Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Swammerdami]

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

I didn't address it because it's a strawman.

YOU insist on inferring "anti-Jewish" from "anti-Netanyahu" and then accuse us rational thinkers of inventing "Strawmen"??
Are you auditioning to write for The Onion?

 

[Arctish]

Quick question: how will you know when Hamas has been defeated and the bombing and drone strikes in Gaza can stop? What is the sign Israel should be looking for?

Having all hostages dead or alive returned would be a start

What's the finish line?

I do not know. Sometimes on a winding, twisted path the finish may not be visible at times. Gaza at the moment is like that.

Do you agree that returning the hostages dead or alive would be a good satrt?

Of course I do. What kind of a question is that? Have you not been paying attention to any of my posts in this thread?

I have been paying attentionto this thread. You have said that Hamas should not be a part of any Gazan future but you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim. Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.

It was multiple posts.

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region. We have no reason to think the same won't hold true for the Middle East, only racist nonsense about the character of Semitic people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

I said if you want peace you have to allow your 'enemies' to live peaceful lives. You have to allow them to prosper. You can't expect peace when you keep fucking them over.

I said the PA should be rewarded for renouncing violence and being committed to seeking a diplomatic resolution via the international community. I said the Rights of the Palestinian people to remain in their homes and participate in the government that rules over them should be openly respected and fully supported. No more lip service. It's time to make a stand.

Hamas must be militarily defeated. It must be politically defeated, too. The new interim government of Gaza should be run by the PA until new elections are held ASAP.

And the settlers must be either reined in or relocated back inside Israel's 1967 borders if they insist on being assholes to their neighbors who have different faiths.

I am asking how people will know when Hamas has been defeated and the bombing and drone strikes can stop. Is there something you would recognize as a sign of "Mission Accomplished"? Or is there nothing that would do it?

If Hamas did no more 7/10 or launched rockets into Israel or killed Israelis then that would be an indiction.

 

[Gospel]

Do you agree that returning the hostages dead or alive would be a good start?

I do, but I don’t agree to Hamas playing any future role in Gaza, so even after that, they’d still have to go, in my opinion.

I think your problem is that you are inventing more pleasant fantasy scenarios. Its like you've ejected the actual context and replaced it with a nicer one

After Hamas has gone, what makes you think Palestinians after Hamas will be any more reasonable? PA has zero support from the Palestinian people. They consider it a joke

The sooner you realise that Hamas is a product of Palestinian mainstream opinions the better. Yes, they are funded by Iran. But they are still Palestinian.

I’m done wasting time on your baseless accusations. Either provide actual evidence for your claims, or don’t bother. From now on, any post you make without proof will be treated as nothing more than a smear campaign against my character. I have no interest in continuing this discussion if you insist on peddling unsupported and outlandish claims about me.

 

[Gospel]

It seems there’s someone else who shares my view that Palestinians have endured Hamas’s tyranny and that a brighter future for both Palestinians and Israelis is possible.

Netanyahu says war ‘not over yet’ after death of Hamas leader

"To the Hamas terrorists I say: your leaders are fleeing, and they will be eliminated,” he said, also addressing the Palestinians in Gaza. “Hamas will no longer rule Gaza. This is the beginning of the day after Hamas, and this is an opportunity for you, the residents of Gaza, to finally break free from its tyranny." - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu-

"There is now the opportunity for a ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power, and for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike,” - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu-

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You get more of what you reward. You're putting a high reward on Hamas killing Gazan children.

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.

And you continue to believe that Hamas is the result of Israeli actions. The fight started with the declaration of the existence of Israel--nothing that came after that can possibly be the cause.

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

You're trading fewer deaths now for more deaths later.

