Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid

IDF Officers and Soldiers Told Haaretz They Were Ordered to Fire at Unarmed Crowds Near Food Distribution Sites in Gaza, Even When No Threat Was Present. Hundreds of Palestinians Have Been Killed, Prompting the Military Prosecution to Call for a Review Into Possible War Crimes Netanyahu, Katz...

www.haaretz.com

Muslims opressing Muslims is not a juicy story. Ie Hamas opressing Palestinians. But the Jews doing it is. Even though they have been bending over backwards to accomodate the Palestinians.

By slowly encroaching on their on land and encouraging settler violence in the West Bank, torturing detainees, and dealing death and destruction to civilians in Gaza? Or is that being “super nice”?

You need to separate what the government does and what the settler (cunts) do.

Its also important to understand that the Palestinians are also violent towards the settlers

The method is that the settlers buy land from impoverished Palestinians. This is using private American money.

Its very hard for the Israeli government to stop. If they want a modern state where people are equal under the law.

Saying that the Israeli government is encouraging settler violence is just good ole' antisemitic racism. They don't. And that’s a silly accusation.

What settlers do is that they stir up trouble and then come running to the IDF when the Palestinians retaliate. I do not envy the IDF's mission. It must be an impossible situation to police

Israel doesn't torture detainees. I think you have them confused with Hamas?

What Israel does is mass arrests of (allegedly) violent Palestinians who are kept locked up without trials or oversight. That is genuinely bad and something Israel should stop. The reason they do it is the scale of attacks. The Palestinians are very violent. It just goes on and on. They also fight eachother.

The sheer scale of Palestinian violence makes this a challenge to manage in accordance with the rule of law. But they of course should. Its fundamental for a modern democratic state.

I also understand this from the Israeli perspective. The average Israeli is just so fucking sick of the pervasive Palestinian violence. Just going out at night for drinks in Israeli proper is an adventure. I understand if they have had enough of it and just want them locked up.

While I understand it I don't condone it.

BTW, Palestinians also think Palestinian violence is a problem

Which can be contrasted with Egypt. Also Muslim. Has so little violence sociologists struggle with explaining why

Strapped down, blindfolded, held in diapers: Israeli whistleblowers detail abuse of Palestinians in shadowy detention center

CNN spoke to three Israeli whistleblowers who worked at the Sde Teiman desert camp, which holds Palestinians detained during Israel’s invasion of Gaza. All spoke out at risk of legal repercussions and reprisals from groups supportive of Israel’s hardline policies in Gaza.

They paint a picture of a facility where doctors sometimes amputated prisoners’ limbs due to injuries sustained from constant handcuffing; of medical procedures sometimes performed by underqualified medics earning it a reputation for being “a paradise for interns”; and where the air is filled with the smell of neglected wounds left to rot.

We were told they were not allowed to move. They should sit upright. They’re not allowed to talk. Not allowed to peek under their blindfold.

An Israeli whistleblower recounting his experience at Sde Teiman

According to the accounts, the facility some 18 miles from the Gaza frontier is split into two parts: enclosures where around 70 Palestinian detainees from Gaza are placed under extreme physical restraint, and a field hospital where wounded detainees are strapped to their beds, wearing diapers and fed through straws.

“They stripped them down of anything that resembles human beings,” said one whistleblower, who worked as a medic at the facility’s field hospital.

“(The beatings) were not done to gather intelligence. They were done out of revenge,” said another whistleblower. “It was punishment for what they (the Palestinians) did on October 7 and punishment for behavior in the camp.”

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

No, it was far more than that. A something needs to be done about Iran-please help poor little Israel plea. The point by providing the whole story of the conditions of Iran's nuclear program is to say situation is not nearly as dire as the Netanyahu regime wants others to believe it is.

You realize the biggest threat is to Saudi Arabia?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one here supports Hamas in any way or condones or apologies for the 10/7 attacks.

Eternally trying to place blame on the conditions in Gaza is apologizing for the attacks.

