Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

Don't forget the Eye of Sauron in the portrait on the wall.

The "portrait on the wall" is of Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas who was droned in 2004.

The Eye of Sauron is a nice touch, symbolizing the evil of Islamist terrorism and groups like Hamas. But I fail to see how it's "racist" or inappropriate in a political cartoon.

 

[Arctish]

Don't forget the Eye of Sauron in the portrait on the wall.

The "portrait on the wall" is of Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas who was droned in 2004.

The Eye of Sauron is a nice touch, symbolizing the evil of Islamist terrorism and groups like Hamas. But I fail to see how it's "racist" or inappropriate in a political cartoon.

I added a bit to my post.

I think linking mosques with Mordor is where the cartoon went too far down the boulevard of racism and religious bigotry instead of staying on the straight and narrow path of criticizing people for their actions.

 

[laughing dog]

Why are men in US such violent extremists?

Generalize much?

Also, Detroit police haven't released the identity of the suspect. So how can you even be sure he is an American? Or a man?

Most people stop digging when they find themselves in a hole. In this instance, your earlier implication the killing was done by an anti- Semite Arab American,

 

[laughing dog]

It is how they an acted after the Munich murders.

Going after terrorists who orchestrated the Munich massacre is not "genocidal".

Nobody said it was.

And since those people were protected where they lived, and bringing them to trial was not feasible, it is not even murder. Its righteous retribution.

I hope Mossad finds a way to do likewise with Ismail Hanniyeh and other Hamas leaders living high on the hog in places like Qatar or Lebanon, since neither country is likely to arrest and extradite them to face justice. Therefore, more direct forms of justice are necessary. Like a 9mm brain hemorrhage.

Assassination of suspected terrorists is expedient but it is still murder.

 

[Derec]

Nobody said it was.

Didn't you call Israelis "genocidal" just two responses earlier?

Assassination of suspected terrorists is expedient but it is still murder.

So you think Obama and others in his administration should be brought up on murder charges for killing bin Laden?

 

[bilby]

October 7 was unjustifiable, period. Full stop.

Killing 1400 civilians in a sneak attack is not justifiable no matter who the perpetrator or who the victims.

I agree entirely. That violence was a response to various things, but not in any way justified by any of them.

It wasn't caused by (or even preceded by) "Israel show[ing] weakness by making concessions to violent militants" though, and the suggestion that the violence in the region on either side is down to their enemies being too nice, or too reluctant to engage in violence, is observably absurd.

 

[bilby]

It was murder.

So you want to prosecute Obama and everyone else in this room for murder? First or second degree?

That would be a good idea.

The world would be a better place if powerful people weren't above the law.

It was first degree murder by the definitions used in most jurisdictions that define murder as having degrees.

Or is this rule of yours (and bilby's) only for when Jews dare defend themselves from genocidal terrorists?

No, absolutely not. It's for all people anywhere who kill somebody without due process, including a properly constituted criminal trial.

That you find this so hard to grasp, is a sad indictment of the stranglehold powerful people have over public opinion.

Deliberately killing an individual without trial is murder. Even if you're Barack Obama, acting in your official role as President of the United States.

That it's unthinkable that he will ever face trial for this killing is a stark illustration of how uncivilised the supposedly civilised world still is.

 

[bilby]

I disagree.

I know. And I think very poorly of you as a result.

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody said it was.

Didn't you call Israelis "genocidal" just two responses earlier?

I said the current policy is genocidal. I brought the Munich assassinations as a better alternative .

Assassination of suspected terrorists is expedient but it is still murder.

So you think Obama and others in his administration should be brought up on murder charges for killing bin Laden?

Yes. Won’t happen.

 

[ZiprHead]

It was murder.

So you want to prosecute Obama and everyone else in this room for murder? First or second degree?

That would be a good idea.

The world would be a better place if powerful people weren't above the law.

It was first degree murder by the definitions used in most jurisdictions that define murder as having degrees.

