Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Shadowy Man]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

That's just stupid black and white thinking.

I disagree. It is not thinking at all.

Lol. Sometimes there are discreet choices. We can ignore all the hypothetical scenarios

Framing complex issues into binary outcomes makes life easy for propagandists, their dupes, lazy thinkers, and thise who cannot handle complexity.

You’re either with us or against us!

Just be discreet about it.

 

[steve_bank]

Pressure has to be brought on both sides. Israel has long been given a pass by the US on seizing intestinal land for Israeli expansion.

 

[Tigers!]

And no one is hiding behind "talks". It was "talks" that got some hostages released in November. It was "talks" that got previously captured hostages released. You can pretend that hostages are only ever freed by special forces strike teams, but that's just a Hollywood movie fantasy.

I do think that the "talks " occurred because of the Israeli attacks. Do you you really believe that Hamas returned the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts? If that be the case why did they take them in them 1st place?

I see no reason to think Hamas will be in a better position tomorrow than it is today. I have no idea why you think that's a likely outcome. Anyway, I have spoken of my belief Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box often enough to expect you to remember, so don't try playing the stupid card. I most certainly am not in favor of Hamas retaining any power, much less any hostages, anymore.

You keep saying that Hamas must be defeated on the ground yet talk of war crimes if Israel does anything. What in YHO could Israel do of which you would approve? (I know I have asked this before but am still awaiting a reply).

 

[Tigers!]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

A rational person can be against hostage taking and against killing civilians.

Yes they can. But a rational person can also accept, albeit very reluctantly, that getting hostages back may entail civilian causalities.

 

[Arctish]

And no one is hiding behind "talks". It was "talks" that got some hostages released in November. It was "talks" that got previously captured hostages released. You can pretend that hostages are only ever freed by special forces strike teams, but that's just a Hollywood movie fantasy.

I do think that the "talks " occurred because of the Israeli attacks. Do you you really believe that Hamas returned the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts? If that be the case why did they take them in them 1st place?

I also think the "talks" occurred because of the IDF actions in Gaza. Whatever made you think I thought otherwise?

Loren said "You can hide behind "talks", but fundamentally you are asking Israel to give up on getting their hostages back. You're lying to yourself because reality is too painful." It was another bullshit excluded middle fallacy. Hostage negotiations are the usual means by which hostages are released, and I would bet every dollar in my bank account that both you and Loren know it.

And no one is suggesting Israel give up on getting the hostages back. That's just another bullshit strawman Loren is battling.

I see no reason to think Hamas will be in a better position tomorrow than it is today. I have no idea why you think that's a likely outcome. Anyway, I have spoken of my belief Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box often enough to expect you to remember, so don't try playing the stupid card. I most certainly am not in favor of Hamas retaining any power, much less any hostages, anymore.

You keep saying that Hamas must be defeated on the ground yet talk of war crimes if Israel does anything.

Either you keep missing the point or I'm missing the underlying assumptions you're making about Israel.

If you believe all Israel does is commit war crimes, then it makes sense that you think I'm criticizing Israel every time it does something. Is that what you believe?

For the record, I don't think that's all Israel ever does. I believe Israel in the past has designed and enforced rules of engagement for the IDF that did not permit war crimes, and I believe it is capable of doing it now. I believe it's the current extremist Zionist leadership in Israel (Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, etc.) pushing the war crime agenda. I believe they want to murder their way in to claiming all of Gaza for Israel and forcing the surviving Gazans into either an apartheid-style Bantustan or something very much like the Rome Ghetto, and clear the way for Jews-only development projects built on the ruins of Palestinian homes and properties.

What in YHO could Israel do of which you would approve? (I know I have asked this before but am still awaiting a reply).

I already told you. And I already told you I already told you in a post you quoted.

 

[Arctish]

The time limit has passed for editing my previous post. Please consider the following as part it.

If you want a clear example of the kinds of rules of engagement I'm talking about, it can be found in the book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. The movie does a pretty good job of depicting the action (with a few small changes for cinematic storytelling reasons) but the book is where you'll find the strategic thinking behind the initial raid and the tactics employed on the ground as battlefield conditions made the initial plan inoperable.