No one here supports or condones the tyrannical mullahs in Tehran in any way

Except repeat everything they say about the world. Just as much sheep as the MAGAs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't have to pick a team. You can support Israel in its fight against Hamas, and still think Netanyahu is a cunt. Which I do.

You can support USA's bombing of Iran, and still think Trump is a cunt. Which I also do.

Exactly.

I don't like Netanyahu one iota. But I recognize that what we are dealing with is a supertanker full of red herrings being used to hide the basic fact that this is because Islam can not stand losing control over Israel. The individual players come and go, the tactics of the day change, but the big forces remain the same. The forest is hidden in endless disputes about whether that's a fir or a pine.

 

[Gospel]

Try actually reading it!

Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:

(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.

The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.

Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.

Where does it impose any alternative obligation if 23a is violated?? And note that Hamas is also violating the 4th and 5th paragraphs.

Loren, your argument is a textbook case of weaponizing legal gray areas to justify moral failure. Yes, Article 23 allows for restrictions if there's a risk of diversion or military advantage. But what you’re conveniently ignoring is that the Geneva Conventions don’t exist in isolationm they’re part of a broader framework designed to protect civilians, not to give cover to those who want to starve them legally.

You cite the clause that permits withholding aid, but not the absolute prohibition against using starvation as a method of warfare (see: Additional Protocol I, Article 54, and Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). Blocking aid to 2+ million people, most of them children, elderly, or uninvolved civilians, under vague suspicions of diversion is not compliance, it’s calculated cruelty dressed up as legal nuance. And dragging Hamas into this is a transparent dodge. The Geneva Conventions still apply to Israel regardless of Hamas's violations. That’s like a police officer saying, “Well, the other guy broke the law too, so I get to ignore due process.”

You asked: “Where does it impose any alternative obligation?”
Try Common Article 1: all parties must ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances. That includes upholding humanitarian access and protecting civilians even when it’s inconvenient or politically unpopular. So no, citing a carve-out doesn’t absolve responsibility. It just shows you're more interested in legalistic excuses than genuine humanitarian principles. Stop pretending legality and morality are the same thing, they're not.

Now, sit in the corner you white supremacist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Its not like conservative news sources are much better

There's a vacuum of accurate information in western press. In this conflict you got to make some effort to inform yourself

Besides your hind quarters, what sources do you use?

I think a perfect illustration is the subthread about Israel hitting that rocket launcher.

It was posted as Israel bombing a tent city. Some of us actually looked rather than simply baa for Hamas and saw the rocket launcher right there in the center of the frame and deduced that the people must have been notified, else the cameras wouldn't have been rolling. We didn't have any secret sources of information, we just actually looked at what was being shown. The stuff is low quality because they don't need to do a good job to get people to baa.

 

[Gospel]

You don't have to pick a team. You can support Israel in its fight against Hamas, and still think Netanyahu is a cunt. Which I do.

You can support USA's bombing of Iran, and still think Trump is a cunt. Which I also do.

Exactly.

I don't like Netanyahu one iota. But I recognize that what we are dealing with is a supertanker full of red herrings being used to hide the basic fact that this is because Islam can not stand losing control over Israel. The individual players come and go, the tactics of the day change, but the big forces remain the same. The forest is hidden in endless disputes about whether that's a fir or a pine.

Ah, yes, the classic “I think he’s a cunt but I’ll endorse everything he does anyway” maneuver. The political equivalent of saying "I hate the chef, but I’ll keep eating whatever he serves and call anyone who critiques the food a terrorist sympathizer."

And Loren, your response reads like the rhetoric of religious fundamentalists who insist every conflict boils down to a grand eternal battle, conveniently erasing all material, historical, and political context. Claiming this is just Islam being bitter about “losing control over Israel” is indistinguishable from the kind of grievance politics pushed by white nationalists, “They hate us for our freedom” with a religious coat of paint. You may not intend to sound like a crusader for religious supremacy, but when you frame this conflict as a battle between Israel and the Islamic world’s inability to “let go,” that’s exactly what you sound like. That’s your logic, not mine.

So let’s stop pretending this is nuance when it’s just prejudice in a more articulate package you white supremacist.