Or is this rule of yours (and bilby's) only for when Jews dare defend themselves from genocidal terrorists?

No, absolutely not. It's for all people anywhere who kill somebody without due process, including a properly constituted criminal trial.

That you find this so hard to grasp, is a sad indictment of the stranglehold powerful people have over public opinion.

Deliberately killing an individual without trial is murder. Even if you're Barack Obama, acting in your official role as President of the United States.

That it's unthinkable that he will ever face trial for this killing is a stark illustration of how uncivilised the supposedly civilised world still is.

Actually the team that went after OBL was supposed to first try to capture and take him alive. They said he grabbed the AK that was next to him forcing them to use defensive fire. At least that was the story they told.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are men in US such violent extremists?

Generalize much?

Also, Detroit police haven't released the identity of the suspect. So how can you even be sure he is an American? Or a man?

Holy shit. I was sarcasically alluding to your post using your flawed logic. So, you either knew before it was an illogical post or you know it now for the reasons you are giving. How weird!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
Any unlawful use of violence to terrify a civilian population is terrorism. Israel's denial of basic humanitarian needs and attacks on densely populated neighborhoods are acts intended to terrorize civilians, not just Hamas. But, in the eyes of some defenders of Israel, anything Israel targets is ipso facto a military target and therefore not limited by the Geneva Conventions. So human shields become nothing more than big targets painted on military assets that need to be destroyed. Your cliché "War is hell" expression is often used to excuse barbaric acts against an enemy, but it doesn't actually excuse barbaric behavior.

Get a dictionary. You need to learn what "unlawful" means (hint: what Israel is doing is not unlawful) and what "terrorism" means (hint: it's about intent.)

My understanding of "unlawful" is the same as yours, and we are talking about international law here. You are no more an expert on that subject than I am, and we have very different interpretations of what the Geneva Conventions say. AFAICT, they are rendered meaningless under your interpretation, because human shields can always be killed in order to destroy what they are shielding. So the claim that there are any restraints on targeting them are inconsequential. They are targets to the extent that they exist as "human shields" standing in front of what are bona fide military targets. Your legalistic nitpicking is absurd.

When they are forced to be on the target their fate is 100% on the side that forced them to be there.

You keep insisting Israel's actions are illegal without showing any illegal actions.

And the continual assertions that Israel doesn't know what it's hitting have zero evidence. Look at that post of mine earlier where UNWRA accidentally said the quiet part by showing the school damaged by an underground collapse. You don't hit tunnels by chance, Israel knew exactly where to aim.

Did I say that they didn't know what they were hitting? I think they know fully well that they are hitting innocent men, women, and children that they feel should have heeded leaflets telling them not to be where they are sending their bombs, even though there are no safe areas to go to. I think that the IDF believes that Gaza city is pretty much honeycombed by tunnels, and it may well be. So they can bomb pretty much anywhere and be hitting tunnels underneath all of those civilians. Too bad about the children, but "war is hell", isn't it? That didn't apply to the October 7 victims, because that was terrorism, not war, right?

I've seen various numbers, I suspect some are NASA errors and the correct value is 300miles/500km of tunnels. They are all valid targets.

And there are no safe areas because Hamas ensures they are unsafe. You blame Israel for Hamas' actions.

And consider this recent bit:

How Israel tries to protect Gaza's civilians

Despite general media malevolence, the truth sometimes emerges

melaniephillips.substack.com

They're still calling people to warn them to get off the X. And even waiting until the people they called have confirmed the area is evacuated.

OK, it's good to know that those three apartment blocks were actually evacuated in advance of the destruction of the residents' homes, but it's still just one anecdote published by a substack blogger. It doesn't negate incidents like the Jabalya bombing that targeted a single individual, and maybe didn't even get him before killing scores of innocent men, women, and children. It doesn't justify Israel cutting off the entire population of the Gaza Strip from food, water, medical, and power supplies on the grounds that Hamas might also commandeer some of it for their own purposes. Again, I don't think that international law allows that, but you do. We've established that difference in our opinions about the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions regarding protected people.

