Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

This is supposed to be about making Israel SAFER, not retribution.

It was always about retribution first - look at the initial rhetoric. The "safer" part is the cover and it allows for genocidal policies under the rubric "its not a war crime to kill 1,000 civilians if we are aiming at a terrorist". Hell, just look at the language used by the apologists for the IDF in this thread.

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

And the expectation is that you strike so as to minimize casualties, not that you eliminate them. The attacker is not responsible for the death of human shields. Israel even leaflet-bombed them to get the fuck away from the Hamas stuff, that's more than attackers usually do. Collective guilt.

No, the expectation is that the safety of civilians is paramount. It is impossible to avoid the deaths of civilians in a war, but the attacking forces are expected to refrain unless there is some unavoidable excuse. So we have lots of clear violations of that principle with Israel now--including the murderous attack on the densely populated Jabalya camp to kill just one Hamas official. You seem to think that human shields can be killed because they are being used to shield military targets, but what do you think they are always being used to shield? Picnics and weddings? The whole point of using them is to shield military targets. The fact that they are being used that way has never been an excuse to kill them.

No. You only count safety of civilians to the extent you can consistent with accomplishing military objectives.

And since nobody but terrorists is seeking to attack picnics and weddings the whole concept of shields for them makes no sense.

Israel's "leaflet bombs" are a sick joke. A pretense to justify violating international law. There are no safe areas to evacuate to, and it is complete nonsense to think that people who don't evacuate are therefore disposable collateral damage. The whole point of the order for civilians to evacuate the north was a message to the IDF that they could attack all targets in the north, because it was the fault of those who failed to heed the warnings that they were there. The leaflets even warned that they could be mistaken for Hamas terrorists, if they did not flee south, which Israel is also bombarding daily. Israel has even targeted an ambulance, because it suspected the ambulance was being used by Hamas. What was the compelling reason to kill innocent civilians in the vicinity of that ambulance? Was it launching rockets into Israel? I've seen pictures of the blood-spattered ambulance. Even if it contained wounded Hamas combatants, they were not posing an immediate threat to Israel.

There is no compelling need to kill civilians. There is a compelling reason to hit Hamas and killing the civilians is unavoidable.

As for the ambulance, we don't know the details but there's no reason Palestinian ambulances should get special treatment. Not only has Israel repeatedly caught them smuggling but the Red Crescent (equivalent of the Red Cross) refuses to condemn such misuse. This forfeits the protections that would normally be associated with an ambulance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is impossible to avoid the deaths of civilians in a war, but the attacking forces are expected to refrain unless there is some unavoidable excuse.

Lemme know when someone important holds Palestinians to that standard. I'm not seeing it, ever.
Tom

Tu quoque fallacy.

Also, "someone important" did hold Palestinians to that standard, which is why Fatah and the PA in the West Bank, led by Abbas, has forsworn terrorism in favor of seeking a diplomatic solution to the problems in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Let me know when someone important in Israel (or important to Israel) decides to support that effort instead of simply capitalizing on it.

Forsworn terrorism?!?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No insurgency has been defeated by reducing it's ability to recruit. You defeat insurgencies by removing the funding.

Hamas is funded by Qatar. Also Hamas was fighting Assad and US government was fine with it.
So.....

Hamas fighting Assad?!?! How?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

10/7 showed that the barriers they created with Gaza were inadequate.

10/7 showed that all possible barriers they could create with Gaza would inevitably be inadequate.

Perhaps the solution is to stop building fucking barriers.

So you want the Jews exterminated? Because that's the result of what you're asking for.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is supposed to be about making Israel SAFER, not retribution.

It was always about retribution first - look at the initial rhetoric. The "safer" part is the cover and it allows for genocidal policies under the rubric "its not a war crime to kill 1,000 civilians if we are aiming at a terrorist". Hell, just look at the language used by the apologists for the IDF in this thread.

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

And the expectation is that you strike so as to minimize casualties, not that you eliminate them. The attacker is not responsible for the death of human shields. Israel even leaflet-bombed them to get the fuck away from the Hamas stuff, that's more than attackers usually do.