 

[Gospel]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

No, it was far more than that. A something needs to be done about Iran-please help poor little Israel plea. The point by providing the whole story of the conditions of Iran's nuclear program is to say situation is not nearly as dire as the Netanyahu regime wants others to believe it is.

You realize the biggest threat is to Saudi Arabia?

Loren, the point wasn’t about who Iran’s biggest regional rival is. It was about how Israeli-aligned media, like the JPost, frames Iran’s nuclear program in a way that overstates the threat to justify preemptive or escalatory actions, something ZiprHead clearly pointed out. Even if Saudi Arabia feels threatened, that doesn't magically validate Bibi’s PR campaign or erase the very real skepticism around how dire the situation actually is. That’s the discussion. Not who feels the most uncomfortable.

And while we’re at it, if Saudi Arabia is the one most at risk, then why is the West endlessly enabling Israel’s aggression under the premise that Iran is targeting them? Unless, of course, we're just using fear of Iran as a one-size-fits-all cover for broader power plays, in which case, thank you for proving that point I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 51228

This picture keeps bugging me because it feels off. Has anyone ever seen a baby head that actually looks like that?

And now that I'm looking at it again. Look at the eyes--perfect focus. The camera is off to the side, the body should be at the same distance from the lens as the face--yet it looks out of focus. And look at the torso, starting from a point at the top of the elbow, descending almost to the sheet where it goes behind the bar. What part of the body is that?

And the bar is quite out of focus as would be expected--but there's no blur to the edge of the arm that should be nearly as close as the bar.

This is photoshop or AI.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

No, it was far more than that. A something needs to be done about Iran-please help poor little Israel plea. The point by providing the whole story of the conditions of Iran's nuclear program is to say situation is not nearly as dire as the Netanyahu regime wants others to believe it is.

You realize the biggest threat is to Saudi Arabia?

So???

 

[ZiprHead]

Jerusalem Post only giving half the story.

The JPost article is from March. It was meant to illustrate how far the regime has come with enrichment - 20x the level required for civilian applications.
The only thing your article adds is details about some of the attacks on the nuclear sites. Which in no way contradicts the point I was making.

No, it was far more than that. A something needs to be done about Iran-please help poor little Israel plea. The point by providing the whole story of the conditions of Iran's nuclear program is to say situation is not nearly as dire as the Netanyahu regime wants others to believe it is.

You realize the biggest threat is to Saudi Arabia?

Loren, the point wasn’t about who Iran’s biggest regional rival is. It was about how Israeli-aligned media, like the JPost, frames Iran’s nuclear program in a way that overstates the threat to justify preemptive or escalatory actions, something ZiprHead clearly pointed out. Even if Saudi Arabia feels threatened, that doesn't magically validate Bibi’s PR campaign or erase the very real skepticism around how dire the situation actually is. That’s the discussion. Not who feels the most uncomfortable.

And while we’re at it, if Saudi Arabia is the one most at risk, then why is the West endlessly enabling Israel’s aggression under the premise that Iran is targeting them? Unless, of course, we're just using fear of Iran as a one-size-fits-all cover for broader power plays, in which case, thank you for proving that point I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

TY. Said better than I could.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't disagree. But being a victim is not a free pass to behave badly. I'd argue that Palestinians have a victimhood cult going that makes them feel any violent behaviour is justified, and makes them easy prey for terrible leaders. That culture is not the fault of Hamas. Nor Israel. Nor is it Issraels responsibility to fix.

I don't even see it as a victimhood cult.

Remember, those who would use them as cannon fodder have been running the much of the educational system for a lifetime. Few can break free of that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pretty simple really. You and your ilk keep complaining Hamas et al use Gazans as human shields. What do you expect to happen when you support them all being locked up together in a tiny area with one of the highest population densities in the world? Let the innocent Gazans go free to Israel proper. Then no more human shields.

And when the war is over what happens? They would be executed if they were to return to Gaza.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's never a good excuse to have a carte blanche to mistreat others.

Unless you are Israel.

Or maybe unless you are the GOP cleansing us of the immigrants.