 

[Gospel]

Palestinian security forces try to exert control in volatile West Bank

JENIN, West Bank, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Palestinian Authority security forces have battled Islamist fighters in Jenin for days, as they wrestle to exert control of one of the historic centres of militancy in the West Bank ahead of a likely shakeout in Palestinian politics after the Gaza war.
Forces of the PA, which exercises limited self-rule in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, moved into Jenin in early December and have since clashed with fighters from Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Despite significant challenges, including divisions among Palestinians in the West Bank over the Palestinian Authority, Hamas militants attempting to infiltrate the West Bank, and Israel's legitimate security concerns, I still consider the Palestinian Authority a viable option for governing Gaza after Hamas. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated, maintaining a presence in Gaza is not a sustainable long-term solution. Moreover, leaving Gaza without establishing strong leadership will only create an opportunity for Hamas or another extremist group to seize control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you have managed to convince yourself you aren't a Hamas' apologist. But I think you are. I think you've eaten all of their progaganda. You are defending their actions by being angry at Israel for the suffering of the Palestinian civilians. You are playing into their propagnda. If you want Hamas destroyed, how about you present some plausible scenario that can make that happen?

I don't think he's an apologist. He's eaten the propaganda but that only makes him a dupe, not an apologist.

Your ethics are fucked, Sir.

I don't think it's possible to breed more extremism in the Middle-East that there's there already. They've been at max since 1948. And nothing Israel has done to placate them has made a dent in that. Something the Israelis are very much aware of. I suspect the problem is Islam. That religion doesn't seem to be conducive to reasonable people. It just seem to breed intolerance and extremism.

There has been more extremism due to the oil money. 1948 wasn't max.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You accuse me of demanding a “fantasy scenario,” yet you provide no evidence that indiscriminate bombing is the only option for dealing with Hamas. Suggesting there is no alternative to slaughtering children shows a lack of imagination, strategy, and morality. If your “moral compass” leads you to justify bombing children without exploring alternatives, then your compass is broken.

1) It's clear that bombing isn't the only thing they do.

2) You are the one asserting something: that there is another solution.

You insist that “each time a child is hurt in Gaza, we should blame Hamas.” That’s not how accountability works. Hamas’s despicable tactics don’t absolve the IDF of its responsibility to minimize civilian casualties. Blaming Hamas for using human shields doesn’t excuse killing the children they’re hiding behind, it only highlights the failure to adapt tactics to avoid those deaths.

But you have no concept of how to do better than they are doing.

Calling my ethics “fucked” while advocating for more bombing and “shooting more” children is not moral superiority; it’s moral bankruptcy. You can’t claim the high ground while justifying actions that ensure the very suffering you pretend to condemn.

You claim I’m a propagandist for Hamas, yet my position explicitly condemns their actions while calling for a moral approach to the conflict. Meanwhile, you’ve swallowed the “kill them all and let God sort them out” narrative wholesale, pretending it’s the only viable option. If anyone is parroting propaganda, it’s you, mindlessly regurgitating a line that excuses indiscriminate killing.

1) You have not established indiscriminate. Rather, you have established that they aren't 100% perfect.

2) Actions speak louder than words--you condemn Hamas but support their tactics.

Your assertion that “you can’t breed more extremism in the Middle East” is historically and factually false. Extremism is fueled by grievances, injustices, and suffering, exactly the kind of suffering you’re advocating to perpetuate. Killing children and blaming Hamas only ensures the cycle of hatred continues.

And herein lies a lot of your problem. Look at the world--large scale terrorism has nothing to do with the level of wrongdoing and everything to do with the money being spent funding it. You are using the terror as evidence of massive Israeli wrongdoing when it's really Muslim wrongdoing.

You demand I present a plausible scenario to destroy Hamas while rejecting any path other than indiscriminate bombing. Solutions that focus on undermining Hamas’s support base, through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and addressing root causes of extremism, are deliberately ignored because they don’t align with your simplistic, violent narrative.

Keyword: plausible. Your scenario isn't remotely plausible as you're not even looking at the root cause!

Your argument boils down to justifying atrocities under the guise of necessity while dismissing all criticism as propaganda. If your “moral compass” points toward slaughtering children and perpetuating cycles of violence, you’re not navigating morality, you’re excusing inhumanity. Your bigoted dismissal of Islam and refusal to acknowledge alternative strategies reveal a mindset that is more interested in perpetuating violence than solving the conflict.