Gaza is densely populated. The IDF tells the civilians to go but they have no where to go that isn’t being bombed. Calling civilians who are just living their lives “ human shields “ in order to justify violence against them is morally disgusting.

Of course the IDF is responsible for its actions. No one forces the IDF to bomb civilians. And the resulting dead and injured would be unharmed in the absence of the bombing. I suppose you are arguing that in your view of international law and morality, the IDF is not responsible. That represents your idiots opinion not reality.

Israel appears to be bombing the tunnels in the north. They told the civilians to go to the south. Hamas guns them down on the road if they actually do so. (We have video of a supposed Israeli attack where the damage is completely inconsistent with anything Israel could have done. It's quite consistent with forces on the ground shooting people who were fleeing, though.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is what I wrote back on Oct 12th:

It doesn't seem very practical either. Suppose they inadvertently bomb the hostages. If they are avoiding that, then wouldn't they be bombing non-military targets? Even if they don't bomb the hostages, what if Hamas starts killing them, showing photos? Hamas could say stop or claim Israel is bombing the hostages. It isn't clear to me that Israel wants to bomb Gaza into the Stone Age and following that send in massive ground troops and tanks for recovery of hostage remains, but that seems to be the direction.

Most recently this is what Loren Pechtel has advocated:

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

In order to rescue the hostages, there has to be very good intelligence and precision. So far what we observe is more like trying to do heart surgery with a hammer. BUT for some reason, some people are okay with that.

1) Israel has recovered some hostages.

2) I actually find that surprising, I would have thought the only way they would get them back was by making Hamas cry uncle.

 

[laughing dog]

This is supposed to be about making Israel SAFER, not retribution.

It was always about retribution first - look at the initial rhetoric. The "safer" part is the cover and it allows for genocidal policies under the rubric "its not a war crime to kill 1,000 civilians if we are aiming at a terrorist". Hell, just look at the language used by the apologists for the IDF in this thread.

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

And the expectation is that you strike so as to minimize casualties, not that you eliminate them. The attacker is not responsible for the death of human shields. Israel even leaflet-bombed them to get the fuck away from the Hamas stuff, that's more than attackers usually do.

Gaza is densely populated. The IDF tells the civilians to go but they have no where to go that isn’t being bombed. Calling civilians who are just living their lives “ human shields “ in order to justify violence against them is morally disgusting.

Of course the IDF is responsible for its actions. No one forces the IDF to bomb civilians. And the resulting dead and injured would be unharmed in the absence of the bombing. I suppose you are arguing that in your view of international law and morality, the IDF is not responsible. That represents your idiots opinion not reality.

Israel appears to be bombing the tunnels in the north. They told the civilians to go to the south. Hamas guns them down on the road if they actually do so. (We have video of a supposed Israeli attack where the damage is completely inconsistent with anything Israel could have done. It's quite consistent with forces on the ground shooting people who were fleeing, though.)

Reputable news outlets report bombing everywhere. Despite your claims, there are independent reporters in Gaza.

 

[Arctish]

Except, removing your country's civilians who shouldn't be building illegal settlements in the first place and putting your soldiers on barriers built on land that doesn't belong to your country so that you can fire at will at the civilians inside the giant prison you constructed isn't disengagement.

10/7 showed that the barriers they created with Gaza were inadequate.

You are attempting to shift the goal posts again.

We are discussing what disengagement is and what it isn't, not how effective a particular strategy or method of engagement might be.

You are saying that border defenses are incompatible with disengagement.

Not at all.

I am saying that locking someone into an open-air prison isn't disengagement.

"Disengagement" isn't some magical spell the powerful can use to defuse situations. You are falling for the fundamental fallacy that if the side with the power simply tries hard enough that they will succeed in reaching a peaceful resolution.

You are shifting the goal posts again.

We are discussing what disengagement is and what it isn't, not how effective a particular strategy or method of engagement might be.

Giving Gazans work permits inside Israel is a concession.

Okay, I'll accept that as a concession.

It's not much of a concession, but it's a start.

It's a pretty major concession. One that hurt Hamas because they can't have their people prosperous.