The 7/10 attack proved that Israel can't have Gaza run by Hamas. Now they're doing what is necessary to get rid of Hamas.

That's a defensive response to Gazan aggression. The extreme brutality of the attack justifies the response.

That's not the same thing as playing the victim and using ones victimhood to not take responsibility for ones actions.

Considering Jewish history its remarkable how they have avoided to play the victim game. I assume that the Jews, at some point in history, learned that it's a waste of effort.

Nothing justifies deliberate cruelty.

Oh? 10/7 keeps being treated as an expected outcome of Israeli actions. That amounts to justifying deliberate cruelty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pretty simple really. You and your ilk keep complaining Hamas et al use Gazans as human shields. What do you expect to happen when you support them all being locked up together in a tiny area with one of the highest population densities in the world? Let the innocent Gazans go free to Israel proper. Then no more human shields.

And when the war is over what happens? They would be executed if they were to return to Gaza.

Why would they need to be returned to Gaza?

 

[ZiprHead]

There's never a good excuse to have a carte blanche to mistreat others.

Unless you are Israel.

Or maybe unless you are the GOP cleansing us of the immigrants.

The 7/10 attack proved that Israel can't have Gaza run by Hamas. Now they're doing what is necessary to get rid of Hamas.

That's a defensive response to Gazan aggression. The extreme brutality of the attack justifies the response.

That's not the same thing as playing the victim and using ones victimhood to not take responsibility for ones actions.

Considering Jewish history its remarkable how they have avoided to play the victim game. I assume that the Jews, at some point in history, learned that it's a waste of effort.

Nothing justifies deliberate cruelty.

Oh? 10/7 keeps being treated as an expected outcome of Israeli actions. That amounts to justifying deliberate cruelty.

No one is forcing the IDF to be deliberately cruel. Stop with the bullshit.

 

[Arctish]

Pretty simple really. You and your ilk keep complaining Hamas et al use Gazans as human shields. What do you expect to happen when you support them all being locked up together in a tiny area with one of the highest population densities in the world? Let the innocent Gazans go free to Israel proper. Then no more human shields.

And when the war is over what happens?

Obviously, they continue on the path to full citizenship in the totally not-racist, not-religiously bigoted land of Israel, the shining example of freedom, democracy, and all things good in the Middle East.

They would be executed if they were to return to Gaza.

All the more reason for them to become citizens of Israel.

Only a racist religious bigot or a cruel sadistic asshole would deny them safety on the Israel side of the Wall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Saying the barriers were built in response to suicide bombings is just plain ignorant. Those attacks happened more than 20 years after the first 60 km of fencing went up, and more than 40 years after Gazans attempting to return to their former homes or harvest food from their farms were routinely shot.

All you are showing it that it wasn't perfect.

And while I'm not aware of the specifics you're referring to about harvesting, there has been a "problem" with "civilians" being routinely shot.

Hamas would force people into the buffer zone with the specific intent of getting them shot so the world would baa for Hamas and object to the buffer. That was part of the preparation for 10/7, pushing so many civilians up to the fence that Israel quit shooting them. It was all staged by Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For those who are interested in history and keeping their facts straight:

The Long, Bloody History of the Israel-Gaza "Border"

Israel has been enforcing the 'containment' of Palestinian refugees in Gaza since its founding in the 1940s. It has been building and rebuilding a separation barrier since 1971.

Looking at Wikipedia it says that the barrier was built as a security barrier. Unfortunately the article does not say what security was to be enhanced or whom's.

With anything related to Israel/Palestine, figure that anything that should be there but is missing is favorable to Israel. You will almost never be wrong.

Wikipedia is effectively "truth" by democracy. It works pretty well with uncontested things, it works quite badly with contested things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

That sounds like more of a dodge than a real answer. How about being a little more specific?

We've been down this one before. You managed to find a site that basically said combat doesn't have to be deadly to civilians because combat is always deadly either the civilians or the attacking force. Yes, effectively claiming !p because p.

That is non-responsive jibber jabber. Produce your data.

Why do I need to when he already basically proved my point?