Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[blastula]

Suspect arrested in killing of Detroit synagogue leader Samantha Woll​

A suspect has been taken into custody in last month’s killing of Detroit synagogue president Samantha Woll, Detroit Police said Wednesday.

In a statement on X, Police Chief James E. White said details of the investigation will remain confidential at this time.

“While this is an encouraging development in our desire to bring closure for Ms. Woll’s family, it does not represent the conclusion of our work in this case,” the statement reads.

Investigators are treating her death as arising from a domestic dispute and not extremism, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation.

Weird that they're keeping the details confidential.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Suspect arrested in killing of Detroit synagogue leader Samantha Woll​

A suspect has been taken into custody in last month’s killing of Detroit synagogue president Samantha Woll, Detroit Police said Wednesday.

In a statement on X, Police Chief James E. White said details of the investigation will remain confidential at this time.

“While this is an encouraging development in our desire to bring closure for Ms. Woll’s family, it does not represent the conclusion of our work in this case,” the statement reads.

Investigators are treating her death as arising from a domestic dispute and not extremism, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation.

Weird that they're keeping the details confidential.

If it is really domestic, I can appreciate the desire to keep those details out of the press.

 

[Gospel]

The need for confidentiality in certain instances is often a reflection of the public's handling of information. More widespread engagement in critical thinking and a willingness to consider challenging viewpoints could potentially lessen the necessity for law enforcement to adopt strict confidentiality protocols. However, due to a common inclination towards seeking information that merely affirms existing biases, law enforcement is frequently compelled to withhold specific details to safeguard their investigations. This caution is particularly necessary given the abundance of biased witnesses. When too many details are publicized, they can be misused by those with ulterior motives to lend weight to exaggerated claims, further entrenching bias into the investigation. For example people who were at the event but didn't see the incidence using details of the investigation to place themselves at that incident.

 

[Copernicus]

You can go join Laughing Dog in the land of insane plans.

Even Blinken is admitting it now:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday gave one of his most direct condemnations of the civilian death toll in Gaza and said more needs to be done to “minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”

Although Blinken commended Israel for its announcement of daily military pauses in areas of Northern Gaza and two evacuation corridors, he said that “there is more that can and should be done to minimize harm to Palestinian civilians.”

The top US diplomat has subtly shifted his messaging in the days since he departed the Middle East earlier this week to more directly voice condemnation of the civilian toll in Gaza and the US’ expectations for the Israeli government. However, he still has not condemned the Israeli government offensive and has continually voiced support for its right to defend itself.

“Far too many Palestinians have been killed. Far too many have suffered these past weeks,” Blinken said at a press availability in New Delhi at the end of a whirlwind trip that also included stops Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, Turkey, Iraq, Japan and South Korea.

“We want to do everything possible to prevent harm to them and to maximize the assistance that gets to them,” he said.

“To that end, we’ll be continuing to discuss with Israel the concrete steps to be taken to advance these objectives,” Blinken said, but declined to detail the specifics of those steps.

I think that the subtext here is the very strong policy difference that the US has held for years that has been resisted by Netanyahu's Likud-dominated governments: a Palestinian homeland under the two-state solution. Israel has paid lip service to that policy forever, but they have never wanted it. They don't want any Palestinian homeland at all. They want the land that the Palestinians would occupy under a two-state solution, and that is exactly what led Netanyahu governments to foster the Hamas terrorist government in Gaza since 2005. The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas. They don't want a one-state, two-state, three-state solution. What they have always wanted is a no-state solution. The US position is still that they think a two-state solution can work, which is unacceptable to Israeli ultranationalists. Hence, Israel has been trying to drive the Gaza Palestinians south--closer to the Egyptian border--and tried to get Egypt to consider taking them in.

 

[Gospel]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

 

[TomC]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

I don't think that's true.

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does. Like Israel, they can't distinguish between peaceable folks and Islamic fighters.

That's why Palestinians are trapped. Not because Israel is forcing them to stay or do anything in particular. It's the Palestinian leadership who keep them poor, desperate, and violent.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Weird that they're keeping the details confidential.

Not sure if serious.

In the civilised world, all details of criminal investigations are, as far as possible, kept confidential until the conclusion of all trials and appeals, so that juries and courts are less likely to be biased by inaccurate or incomplete reports of the crimes.

This is not the case in the USA, with her vaunted "freedom of the press", which enshrines in law the priority of prurient interest over justice and fairness.

Whether light entertainment should be considered more important than just and fair treatment of suspects in criminal investigations, I shall leave as an exercise for the reader.

It's not only not weird; It's incredibly weird that it should be so rare as to be thought to be weird.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does.

My understanding of Egypt's choice to move slowly at opening its border is that they were demanding international aid as part of the process. In other words, the logistics and the money appeared to be the primary issue at acceptance of refugees.