I have no idea where you get your information (mostly because you don't link to your sources) but if you actually believe Israel wants to foster prosperity in Gaza, you're drinking virtual Kool-Aid.

You have it backwards--I'm saying that Hamas most definitely does not want prosperity in Gaza.

I'm saying the work permits are a major concession because of the security risk. The workers got to do a lot of recon for 10/7.

Letting slaves work inside the slavemaster's house is a security risk, but it isn't a concession to the slaves.

If Israel had allowed Gazans to seek employment in Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere and did not not interfere with their travels to and from their workplaces, that would have been a major concession. Trapping them in Gaza and only allowing them to go to low paying jobs inside Israel when Israeli political appointees and Israeli politicians feel like it, is oppression.

You think those other places would have let them in?! Certainly not Lebanon--the Palestinians are pretty much persona non grata there.

You missed my point, perhaps deliberately.

If Israel had stopped interfering with Gazans travelling to and from their worksites outside of the immediate area, that would have been a major concession. What Israel actually did, letting them go to low paying jobs in Israel while occasionally blocking them from doing even that much, is at best a minor concession.

Anyway, where is the rest of your list of concessions Israel has made to the Palestinian people?

The reality is much less rosy.

The problem is that the Second Intifada, like every big event they do, was clearly planned long before the incident that supposedly triggered it.

You and Derec should get together and discuss it. Maybe you could start a thread where you lay out the events that led up to the rioting that preceded the bombings. I'll supply the reliable sources of information and try to keep the bullshit to a minimum.

The thing is you don't do big things like that quickly. They have plans for what they're going to do and trot them out when they get a sufficient pretext (or even a supposed one--Palestinian beachgoers setting off a Hamas booby trap.)

You are bullshitting.

Derec knows almost nothing about how the Second Intifada developed. Are you going to help him become more knowlegable by providing factual information or are you going to make shit up and hope he buys it?

We don't know how it developed. What we can say is that it was far too well organized to be a response to the supposed trigger.

Ah, I see.

You are just as ignorant as Derec and unwilling to do any research yourself.

 

[Arctish]

It is impossible to avoid the deaths of civilians in a war, but the attacking forces are expected to refrain unless there is some unavoidable excuse.

Lemme know when someone important holds Palestinians to that standard. I'm not seeing it, ever.
Tom

Tu quoque fallacy.

Also, "someone important" did hold Palestinians to that standard, which is why Fatah and the PA in the West Bank, led by Abbas, has forsworn terrorism in favor of seeking a diplomatic solution to the problems in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Let me know when someone important in Israel (or important to Israel) decides to support that effort instead of simply capitalizing on it.

Forsworn terrorism?!?!

I honestly can't tell if you're pretending to be surprised or if you really are this clueless about Palestinian politics and why the PLO doesn't bomb places anymore.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is what I wrote back on Oct 12th:

It doesn't seem very practical either. Suppose they inadvertently bomb the hostages. If they are avoiding that, then wouldn't they be bombing non-military targets? Even if they don't bomb the hostages, what if Hamas starts killing them, showing photos? Hamas could say stop or claim Israel is bombing the hostages. It isn't clear to me that Israel wants to bomb Gaza into the Stone Age and following that send in massive ground troops and tanks for recovery of hostage remains, but that seems to be the direction.

Most recently this is what Loren Pechtel has advocated:

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

In order to rescue the hostages, there has to be very good intelligence and precision. So far what we observe is more like trying to do heart surgery with a hammer. BUT for some reason, some people are okay with that.

1) Israel has recovered some hostages.

2) I actually find that surprising, I would have thought the only way they would get them back was by making Hamas cry uncle.

It shouldn't be surprising that in a chaotic situation there is unexpected chaotic results. You should expect to see a few hostages get away or be released. Just like you should expect to see a few Hamas get away, even if Israel tries to kill all 40,000 of them. That will also cost hundreds of thousands of Gazan lives as "collateral damage" and the vast majority of the hostages. Some years later in the aftermath, you can expect hundreds of thousands more Hamas to spring up radicalized.

 

[bilby]

10/7 showed that the barriers they created with Gaza were inadequate.