Now it's scores?? The number strangely keeps growing.

And Israel is completely justified in cutting off Gaza from all outside access. That's how sieges work. And they're not cut off, anyway--90% of the water is local. The important things have generators--that Hamas keeps the fuel tanks almost empty so they'll keep crying that they're about to run out. Hamas has plenty of fuel, though.

A siege is a valid tactic of war. It would only become a war crime if Israel refused to accept a surrender.

...
You continue to not understand international law.

Military use trumps civilian--if it's being used for military purposes it is a valid target, period.

You don't need to keep repeating this. We disagree. I believe that international law says that civilian lives are to be prioritized except under very extreme circumstances--for example during actual combat. You believe that any conceivable "military purpose", including the mere presence of an officer or enemy official, justifies overwhelming force to destroy it, no matter how many innocent lives may be sacrificed to that end. Tunnels can be blown up no matter what the lethal consequences are for innocent civilians simply because they might be used by enemy forces. The only requirement is maybe that the area by leafletted with warnings to flee the area, even though there are no safe havens to evacuate to.

That's not how historical decisions have gone.

...
Israel doesn't have a choice here. A government that fails to defend it's people will fall. If Israel acts as you want in the next election you'll see a far more hardline government.

I'm not really concerned about how Israelis will vote in the next election, if killing a lot of people is somehow in the calculus to elect politicians that are less malevolent than the current crop of rightwing racist fanatics. I realize that there are worse people than even Bibi Netanyahu, who has been running governments that actually did fail to defend its people. What I disagree with is your assumption that Israel is compelled to bomb the hell out of Gaza for a full month, killing roughly 10,000 Palestinians, added to the 1,400 Israelis killed on October 7, as a means of resolving the security crisis that Israel faces. At the end of this process, we are going to find that Palestinians are even more motivated to engage in asymmetric warfare against Israel in the future. Because that is their only option for settling new scores that they feel now fell need to be settled.

<thwack with a clue-by-4>
You don't get it. If the current government doesn't defend the people the next election will bring a government that makes the current one look like moderates.

And I have repeatedly pointed out that motivation isn't the issue. Hamas controls the education, it keeps them in grinding poverty--plenty of motivation even if Israel does nothing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do Palestinian deaths matter but Jewish deaths don't matter?

Who said this???

Indirectly, multiple people on here.

10/7 won't kill Israel, thus Israel isn't justified in shooting back in a fashion that can harm civilians.

WTF?! That post should be labeled a fire hazard, it is so stuffed with strawmen.

If it's full of strawmen point to one.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the civilian deaths matter.

That is just a pile of crap. There is only one member here who'd feel that way about Israeli deaths. So cut that shit out. There is an ability to feeling terrible grief for the losses on October 7th without handing a blank check to a fucking idiotic dumbass wannabe dictator who dropped the ball so badly on Israeli defense that over 1000 Israelis were slaughtered and hundred more kidnapped while he was busy trying to centralize power in Israel.

You're also suffering from the standard liberal fallacy that there is always a good path. That's not how the real world works, this is a case where there are no good choices, only varying degrees of bad choices. Thus showing a path to be bad is irrelevant, what matters is how it compares to other paths.

And there's a problem with your theory, anyway--this was apparently planned for earlier but Iran changed the planning so we would be duped into releasing that $6 billion that was frozen. Knowing they were planning something big isn't actionable if you don't know when. Consider 9/11--the warnings Bush got were useless. There was a gaping hole in the security but it was much lower down--the report from the flight school about pilots who only cared about flying, not landing. If that got the attention it deserved it would have stopped 9/11.

You have accused people here of some shitty things. Please put up or recant your accusations.

