’re whitewashing the slaughter of children under the guise of “necessary defense,” then pinning it all on Hamas. Let’s cut through the spin:

Saying “it’s Hamas’s fault” does not absolve Israel of the obligation to minimize civilian harm. You’re using Hamas’s heinous tactics to justify every dead child on the ground, as if Israel bears no moral or legal duty to distinguish between combatants and innocents.

You claim I’ve “ascribed a false position” to you, yet your own words boil down to a warped moral calculus: protecting Israeli lives is worth the cost of Gazan children’s blood. Label that however you want, but it’s exactly the stance I’ve criticized. If you truly believed civilian lives matter, you wouldn’t be so eager to write off dead children as “the price we pay.”

While Hamas’s use of human shields is vile, there’s still a clear legal and ethical requirement to avoid killing civilians whenever possible. Bombing residential areas, hospitals, or schools because “Hamas is somewhere inside” means innocent children pay the price for Hamas’s crimes—yet you blame everyone but those launching the attacks.

You bring up what’s happening in the north as if it’s proof Israel would show restraint if Hamas fought differently. That sidesteps the core issue: in Gaza, the IDF is conducting strikes in densely populated civilian areas. The fact that the enemy employs vile tactics doesn’t mean you can ignore the risk to innocents.

Portraying dead children as merely “Hamas’s weapon” is grotesque. These are real children, human beings. If this is your way of sidestepping genuine moral accountability, it only underscores how callous your position truly is.

Criticizing the killing of children does not mean I endorse Hamas. Pretending otherwise is a feeble distraction. In reality, I condemn Hamas unequivocally while also rejecting any mindset that waves away civilian massacres as unavoidable.

Ultimately, you’ve offered nothing but a blame-shifting narrative that tries to make the IDF’s actions seem blameless, even admirable, regardless of how many innocent lives are snuffed out. If you truly cared about children’s lives, you wouldn’t be cheering on or justifying actions that destroy them. Instead, you’d acknowledge that both Hamas and the IDF carry moral responsibilities, and that killing children, under any pretext, is a grievous wrong.