10/7 showed that all possible barriers they could create with Gaza would inevitably be inadequate.

Perhaps the solution is to stop building fucking barriers.

So you want the Jews exterminated? Because that's the result of what you're asking for.

No, I don't. Many of my family are Jews.

And no, it isn't. One possible result of what I am asking for is the elimination of Israel as a nation state; That's absolutely not the same thing as the extermination of the Jews (most of whom don't even live in the Middle East).

Unlike the Gazans, most Jewish people in Israel have both the means and the opportunity to go somewhere else, rather than let their neighbours kill them.

Israel, as a nation, should never have been established; It's one of the worst mistakes ever made by a British Empire that made some real doozies.

Undoing that mistake will inevitably be very painful for a lot of people; But it certainly needn't entail the extermination of anyone.

Right now, the displacement of a large number of Israeli Jews seems preferable over the extermination of the Gazans; I recognise that you don't care about the latter, but that's a major failing on your part, and mot some kind of law of nature.

 

[bilby]

1) Israel has recovered some hostages.

2) I actually find that surprising, I would have thought the only way they would get them back was by making Hamas cry uncle.

Given that some of the facts of the situation are surprising to you, wouldn't it be wise to stop with the absolute certainty that you project into every opinion you share here?

You're not right about everything; You may want to consider the possibility that you are not right about quite a lot of things.

 

[lpetrich]

Husam Zomlot on X: "I have been trying to reach my family in Gaza for hours with no success. All telecommunications and internet have been cut, while Israeli strikes is literally destroying Gaza from air land and sea. How many more innocent people: children, parents and grandparents will be murdered before the world steps in?" / X - Oct 27

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on X: "Cutting off all communication to a population of 2.2 million is unacceptable. Journalists, medical professionals, humanitarian efforts, and innocents are all endangered.
I do not know how such an act can be defended. The United States has historically denounced this practice." / X

Israel-Hamas war: Internet, phone service gradually returns after vanishing for most of Gaza | AP News - Oct 29

Two days after cellular and internet service abruptly vanished for most of Gaza amid a heavy Israeli bombardment, the crowded enclave came back online Sunday as communications systems were gradually restored.

That’s a welcome development for Gaza following a communications blackout that began late Friday as Israel expanded ground operations and launched intense airstrikes that illuminated the night sky with furious orange flashes. A rare few Palestinians with international SIM cards or satellite phones took it upon themselves to get the news out.

By Sunday morning, phone and internet communications had been restored to many people in Gaza, according to telecommunications providers in the area, Internet-access advocacy group NetBlocks.org and confirmation on the ground.

Internet access in Gaza partially restored after blackout | TechCrunch - Oct 30

Then on Monday, Gaza had roughly the same access to internet connectivity as before Friday, according to several experts and firms that are monitoring the internet in the region, including Doug Madory, an expert who for years has focused on monitoring networks across the world.

 

[barbos]

No insurgency has been defeated by reducing it's ability to recruit. You defeat insurgencies by removing the funding.

Hamas is funded by Qatar. Also Hamas was fighting Assad and US government was fine with it.
So.....

Hamas fighting Assad?!?! How?

Easy. Qatar was the main funder of war against Assad in the ME and the main funder of Hamas.

 

[Copernicus]

...
It was always about retribution first - look at the initial rhetoric. The "safer" part is the cover and it allows for genocidal policies under the rubric "its not a war crime to kill 1,000 civilians if we are aiming at a terrorist". Hell, just look at the language used by the apologists for the IDF in this thread.

They appear to be blowing the tunnels. Valid military target.

And the expectation is that you strike so as to minimize casualties, not that you eliminate them. The attacker is not responsible for the death of human shields. Israel even leaflet-bombed them to get the fuck away from the Hamas stuff, that's more than attackers usually do. Collective guilt.

No, the expectation is that the safety of civilians is paramount. It is impossible to avoid the deaths of civilians in a war, but the attacking forces are expected to refrain unless there is some unavoidable excuse. So we have lots of clear violations of that principle with Israel now--including the murderous attack on the densely populated Jabalya camp to kill just one Hamas official. You seem to think that human shields can be killed because they are being used to shield military targets, but what do you think they are always being used to shield? Picnics and weddings? The whole point of using them is to shield military targets. The fact that they are being used that way has never been an excuse to kill them.