Secondly, I don't think there is a "good path". That is more shit you keep shoving other posters' mouths. The problem I have been repeating is that Israeli military actions are likely breeding more Hamas than they are eliminating. And that doesn't make Israel safer.

You're acting like you believe there's a good one. Your evidence that the current path is wrong is that harm comes from it--but that is only a valid criticism if there is a path that causes no harm.

I'm not putting shit in anyone's mouth, I'm filling in the consequences of your arguments. You aren't thinking things through to their conclusion.

We have a case of if P then Q. You proclaim P and complain when I say your position is Q.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do Palestinian deaths matter but Jewish deaths don't matter?

Who said this???

Indirectly, multiple people on here.

10/7 won't kill Israel, thus Israel isn't justified in shooting back in a fashion that can harm civilians.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the civilian deaths matter.

My parents brought me up that bad behavior on the part of others did not justify bad behavior on my part.

Let me make this clear. Killing civilians is wrong. Doesn't matter who does the killing nor does it matter who the victims are.

Unlike you, there are those who believe it doesn't matter if you think the cause is just or legal. It is still wrong.

So you can shove that "Israeli deaths don't matter" back up the orifice from which it originated.

This isn't a Dungeons and Dragons world where there's always a clear path to good.

Yet you continue to act like there is.

And by saying Israel shouldn't act you are saying they should simply accept more massacres. Jewish lives don't matter.

Since I haven't said Israel shouldn't act, what are you on about. Nor did anyone say they should accept more massacres. And acknowledging that killing civilians is wrong has nothing whatsoever to do with the accepting or not accepting massacres.

You can shove your vile straw man "Jewish lives don't matter" back up its originating orifice. Just because you appear to feel that civilian Palestinian lives do not matter, it does not mean others have the feelings about Jewish lives. That is pure projection on your part and it reveals much more about the mindset of those who utter such accusations than it does about those to whom it is aimed.

You oppose anything that kills innocent Palestinians.

You support paths that kill innocent Israelis.

What else am I supposed to conclude?

 

[laughing dog]

You don't get it. If the current government doesn't defend the people the next election will bring a government that makes the current one look like moderates.

The current gov’t already failed to defend the people.

This action is revenge masquerading as “defense”.

 

[laughing dog]

You oppose anything that kills innocent Palestinians.

You support paths that kill innocent Israelis.

What else am I supposed to conclude?

Both of your claims about my positions are false. So your conclusion is based on bigoted and biased premises.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I care far more about the side that didn't choose war than the side that chose war crimes.

Both sides chose war.

Both sides are choosing war crimes.

Both sides chose war? No, Israel chose to not sit there and be slaughtered.

By engaging in war or are you saying Israel is responding with terrorism?

Can you ever actually address the matter rather than find something to nitpick?

That is your standard evasion whenever someone hits the point on the head. Either Israel's choice to not sit there and be slaughtered was to declare war or to engage in terrorism. You still have yet to answer the question. Which is truly revealing.

You seem to think Israel has engaged in terrorism.

. Duh. You still evade the question.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

And you still haven't addressed the original question: What should Israel have done?

First, act like sane responsible adults instead vengeful genocidal maniacs to reassure the public that they would hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators, and work to free/ rescue the hostages. Second, start gathering the intelligence and making plans to either seize or assassinate the perpetrators and free/ rescue the hostages .Third, carry out the plans. Yes, it would take time and be less viscerally satisfying to the racists, and revenge seekers.

And what were you smoking when you came up with this "plan"?

Reassure the public that they would hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators is babble.

Work to free the hostages? Hamas will want too much for them. Any deal Hamas would agree to would kill far more than are currently being held. Israel unfortunately has a track record of making big concessions for hostages, there won't be a sane price for their release.

Rescue the hostages? Have you forgotten where they are? The only way the IDF can do this is to invade--and a ground invasion would be far worse especially if the tunnels haven't been destroyed first. In case you're not aware of how this sort of thing works any building with defenders is removed. All paths are secured--but if the tunnels are still there any building could have a hidden tunnel, thus every building would be removed. Look at what's left of cities that Ukraine/Russia fought a ground battle in--Gaza would be a lot worse because of the tunnels.