 

[Copernicus]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

I don't think that's true.

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does. Like Israel, they can't distinguish between peaceable folks and Islamic fighters.

That's why Palestinians are trapped. Not because Israel is forcing them to stay or do anything in particular. It's the Palestinian leadership who keep them poor, desperate, and violent.
Tom

The problem for Israel is that Egypt is fully aware that it wants Palestinians moved into Gaza, where Egypt would take responsibility for them. Egypt won't open its border to let refugees in, because it fears that Israel will not let them go back. There is surely a problem with letting in Islamic fighters, too, because they could then use Egyptian territory from which to launch attacks on Israel, which they would surely want to continue doing. However, it is always difficult for a country to allow a large influx of refugees and immigrants into its borders, and that is what I think the Likud governments have always wanted. That would make the Palestinians someone else's problem, not theirs. To that end, Israel has already proposed to write off Egypt's burdensome national debt in exchange for a solution to its Palestinian problem in Gaza:

Israel-Palestine war: Israel reportedly proposed writing off Egypt's debts for hosting Gaza refugees​

 

[TomC]

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does.

My understanding of Egypt's choice to move slowly at opening its border is that they were demanding international aid as part of the process. In other words, the logistics and the money appeared to be the primary issue at acceptance of refugees.

I'm very confident that western Zionists would deliver bales of money to Egypt, if they helped Israel out with their Palestinian problem.

And there are lots of western Zionists. Powerful Zionists. People who truly believe that ancient scripture is a property deed, delivered by God Himself. People convinced that if Israel would just rebuild The Temple, they'd be Raptured.

Jews can't do that with a bunch of Palestinian people in the way.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does.

My understanding of Egypt's choice to move slowly at opening its border is that they were demanding international aid as part of the process. In other words, the logistics and the money appeared to be the primary issue at acceptance of refugees.

You misspelled "new citizens".

 

[Gospel]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

I don't think that's true.

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does. Like Israel, they can't distinguish between peaceable folks and Islamic fighters.

That's why Palestinians are trapped. Not because Israel is forcing them to stay or do anything in particular. It's the Palestinian leadership who keep them poor, desperate, and violent.
Tom

That argument could have been a considerable factor in restricting movements to Jordan 40 to 50 years ago, specifically during the period when the PLO significantly strained Jordan's internal security. However, the contemporary restrictions on Palestinians moving to Jordan by Jordan these days is more about navigating bureaucratic hurdles (a reaction to what happened with the PLO) rather than outright denying access to the necessary processes for citizenship.

Jordan doesn't have control of the Gaza border, airspace, sea, access to resources & economy nor do they hold agriculture behind buffer zones. So yeah, it makes sense they don't want militants in their country & it's their business to filter out the undesirables, but to place blame on Jordan for things out of their control is just plain silly. The issue is similar with Egypt.

Hamas needs to go, however ignoring policies that create breeding grounds for organizations like Hamas may lead to ignorant ideas & takes regarding the Israel Palestine conflict.

 

[Gospel]

Imagine this scenario: You have an older neighbor who's struggling to adapt to the influx of younger residents in your community. You've been trying to help them acclimate and build bridges with these newcomers. However, one of the newer families is both insensitive and hostile towards your older neighbor, aware of their reluctance to accept change. This hostility ends up reinforcing the older neighbor's prejudices, escalating tensions to the point where they begin to retaliate. Amidst this conflict, a tenant from the older neighbor's household asks to stay with you to avoid being caught in the crossfire. Given the situation, you decide to vet this individual carefully before letting them move in. Your aim is to ensure they're not contributing to the conflict and to prevent your home from being perceived as antagonistic towards the new neighbors.

There's no problem with your approach, as offering help is a choice, not an obligation. and it definingly wouldn't make sense to blame you for the problems between the other neighbors. Especially considering that you and both the old & new neighbors weren't always on good terms anyway.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

I don't think that's true.

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does. Like Israel, they can't distinguish between peaceable folks and Islamic fighters.

That's why Palestinians are trapped. Not because Israel is forcing them to stay or do anything in particular. It's the Palestinian leadership who keep them poor, desperate, and violent.
Tom

While I'm certain that neither country wants Hamas in their borders, I think they want the impoverished people even less.

 

[TomC]

That argument could have been a considerable factor in restricting movements to Jordan 40 to 50 years ago,

I'm not talking about the olden days. Plenty of blame to spread around there.

I'm talking about the current situation. Hamas keeps Gazans poor, desperate, and violent. Egypt doesn't want that in their country either, despite the huge western aid they'd get.

Huge.

Israel isn't preventing anyone from making their own choices. It's Hamas doing that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

The ideal solution for Israel would be that those in the Gaza strip go live in the Gaza Peninsula under Egyptian rule, and those in the West Bank go live in Jordan, leaving Israel able to expand its land area into those areas.