No. You only count safety of civilians to the extent you can consistent with accomplishing military objectives.

And since nobody but terrorists is seeking to attack picnics and weddings the whole concept of shields for them makes no sense.

You want to prioritize military operations over the safety of civilians, but the Geneva Protocols say the opposite. Moreover, as I pointed out, "human shield" implies that something is being shielded, and logic suggests it is what those using human shields do not want destroyed--military assets. Hence, human shields serve no other purpose than to shield military targets, and your interpretation is that this means they can be killed in order to eliminate the targets. So why have any international law at all that says human shields cannot be targeted? They can be killed simply because of what they are--targets painted on enemy military assets. In order not to kill them, you have to refrain from destroying what they are being used to shield. The business about picnics and weddings was just my sarcastic way of pointing out that they are shielding what you think cancels the need to protect their lives.

When IDF spokespersons claim that they are doing everything they can to protect civilian lives, I can only roll my eyes. They are doing everything they can to rationalize and justify killing anyone who gets in the way of a suspected military target. They think that dropping leaflets to tell everyone to skedaddle somehow exonerates their depraved indifference to the lives of civilian Palestinians, including men, women, children. Anyone.

Israel's "leaflet bombs" are a sick joke. A pretense to justify violating international law. There are no safe areas to evacuate to, and it is complete nonsense to think that people who don't evacuate are therefore disposable collateral damage. The whole point of the order for civilians to evacuate the north was a message to the IDF that they could attack all targets in the north, because it was the fault of those who failed to heed the warnings that they were there. The leaflets even warned that they could be mistaken for Hamas terrorists, if they did not flee south, which Israel is also bombarding daily. Israel has even targeted an ambulance, because it suspected the ambulance was being used by Hamas. What was the compelling reason to kill innocent civilians in the vicinity of that ambulance? Was it launching rockets into Israel? I've seen pictures of the blood-spattered ambulance. Even if it contained wounded Hamas combatants, they were not posing an immediate threat to Israel.

There is no compelling need to kill civilians. There is a compelling reason to hit Hamas and killing the civilians is unavoidable.

But what it seems you are saying here is that there is no compelling reason NOT to kill civilians if the reason is to hit Hamas, and that is what compels IDF targeting priorities. The attacking forces don't need to exercise any restraint, because all those people should have paid attention to the leaflets and fled, even if fleeing was impossible or pointless (because Israel is bombing designated safe areas on account of the IDF thinking they harbor Hamas facilities).

As for the ambulance, we don't know the details but there's no reason Palestinian ambulances should get special treatment. Not only has Israel repeatedly caught them smuggling but the Red Crescent (equivalent of the Red Cross) refuses to condemn such misuse. This forfeits the protections that would normally be associated with an ambulance.

So, again, human shields, human shmields. Wherever there are a lot of civilians, Hamas must be using them as human shields, so bomb the hell out of everything, no matter how densely populated with people from all walks of life. You can't be so clueless as to be surprised that people are now calling Israel out for committing genocide. The Biden administration is already feeling intense heat to change its support for Israel, but the Netanyahu government doesn't care. They prefer Donald Trump over Joe Biden anyway, so no big deal if Biden gets raked over the coals politically for his support of Israel.

 

[TV and credit cards]

“If you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth. And you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree,”
-Barack Obama

Isn't this so often the case? We are hell and gone from ever finding a solution because we refuse to honestly recognize the problem.
I'm really only familiar with this issue from the end of WWII when the USA gullibly accepted this turd from GB. Is that far back enough? Do we really need to go back any further? We gave what didn't belong to us and were/are the muscle enforcing it. Jewish immigrants acted as one might expect. And a Palestinian people can only take so much for so long. How could Hamas not have sprung up out of this?

