Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[zorq]

Another piece of context because context matters.

 

[Tigers!]

Derec's position seems to be that it's necessary to break eggs to make an omelet, that the end justifies the means.

That isn't just Derec's position.

It is also the position of everyone from Hamas to Trump.

Hamas launched a battle last week. The Palestinians knew perfectly well that it would result in mass civilian casualties. That's why they did it.

They got their way, again, and now everything is going to shit.
Tom

Why would anyone conflate a terrorist group (Hamas) with an entire population group ( the Palestinians) ?

Jews = Zionists?

 

[Patooka]

Jews = Zionists?

Who's made that assertion?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If anyone is keeping track...

Israeli govt said it confirmed it.

Media and Biden repeated it.

Biden seemed to say he confirmed it.

Later he clarified or possibly backtracked to say it was Israeli govt that confirmed it, not him.

Now Israeli govt is saying, oops, we didn't confirm it.

And a CNN journalist is saying it's not confirmed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If anyone is keeping track...

Israeli govt said it confirmed it.

Media and Biden repeated it.

Biden seemed to say he confirmed it.

Later he clarified or possibly backtracked to say it was Israeli govt that confirmed it, not him.

Now Israeli govt is saying, oops, we didn't confirm it.

And a CNN journalist is saying it's not confirmed.

Yea, Hamas was much more humane by just slaughtering the babies with bullets rather than with axes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If anyone is keeping track...

Israeli govt said it confirmed it.

Media and Biden repeated it.

Biden seemed to say he confirmed it.

Later he clarified or possibly backtracked to say it was Israeli govt that confirmed it, not him.

Now Israeli govt is saying, oops, we didn't confirm it.

And a CNN journalist is saying it's not confirmed.

Yea, Hamas was much more humane by just slaughtering the babies with bullets rather than with axes.

What's with the "yea" as if I agree with that. I think that when Israel kills babies with bullets it's wrong and I think that when Hamas kills babies with bullets it's wrong. So, obviously, you imagined I had a point I did not. Either that, or you are spinning what I wrote into something else. Therefore, let me ask you: don't you think it's wrong for Israel to also kill babies?

My point has been about war-time propaganda and how we easily get fooled into things by being so one-sided. Before, earlier in the thread, I pointed out how there have been stories like this just prior to other invasions and military "interventions." One example I gave was Iraq's re-taking of Kuwait. If you want to respond meaningfully at all to what I wrote, then you could address this part.

Nayirah testimony - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yea, Hamas was much more humane by just slaughtering the babies with bullets rather than with axes.

I was careful not to repeat this claim as it was exotic. And of course, there is no need for hyperbole, when slaughter of children is quite awful in its own right. For me, it just didn't feel logistically feasible to wage that widespread of a terror campaign, but hold back to commit that level of atrocity.

I can understand the confusion too. Language could be mistaken regarding specific details. One person's horror could be a step above another.

I think my main objection with Israeli bombings at this point is a parallel with the Cleveland Browns signing Deshaun Watson to a bazillion dollar contract. Even if it is short term successful (best case scenario), long term success seems impossible. How many targets can possibly exist in Gaza? Dropping bombs to destroy tunnels 50 to 100 feet below the ground surface?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 44460

Another piece of context because context matters.

I'm uncertain the context that is being represented. The thing I'd note on the chart is that Israel has often had an asymmetrical response to killings. Looking at 2023, the two bars are much closer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm uncertain the context that is being represented. The thing I'd note on the chart is that Israel has often had an asymmetrical response to killings. Looking at 2023, the two bars are much closer.

Does this mean we can expect to observe around 10K Palestinian deaths?

 

[robnisch]

One could argue that the source of most of the conflicts today are rooted in a long history of white supremacism.
Be it the colonizing of Africa or the Monroe doctrine or the British in India. It all boils down to "white men know better".

ETA: And Greed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But, Tom, answer me this. Israel, unlike Hamas, is not a terrorist organization, is it? If not, what is the difference?

There's plenty of blame to spread around concerning this vat of simmering bad blood laced with bodies.

As created, the State of Israel was a huge disaster that reeks of Euro-Colonialism. The assault of 1948 kinda sealed the deal.

The tensions that led up to Plan Dalet in 1948 began with mass protests and an uprising against British occupation and rule by Palestinian Arabs in 1936-1939. The Palestinians wanted an end to the stream of Jewish immigrants into Palestine, so that set the stage for the more systematic plan of ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948. But that was a long time ago. We can just unwind the cycle of ethnic animosity and score-settling back to those times. Europe saw Palestine as a partial solution to its "Jewish problem". Even Hitler was originally thinking of deporting all the Jews to Palestine before he conquered Poland in 1939 and discovered a population too huge to simply deport. After that, the Jews in Palestine were looking at a much more urgent need for a safe haven from the greater ethnic cleansing going on in Europe. I don't see it as just European colonialism, but also the aftermath of the Jewish Holocaust in Europe.