We aren't dismissing criticism as propaganda. Rather, we are pointing out that most of that criticism is of a strawman painted by their propaganda.

 

[laughing dog]

2) Actions speak louder than words--you condemn Hamas but support their tactics.

That is a blatant slander and pretty ironic coming from someone who condemns ethnic cleansing by Isreal while supporting their ethnic cleansing tactics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pointing out the potential human cost on both sides, including the inevitable civilian casualties Hamas knowingly invites by its own tactics, is not the same as absolving Hamas of its crimes. Nor is it a condemnation of Israel’s right to protect its citizens. It’s possible to support Israel’s defensive actions while also advocating that those actions be conducted in a way that minimizes harm to innocent people. This stance is neither “vacuous” nor naïve; it’s recognizing that wars are not fought in moral absolutes, and innocent lives do matter.

Of course innocent lives matter. But you are taking it as a given that dead children are proof it was not conducted in a matter that minimizes harm to innocent people. Thus you position is a de-facto tolerance of anything Hamas does and virtually nothing Israel does. It doesn't matter how much you say they are doing wrong if you still aid their position.

If you believe “showing some appreciation” for Israel means shutting down all criticism or concern for civilians in Gaza, then you’re not actually debating my words, you’re inventing a straw man. I have, in no uncertain terms, rejected antisemitism, condemned Hamas, and supported Israel’s right to self-defense. Yet you cast me as somehow failing to do so.

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

Your choice to misrepresent my position might be easier than addressing its substance, but that doesn’t make your argument any stronger. Instead of lashing out with personal attacks, consider engaging with what I’ve actually said: that critical examination of military policies does not negate Israel’s right to defend itself, nor does it excuse the atrocities committed by Hamas. Pretending otherwise won’t change the record of my statements, it only reveals the weakness of yours.

And here's more of the problem. We understand your position--it's just we are following it to it's logical conclusion and you are refusing to look at said conclusion. In logic terms:

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

You are responding by denying q, but you aren't addressing the p->q part.

The thing is to acknowledge the p->q part is to show that there are nothing but horrible answers and you are in denial about that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IMO it is sociopathic to defend the needless slaughter of civilians for any reason.

IMO it is delusional to assert that Israel’s tactics are the only feasible form of defense.

To avoid being delusional could you could tell us some the other forms of defence tactics Israel could employ?

Here’s an easy one - respecting their designated safety zones by not bombing them until they designate a different one.

You have not established that they didn't.

 

[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.

Yet another straw man.

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. You are making an assertion that things would be very different than in the past …

No I am not, which is what makes it a straw man.

Yes, you are.

I'm pointing out that the last swap resulted in more dead Israelis than recovered Israelis. A bunch of the people from the swap were part of 10/7.

Why would a swap now not have that same outcome? What's different?

Your answer is a kick-the-can. Less death now, more death later. That's what happened last time, why do you think it wouldn't be this time??

I said less death and destruction.
Which clearly means compared to now.

Except you haven't established that.

Iran is still there, untouched. They'll try again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide. Despite all your protests that you don't support Hamas you are taking the position that stopping them is immoral.

The idea that refraining from bombing children means you can’t confront or defeat an enemy is not only absurd,it’s downright lazy. No one is suggesting that Hamas should get a free pass to commit atrocities. The focus is on employing military tactics that don’t involve the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially children.

Realistically, Hamas has the ability to ensure said confrontations result in civilian deaths.

Saying no civilian deaths is saying no defense.

Even the Israeli government isn’t approaching this war in the same way you, DrZoidberg, and TomC (via pathetic like button) are yapping about. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has spoken about avoiding civilian casualties and his goal of removing Hamas to pave the way for Palestinians to return and govern themselves. Your, DrZoidbergs and TomC's rhetoric, on the other hand, is inflammatory and completely misrepresents both Israel’s stance and my own arguments.

And you are ascribing a false position to us. We don't like civilian casualties--it's just we don't like letting Hamas commit genocide even more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide.