The media has done a wonderful job of feeding us one side of the story. Since the days of my youth, moving beyond the comics section of the newspaper, I knew something was wrong with how this all was being presented by the press as good versus evil. A twelve year old could see it.
Today it's easier to access both sides of the story and many young people are doing just that. Biden will lose the youth vote on this issue. It's early but let's see how this polls. Barring anyone exceptionally abhorrent being put forward by the Republicans next year, I fear many Democrats will sit home during the next election.
This isn't the 1970's Joe. People can more readily find out what is going on. If you want to help solve the problem, I think your best bet is to make immigration for Israelis to the US as easy as possible.

 

[Tigers!]

No, I don't. Many of my family are Jews.

And no, it isn't. One possible result of what I am asking for is the elimination of Israel as a nation state; That's absolutely not the same thing as the extermination of the Jews (most of whom don't even live in the Middle East).

I suspect Hamas' definition of elimination of Israel as a nation state = extermination of the Jews in the middle east. I will accept Hamas' definition of over yours anyday. Hamas' major consistentcy is their hatred of Jews and their willingness to kill them .

Unlike the Gazans, most Jewish people in Israel have both the means and the opportunity to go somewhere else, rather than let their neighbours kill them.

Why should the Jews leave their houses because you think it might be a good idea? The Evian Conference was held in 1938 and the Jews were abandoned to Hitler. Many countries expressed sympathy for the Jew's plight but none would accept Jewish refugees. The Australian delegate (to the shame of my country) was the most honest. He said "We have enough problems of our own without importing them from Europe and Jews to boot". Nothing has changed since 1938.

Israel, as a nation, should never have been established; It's one of the worst mistakes ever made by a British Empire that made some real doozies.

Europe to its shame bears much responsibility for the creation of Israel.

Undoing that mistake will inevitably be very painful for a lot of people; But it certainly needn't entail the extermination of anyone.

Sadly that is wiseful thinking.

Right now, the displacement of a large number of Israeli Jews seems preferable over the extermination of the Gazans; I recognise that you don't care about the latter, but that's a major failing on your part, and mot some kind of law of nature.

There are 7.2million Jews in Israel, who will take them in? They will not feel safe in Europe. Australia, Canada, USA et al. will not take in that many.

 

[steve_bank]

We topple Hussein and Qaddafi leaving behind conflict and disorder, we involved ourselves in a Syrian civil war and are still there, we arm Saudi Arabia who uses it against Yemen in a civil war.

We look the other way on Israel's treatment of Palestinians leading to violence.

Yes Mr Blinken, we most defiantly want to prevent the Gaza war from spreading....

 

[barbos]

we involved ourselves in a Syrian civil war

You did not merely involve yourself in civil war there. You instigated and supported it. You armed ISIS terrorists hoping they would overthrow Assad. And you are still illegally occupying part of the country and stealing their oil. Ukraine - same thing. You are totally responsible for that. You armed ukrainian Nazis hoping they would overthrow Putin. You openly discuss in policy papers your plans of provoking Iran into something which can be construed into something favorable for US interests.

 

[Harry Bosch]

10/7 showed that the barriers they created with Gaza were inadequate.

10/7 showed that all possible barriers they could create with Gaza would inevitably be inadequate.

Perhaps the solution is to stop building fucking barriers.

So you want the Jews exterminated? Because that's the result of what you're asking for.

No, I don't. Many of my family are Jews.

And no, it isn't. One possible result of what I am asking for is the elimination of Israel as a nation state; That's absolutely not the same thing as the extermination of the Jews (most of whom don't even live in the Middle East).

Unlike the Gazans, most Jewish people in Israel have both the means and the opportunity to go somewhere else, rather than let their neighbours kill them.

Israel, as a nation, should never have been established; It's one of the worst mistakes ever made by a British Empire that made some real doozies.

Undoing that mistake will inevitably be very painful for a lot of people; But it certainly needn't entail the extermination of anyone.

Right now, the displacement of a large number of Israeli Jews seems preferable over the extermination of the Gazans; I recognise that you don't care about the latter, but that's a major failing on your part, and mot some kind of law of nature.

Yea, that's just not going to happen. To the Jews living in Israel, Israel is their home. They are a hated minority in almost all other countries in the world. Where are they suppose to go? There is even great antisemitism in the US.