At no point in time did the US military consider consider committing war crimes like cutting off food and humanitarian aid to civilians. In fact, the entire operation in Somalia was to capture the leader of the faction who was doing exactly that. And the one American who was captured alive was released 11 days later, after "talks".

I do not believe that a successful campaign to defeat Hamas could be a bloodless one. I do not believe it could be done without any civilian casualties. I believe there will be more killing and destruction in Gaza before there is peace.

BUT,

I do not accept the false dichotomy that Israel must commit war crimes or Israel must surrender and allow its Jewish citizens to perish. I think that's utterly absurd fear mongering being used to justify utter contempt for the human rights of people that racists and religious bigots consider 'undesirables'. We all know where that kind of thinking leads.

 

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

 

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

Yet another example of an irrational response. The taking of a hostage does not cause the effect of bombing just like a rape does not cause the effect of the incarceration of the rapist. In each situation, there are intermediate steps involving choice and action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is getting weird.

So people who can never, ever be critical of the extremist right-wing Israel govt have supported the following:

• Netanyahu and right-wing govt SUPPORTING the growth of HAMAS;
• Following the tragedy and evil actions of hostage-taking, supported going after Hamas by bombing the fuck out of 10s of thousands of civilians (so far);
• Simultaneously saying Hamas wants Israel to kill Palestinian civilians so Hamas can propagandize it and totally being in favor of Israel killing those civilians;
• Killing hostages because allegedly their families wanted them dead, even while the families were protesting the Netanyahu govt because they were not focusing on getting the hostages enough.

These policies have resulted in the world becoming more and more distrustful of Israel and being more and more sympathetic to Palestinian statehood recognition and even Hamas. Being irrationally uncritical of the runaway extremist govt of Israel is not supporting Israel, but instead supporting the goals of radical Islam.

 

[TomC]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

Yet another example of an irrational response. The taking of a hostage does not cause the effect of bombing just like a rape does not cause the effect of the incarceration of the rapist. In each situation, there are intermediate steps involving choice and action.

Nevertheless, the incarceration is a result of the choice he made to rape.
And if he then chooses to hide behind his family in the subsequent shoot out he is responsible for their deaths as well.
Sorry if you disagree.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

Yet another example of an irrational response. The taking of a hostage does not cause the effect of bombing just like a rape does not cause the effect of the incarceration of the rapist. In each situation, there are intermediate steps involving choice and action.

Nevertheless, the incarceration is a result of the choice he made to rape.
And if he then chooses to hide behind his family in the subsequent shoot out he is responsible for their deaths as well.
Sorry if you disagree.
Tom

If the police response is reasonable and they aren't simply killing everyone in the vicinity of the suspect, then yes, the rapist who engaged with police in a shootout bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent bystanders.

But if we're talking about something like the 1985 bombing of a row house where people suspected of parole violations, contempt of court, and illegal possession of weapons were living with their family members and got into a shootout with the police when their house was raided with extreme force, then the police bear responsibility as well due to their massively destructive, over-the-top, kill-'em-all tactics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

Yet another example of an irrational response. The taking of a hostage does not cause the effect of bombing just like a rape does not cause the effect of the incarceration of the rapist. In each situation, there are intermediate steps involving choice and action.

Here's the Hammas play-book

1) Hammas attacks into Israel and takes a bunch of hostages
2) They retreat into Gaza and hide the hostages among the Palestinian civilians.
3) Israel attacks and Hammas embeds the hostages among the Palestinian refugees
4) They attack the IDF and shoot rockets while embedded in Palestinian refugees. Hammas fighters are dressed like Palestinian civilians.

It's Hammas that are continuously painting targets on Palestinian civilians. Yes, Palestinian civilians are getting bombed. Because Hammas is trying to make Palestinian civilians to get hurt. To sway public opinion.

If Israel wants the hostages back and refuse to negotiate for their release, which is the only morally correct thing to do, they are doing what they need to do. The blood of the civilians is on Hammas. Both the Israeli and Palestinian civilians

 

[laughing dog]

Do think that's an acceptable behaviour?