Gathering intelligence? Sorry, they are limited in this regard by the lack of contact between the two countries.

Seize/assassinate the perpetrators? That's back to the invasion approach.

Until you have a sane plan don't criticize what the people who do know what they're doing come up with.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

First, act like sane responsible adults instead vengeful genocidal maniacs to reassure the public that they would hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators, and work to free/ rescue the hostages. Second, start gathering the intelligence and making plans to either seize or assassinate the perpetrators and free/ rescue the hostages .Third, carry out the plans. Yes, it would take time and be less viscerally satisfying to the racists, and revenge seekers.

Dang that's pitifully naive.

Think Hamas and their supporters would be willing to do the same? I don't.

Why would that matter?

Doing the right thing can perfectly well be a unilateral action; Doing the wrong thing because your enemies also do the wrong thing is inexcusable and illogical.

Your "right thing" is to accept ethnic cleansing.

If ethnic cleansing is the answer it should be the side that keeps starting the violence--the Palestinians.

I think that any time Israel shows weakness by making concessions to violent militants they'll get the same results they got on October 7th.
Tom

October 7th was a response to Israel electing a genocidal "hard man" who wanted to make a show of strength, and to cease what few concessions were being made.

I think that what you think is demonstrably and clearly wrong, and that even a cursory comparison between Israeli "shows of strength" and subsequent levels of Palestinian violence over the entire history of the state of Israel indicates that.

10/7 had to have been in the plans for years, the Israeli election can't possibly be the cause.

And the various smack-downs Israel administers do bring a period of relative calm.

 

[laughing dog]

And you still haven't addressed the original question: What should Israel have done?

First, act like sane responsible adults instead vengeful genocidal maniacs to reassure the public that they would hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators, and work to free/ rescue the hostages. Second, start gathering the intelligence and making plans to either seize or assassinate the perpetrators and free/ rescue the hostages .Third, carry out the plans. Yes, it would take time and be less viscerally satisfying to the racists, and revenge seekers.

And what were you smoking when you came up with this "plan"?

Reassure the public that they would hunt down and bring to justice the perpetrators is babble.

Work to free the hostages? Hamas will want too much for them. Any deal Hamas would agree to would kill far more than are currently being held. Israel unfortunately has a track record of making big concessions for hostages, there won't be a sane price for their release.

Rescue the hostages? Have you forgotten where they are? The only way the IDF can do this is to invade--and a ground invasion would be far worse especially if the tunnels haven't been destroyed first. In case you're not aware of how this sort of thing works any building with defenders is removed. All paths are secured--but if the tunnels are still there any building could have a hidden tunnel, thus every building would be removed. Look at what's left of cities that Ukraine/Russia fought a ground battle in--Gaza would be a lot worse because of the tunnels.

Gathering intelligence? Sorry, they are limited in this regard by the lack of contact between the two countries.

Seize/assassinate the perpetrators? That's back to the invasion approach.

Until you have a sane plan don't criticize what the people who do know what they're doing come up with.

Right now the gov’t of Israel is working to free/rescue the hostages - something you disparage even though those people “ do know what they’re doing “ (according to you). Of course, their apparent strategy is to bomb the tunnels the hostages may be in.

If gathering intelligence is limited then how can the IDF know where tunnels or the hostages are?

The rest of your response appears to be driven by the assumption that the only other alternatives require an immediate massive invasion. Which is just stupid.

In conclusion, your criticisms have no basis in disinterested reasoning and contradict your IDF apologia.

 

[bilby]

If the current government doesn't defend the people

The current government didn't defend the people.

Now they have embarked on genocide in the hope that people will mistake their after-the-fact violence for some kind of defence of the people - as you just did.