But no, the ugliness of this week's humanitarian disaster is not on Israel, mostly. Hamas picked it. Israel responded. Like it or not, Gazans wouldn't be without power and water if Hamas hadn't attacked last Saturday.
Tom

Like it or not, most Palestinians in Gaza did not ask for or plan that humanitarian atrocity perpetrated by the terrorists running their unelected government. The last elections there were in 1994. How were they supposed to stop Hamas from attacking Israel? Like it or not, they had no choice but to be Palestinians born into that situation. More than half the population of Gaza is under 18, and all of them are essentially condemned to live out their lives in Gaza under a quarantine put in place by Israel. BTW, water is back on, but not because the Israeli government had a change of heart. It was put under intense pressure by its US allies to restore the water. Shutting it off was an act against the civilian population of Gaza, not just Hamas.

My view of the situation is that Hamas holds two groups as hostages--the Israeli and foreign citizens it just took from Israel and the civilian population of Gaza that did not volunteer to participate in the attack on Israel. There is no way that Israel can take its revenge on just Hamas, so it must decide whether it cares about the hostages more than it cares about getting back at Hamas and perhaps punishing Gazans for the actions of a government whose actions they neither controlled nor endorsed. Right now, the Israeli government seems to consider both groups of hostages as a secondary priority. The main priority is striking back so hard that Palestinians will never think about another attack, even though all historical evidence suggests that this punishing retaliation will do nothing more than stoke the fires for future acts of revenge.

I wouldn't call it revenge. They want to destroy Hamas and possibly get the hostage back. They want to do to Hamas what the US did to Al-quada after 9-11.

You would not call what the US did to Afghanistan after 9-11 an act of revenge? We occupied Afghanistan and fought our longest war ever there. Al-Qaeda was not running any government. It was the Taliban we were getting our revenge on. For hosting the guy who had planes flown into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. We didn't really get the revenge we wanted, because the Taliban is back in charge after over two decades of fighting. But that war would not have lasted that long if revenge were not a factor in keeping it going.

I "liked" your post because you tied Israel's action today to our reaction to Afghanistan. It's hypocritical for Americans to think that Israeli response is bad; while our response was good in Afghanistan. However, to answer your question, I don't agree that it was revenge. It was justice. Al-quada deliberately attacked citizens on 9-11. After they were done, we asked Afghanistan (then a quasi ally) to either turn them over or allow us to go after them. They said no. They gave them shelter and aid. Then we took Al-Quada out. If we hadn't, those roughly 50,000 fighters would have committed many more acts of terrorism against us an others. Do you know a better way to stop terrorists? Asking them nicely dosn't seem to work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm uncertain the context that is being represented. The thing I'd note on the chart is that Israel has often had an asymmetrical response to killings. Looking at 2023, the two bars are much closer.

Does this mean we can expect to observe around 10K Palestinian deaths?

Depends on how many civilians got out. Any urban fighting between people will lead to an awful toll. Kind of funny how people are clamoring for a huge Israeli response, when that will assuredly lead to hundreds or more Israeli soldier deaths.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One could argue that the source of most of the conflicts today are rooted in a long history of white supremacism.
Be it the colonizing of Africa or the Monroe doctrine or the British in India. It all boils down to "white men know better".

ETA: And Greed.

I'd also say that strong conservative leadership that is unwilling to bend, don't react well to one another. Yes, Hamas is targeting Israeli civilians, has been for a long time. Israel hasn't been the collateral toll has been significant. Yes, Hamas is also a reason for that, but it doesn't make the collateral damage disappear.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Eye for an eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."- Gandhi

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Hamas killed those children by using them as human shields. All of their stuff is in civilian buildings and Hamas doesn't permit evacuation if they know about an incoming strike.

It was Israel's armed forces that killed those children. Attacking human shields is a war crime. Both sides can be guilty of war crimes, however hard it is for some people to accept. They seem to think that only one side in a conflict can possibly be guilty of war crimes.  Human shield (law) - "The use of involuntary human shields does not release the other party from legal obligations to not target protected civilians or inflict excessive collateral damage."

But note from your page:

Rubinstein and Roznai argue that an attack that would be disproportionate ought to be considered proportionate, if the presence of civilians is due to the wrongful actions of the enemy.

Given Wikipedia's biases the fact that they included this at all says it's a mainstream position.