Please. Just stop with the straw men. No one thinks taking hostages is acceptable behavior.

The people on this forum condemning Israel obviously thinks taking hostages is OK. You can't have it both ways

Your conclusion is illogical. Bombing civilians has nothing whatsover to do with hostage taking,.

Yes it can. It is called cause and effect.

Taking a hostage does not cause bombing.

Lol. Let's have a moment of silence to all the convicted rapists who, for no reason, are in jail now. Such a senseless waste of human life!

Yet another example of an irrational response. The taking of a hostage does not cause the effect of bombing just like a rape does not cause the effect of the incarceration of the rapist. In each situation, there are intermediate steps involving choice and action.

Here's the Hammas play-book

1) Hammas attacks into Israel and takes a bunch of hostages
2) They retreat into Gaza and hide the hostages among the Palestinian civilians.
3) Israel attacks and Hammas embeds the hostages among the Palestinian refugees
4) They attack the IDF and shoot rockets while embedded in Palestinian refugees. Hammas fighters are dressed like Palestinian civilians.

It's Hammas that are continuously painting targets on Palestinian civilians. Yes, Palestinian civilians are getting bombed. Because Hammas is trying to make Palestinian civilians to get hurt. To sway public opinion.

If Israel wants the hostages back and refuse to negotiate for their release, which is the only morally correct thing to do, they are doing what they need to do. The blood of the civilians is on Hammas. Both the Israeli and Palestinian civilians

The irony of conflating killing innocent civilians with morally correct action.

In my view, it is insane to
1) give Hamas what they want - dead and maimed Palestinian civilians, and
2) feel that Israel had one and only one possible response.

But my views really don't matter because there are enough people directly involved in the conflict who think killing more civilians will bring peace to ensure that destruction and death persist for decades.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel

After 50 years of failure to stop violence and terrorism against Palestinians by Jewish ultranationalists, lawlessness has become the law.

www.nytimes.com

Back in opposition, Gantz says freeing hostages should take priority over Gaza fighting

Former war cabinet minister accuses Netanyahu of allowing political decisions to influence hostage deal negotiations, says Israel must shift focus to Hezbollah on northern border

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Gospel]

Someone is about to be found in the wreckage of a well-maintained aircraft that flew during treacherous conditions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fundamentally, most of you are saying that Israel can defend itself but only if it does so perfectly. That's never going to happen, thus the de facto result is you say Israel should die.

No.

I don't expect perfection. I expect rules of engagement designed to protect the soldiers without committing mass murder of unarmed civilians, and without the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Considering that Israel is already far better than anyone else at this (and despite fighting an enemy that is actively seeking to cause civilian casualties) you are demanding the impossible.

Your absurd excluded middle fallacy demands we choose which civilian population is to be slaughtered, and nevermind that most people here say "civilians shouldn't be slaughtered, wtf kind of question is that???"

Your "middle" is no civilians dead--but that's not going to happen. Either Israel fights and Palestinian civilians die or Israel doesn't fight and Israeli civilians die.

What about that cartoon? What's the solution? In refusing to answer it you are actually supporting Hamas.

Which cartoon? Also, was there a question asked of me that I refused to answer? When did that happen?

If refusing to answer a question means I support Hamas, then your refusal to support your claims must mean you worship Hitler. There's really no middle ground there. [/sarcasm]

While it's obviously a cartoon and they're not literally strapping babies to themselves it's a realistic depiction of what's happening--Hamas is acting to maximize civilian casualties to get the world to make Israel stop shooting.

What is your answer for when someone's trying to kill you while hiding behind civilians?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the best outcome for everyone is if Israel just keep going until they are done. Hammas is also bad for the Palestinians

You think Israel should just keep going until they are done what? Destroying all of Gaza? Killing all the adults who might be members of Hamas, or related to members of Hamas, or conceivably maybe-might be Hamas sympathizers? Killing the kids as they reach adolescence to prevent Hamas from recruiting them? Killing them now while it's still easily done?

What benchmark are you proposing for determining when Israel should stop?

The most obvious is getting the hostages back. And they've already offered this. The idea that Israel should simply be expected to write off the hostages is bonkers.