I understand the official rationale is to prevent the influx of weaponry, but Israel's blockades also significantly limit outbound travel. If the so called solution involves Palestinians moving to different locations, it seems contradictory to then impede their ability to do so.

I don't think that's true.

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does. Like Israel, they can't distinguish between peaceable folks and Islamic fighters.

That's why Palestinians are trapped. Not because Israel is forcing them to stay or do anything in particular. It's the Palestinian leadership who keep them poor, desperate, and violent.
Tom

While I'm certain that neither country wants Hamas in their borders, I think they want the impoverished people even less.

Why?
A bunch of poor Muslims would get mountains of aid. From USA to Saudi Arabia, there's tons of money available. And the Palestinian people who don't want to be in Egypt any more could easily go elsewhere. Other Muslim countries. There're lots.

Like my ancestors did when they didn't want to be in Europe anymore. Came across the pond, set up life anew. Rough at first. Yeah, it's a bitch dealing with the outcome of your ancestors choices.

Generations.

And just so we're on the same page...
Exodus and Leviticus and such don't give Zionists any special status concerning the real estate. Sorry, Bibi, Hamas has as much right to Palestine as y'all do. More really, because they were living there a century or two ago.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

That argument could have been a considerable factor in restricting movements to Jordan 40 to 50 years ago,

I'm not talking about the olden days. Plenty of blame to spread around there.

I'm talking about the current situation. Hamas keeps Gazans poor, desperate, and violent. Egypt doesn't want that in their country either, despite the huge western aid they'd get.

Huge.

Israel isn't preventing anyone from making their own choices. It's Hamas doing that.
Tom

I think you need to look at the reality of what Gaza is. It was never a country, and its people never chose to live the way they do. Since 1949, it has been little better than a concentration camp--essentially an ethnic ghetto completely under the control of Israel. It is not allowed a seaport or an airport. Israel has decided who could enter it and who could leave. It has been totally dependent on large deliveries of humanitarian aid, water, food, and power from outside its borders. Concentration camp, not country. The Hamas administration was elected in 2006, and it has stayed in power since then because Israel took no steps to remove it and even allowed other countries to keep it funded and supplied. That is why Netanyahu is so unpopular right now. He is blamed for what Hamas did, because it was his plan and his policy that enabled them to mount the October 7 sneak attack. The attack itself was so vicious that it is hard to see how it was not designed to stoke up the rage of Israelis and invite exactly the kind of brutal attack on Gaza that we have seen for the past month. Hamas itself sits in underground bunkers while Israel turns ordinary Palestinians aboveground into martyrs for the cause.

To say that Israel isn't preventing anyone from making their own choices is simply contrary to the history of Gaza since 1949. The Gaza Strip exists for the sole purpose of denying Gaza Palestinians their own choice. It was always Israel's choice to keep them confined to that narrow strip of land without freedom or control over their own lives.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does.

My understanding of Egypt's choice to move slowly at opening its border is that they were demanding international aid as part of the process. In other words, the logistics and the money appeared to be the primary issue at acceptance of refugees.

You misspelled "new citizens".

Yes. I thought that there would be the same kinds of factors involved between refugees and new citizens. For example, one factor that has been mentioned is that Hamas could then launch attacks from Egypt. This factor would be present whether refugees or citizens. Of course, you could respond that refugees would be far more restricted and not be able to get into the general population. I would agree to that, but also Egypt could be blamed for any attack by Hamas against Israel anyway. Either way, you're right they are not exactly the same thing and so risks are not exactly the same.

 

[Copernicus]

Egypt and Jordan don't want an influx of violent militants any more than Israel does.

My understanding of Egypt's choice to move slowly at opening its border is that they were demanding international aid as part of the process. In other words, the logistics and the money appeared to be the primary issue at acceptance of refugees.

You misspelled "new citizens".

Yes. I thought that there would be the same kinds of factors involved between refugees and new citizens. For example, one factor that has been mentioned is that Hamas could then launch attacks from Egypt. This factor would be present whether refugees or citizens. Of course, you could respond that refugees would be far more restricted and not be able to get into the general population. I would agree to that, but also Egypt could be blamed for any attack by Hamas against Israel anyway. Either way, you're right they are not exactly the same thing and so risks are not exactly the same.

The bonus for Israel is that Egyptian troops would be tasked with the responsibility of keeping Hamas under control, not Israel. The Egyptian government is not naive or stupid. They know exactly what would happen if Egypt opened its borders. Israel would then forget about them and deal with the remaining Palestinians gumming up their plan to settle the West Bank.

 

[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.

Their strategy is to make Hamas cry uncle.

And you aren't addressing the flaws I pointed out.

And your "plan" would require invasion, just not immediate.

Wrong on all counts. The flakes are based on your assumptions. The plan only requires an invasion if one needs immediate results.