That is an erroneous conclusion. Drone attacks can minimize collateral damage. Moreover, until the October Hamas horrific terrorist attack, Israel was not bombing children and there was credible reason to believe Hamas could achieve its goal if eradicating Israel.

You're moving the goalposts.

Now you're saying "minimize". Israel is already minimizing.

And note that drone attacks would be a very bad way of minimizing civilian casualties as they are too slow. Standard practice is for someone who thinks they are being targeted to get near as many civilians as possible. Israel uses small-warhead missiles because they're fast enough the targets generally don't see them coming.

 

[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.

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. You are making an assertion that things would be very different than in the past …

No I am not, which is what makes it a straw man.

Yes, you are.

I'm pointing out that the last swap resulted in more dead Israelis than recovered Israelis. A bunch of the people from the swap were part of 10/7.

Why would a swap now not have that same outcome? What's different?

Nothing is different, you behave as if Gazans don’t count at all.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide.

That is an erroneous conclusion. Drone attacks can minimize collateral damage. Moreover, until the October Hamas horrific terrorist attack, Israel was not bombing children and there was credible reason to believe Hamas could achieve its goal if eradicating Israel.

You're moving the goalposts.

Now you're saying "minimize". Israel is already minimizing.

And note that drone attacks would be a very bad way of minimizing civilian casualties as they are too slow. Standard practice is for someone who thinks they are being targeted to get near as many civilians as possible. Israel uses small-warhead missiles because they're fast enough the targets generally don't see them coming.

Your entire response is an exercise in truthiness, but your saying so doesn’t make it so.

 

[Gospel]

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide. Despite all your protests that you don't support Hamas you are taking the position that stopping them is immoral.

The idea that refraining from bombing children means you can’t confront or defeat an enemy is not only absurd,it’s downright lazy. No one is suggesting that Hamas should get a free pass to commit atrocities. The focus is on employing military tactics that don’t involve the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially children.

Realistically, Hamas has the ability to ensure said confrontations result in civilian deaths.

Saying no civilian deaths is saying no defense.

Even the Israeli government isn’t approaching this war in the same way you, DrZoidberg, and TomC (via pathetic like button) are yapping about. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has spoken about avoiding civilian casualties and his goal of removing Hamas to pave the way for Palestinians to return and govern themselves. Your, DrZoidbergs and TomC's rhetoric, on the other hand, is inflammatory and completely misrepresents both Israel’s stance and my own arguments.

And you are ascribing a false position to us. We don't like civilian casualties--it's just we don't like letting Hamas commit genocide even more.

I never demanded a casualty-free war, a ludicrous expectation no sane person holds. My call for caution, echoed even by the IDF's own stated operational guidelines, was a direct rebuke to the barbaric rhetoric that paints every Palestinian as a legitimate target, conflating them with Hamas. This poisonous narrative, which you yourself seem eager to defend, spits in the face of the very principles Israel purports to uphold. Let's be clear: I'm not inventing this stance; you've actively championed it.

Stop your disingenuous attempts to twist my words. My critique of the appalling rhetoric spewed by DrZoidberg and yourself is precisely that—a critique of your rhetoric. It is not, and never has been, an attack on Israel or the Jewish people as a whole. Your blatant conflation of these distinct entities is a cheap and intellectually bankrupt tactic designed to silence legitimate criticism. I will not be deterred by such transparently manipulative maneuvers.

 

[TomC]

Realistically, Hamas has the ability to ensure said confrontations result in civilian deaths.

Here's the part the real Child Killers prefer to avoid.
Hamas could minimize, almost eliminate, the civilian deaths. But they don't want that. Hamas will keep killing the children and civilians as long as they and their supporters keep blaming Israel for it.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Just because you believe that criticizing Israeli policy weakens Israel doesn't make it true. There's your problem.

 

[Gospel]

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

You're saying my endorsement of Israel's aim to eliminate Hamas means I actually disapprove of it? I don't follow your logic.