And note that "not target protected civilians" isn't even relevant--the targets are either Hamas command or Hamas stuff, not protected civilians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is Jews armed themselves and attacked the Brits. Same reasons Palestinians arm themselves and attack Israel. The initial aggressor in today's conflict was Jews arming themselves and taking land by force forming modern Israel, land seizure continuing today.

Note civilians were killed in te bombing. There were other incidents by Jews we would consider atrocities, both Arabs and Jews.

The idea Israel is a blameless victim is Israeli conservative propaganda. Successfully used on American over decades. Now e we are seeing TV adds featuring old alleged Holocaust survivors to stoke syncopate.

I wouldn't say they are blameless. However, the standard poster boys for Israel being bad aren't correct and that says a lot.

(Yeah, there were a couple of massacres. That's going to happen sometimes when combatants disguise themselves as civilians--the soldiers shoot at anything that looks like their opponents and if their opponents looked like civilians it ends up with them shooting at civilians. That's why the Geneva conventions require combatants to have some form of uniform. Said uniform need not be complex, just readily distinguishable from civilians.)

(And yes, an awful lot of people got displaced--most by their own free choice at Arab behest. When they wouldn't agree to non-violence if they returned they were not allowed to return. Why in the world should a country be expected to admit those who intend violence against it??)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a last resort if Qatar maintains their obstinance in refusing to arrest and extradite Hamas leaders who are responsible for the mass murder of more than 1000 people.
Assassinations are not necessarily wrong, nor bloodlusty. They are a tool. US engages in targeted killings of terrorists as well.

Assassinations are expedient but are not morally justified.

The problem is with the word "assassinate". That implies a political motive and is wrong.

What Derec appears to be favoring is killing combatants by stealthy means. Not all that different than our dropping a Hellfire on Taliban commanders.

Killing leaders if a political group is a political act. It is insane to claim otherwise.

But killing military leaders is perfectly permissible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And Hamas killed those children by using them as human shields. All of their stuff is in civilian buildings and Hamas doesn't permit evacuation if they know about an incoming strike.

Do you really believe that NO Palestinian children are being killed and wounded just because of the attack, and not because they are being used as human shields? You don’t think Israel has leveled buildings, and killed people, including children, where no Hamas terrorists are around? Why would Palestinians use Palestinian children as human shields? If Hamas knew about an incoming attack, don’t you think they themselves would evacuate to save their own lives? What you say makes absolutely no sense. Do you think Hamas believes that if it uses Palestinian children as human shields, it will deter Israel from attacking them? Why would they think that? It’s as apparent as the sun in the morning on a clear day that Israel doesn’t give a good goddamn about Palestinian children or ANY Palestinians, or indeed about anyone else in the world except themselves. Witness how for all these decades they’ve been playing Uncle Safm for suckers, as the U.S. continuously finances their atrocities.

Your refusal to believe how evil Hamas is is blinding you.

We have a few who were killed when Israel went after a commander and ended up only getting his family.

And you have no idea if Hamas terrorists were around. Unless they were actively engaged in combat operations they're always reported as civilians. Besides, most Israeli bombs fall on Hamas equipment, not Hamas terrorists.

And it's Hamas that uses Palestinian children as human shields. There have been documented incidents in the past where Israel called in a strike warning and Hamas forced the people to stay inside at gunpoint. It's also a common response to a strike warning to send a bunch of civilians up to the roof to get Israel to call off the strike--sometimes they're too late and the building goes up with a mass of civilians inside that didn't reach the roof in time.

Hamas use of human shields generally has resulted in Israel not striking in the past. The situation has changed, though, Israel isn't calling off strikes because of shields now.

It Hamas that has been playing people for suckers. You just have to look around as no news organization that wants to continue to report from the area dares to say a peep about the truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel has two paths to peace: suicide or turn Tehran into a parking lot and ask if anyone else wants to fund the terror. The status quo is clearly superior to either of these.

I find this post to be a disturbing and anti-human point of view.

The idea that utterly destroying - to dust - a city of 9 million people as either a laugh line, an acceptable hyperbole, or worse still a serious position fills me with disgust.


To be so callous about the lives of 9 million people because of who they have as a government, not to mention saying this knowing that there are ongoing protests against that government by people risking their safety and their lives to do so, and to still say, yeah, turn them into a parking lot appalls me.

People keep demanding that Israel make peace. I was listing the only ways they could and note that I said they are clearly inferior to the status quo.

You are playing shoot the messenger here--I'm presenting a very ugly truth and you act as if I created it. It's much easier to think I'm vile than to accept that your worldview is wrong and Israel has no viable means of making peace.