Wow, that is bonkers!

Who suggested doing that?

Look in the mirror. That's what you're asking for.

You can hide behind "talks", but fundamentally you are asking Israel to give up on getting their hostages back. You're lying to yourself because reality is too painful.

If Hamas won't give them up now why in the world would you expect them to give them up when they're in a much better position??

No one has suggested giving up on the hostages, although you have suggested giving up on getting them back alive.

You are proposing a fantasy solution as a means of getting back the hostages which effectively means not getting them back.

In the world constrained by reality you are asking the IDF to give up a major advantage (that much of Gaza is under their control) in exchange for a promise to do what they're already doing: talking. In other words, for nothing.

And no one is hiding behind "talks". It was "talks" that got some hostages released in November. It was "talks" that got previously captured hostages released. You can pretend that hostages are only ever freed by special forces strike teams, but that's just a Hollywood movie fantasy.

The problem is that the previous "success" you are talking about was a bad deal for Israel. They lost more people due to the actions of those they freed than they got back in hostages.

I see no reason to think Hamas will be in a better position tomorrow than it is today. I have no idea why you think that's a likely outcome. Anyway, I have spoken of my belief Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box often enough to expect you to remember, so don't try playing the stupid card. I most certainly am not in favor of Hamas retaining any power, much less any hostages, anymore.

The IDF out of Gaza would be far better for Hamas than the IDF in Gaza.

And I know you have "said" they need to be defeated on the ground and the ballot box but actions speak louder than words--you do not accept the reality of defeating them on the ground.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Pressure has to be brought on both sides. Israel has long been given a pass by the US on seizing intestinal land for Israeli expansion.

But who is putting any pressure on Hamas?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And no one is hiding behind "talks". It was "talks" that got some hostages released in November. It was "talks" that got previously captured hostages released. You can pretend that hostages are only ever freed by special forces strike teams, but that's just a Hollywood movie fantasy.

I do think that the "talks " occurred because of the Israeli attacks. Do you you really believe that Hamas returned the hostages out of the goodness of their hearts? If that be the case why did they take them in them 1st place?

I also think the "talks" occurred because of the IDF actions in Gaza. Whatever made you think I thought otherwise?

The point is you want the same result without the same circumstances.

Loren said "You can hide behind "talks", but fundamentally you are asking Israel to give up on getting their hostages back. You're lying to yourself because reality is too painful." It was another bullshit excluded middle fallacy. Hostage negotiations are the usual means by which hostages are released, and I would bet every dollar in my bank account that both you and Loren know it.

And no one is suggesting Israel give up on getting the hostages back. That's just another bullshit strawman Loren is battling.

You are saying Israel should give up the leverage it has for nothing in return. You want them to progress by taking a big step backwards.

I see no reason to think Hamas will be in a better position tomorrow than it is today. I have no idea why you think that's a likely outcome. Anyway, I have spoken of my belief Hamas must be defeated on the ground and at the ballot box often enough to expect you to remember, so don't try playing the stupid card. I most certainly am not in favor of Hamas retaining any power, much less any hostages, anymore.

You keep saying that Hamas must be defeated on the ground yet talk of war crimes if Israel does anything.

Either you keep missing the point or I'm missing the underlying assumptions you're making about Israel.

If you believe all Israel does is commit war crimes, then it makes sense that you think I'm criticizing Israel every time it does something. Is that what you believe?

You call anything less than absolute perfection on Israel's part a war crime.

For the record, I don't think that's all Israel ever does. I believe Israel in the past has designed and enforced rules of engagement for the IDF that did not permit war crimes, and I believe it is capable of doing it now. I believe it's the current extremist Zionist leadership in Israel (Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, etc.) pushing the war crime agenda. I believe they want to murder their way in to claiming all of Gaza for Israel and forcing the surviving Gazans into either an apartheid-style Bantustan or something very much like the Rome Ghetto, and clear the way for Jews-only development projects built on the ruins of Palestinian homes and properties.

Still the chant of war crimes. War crimes are specific acts. You provided unsupported allegation of one act.

What in YHO could Israel do of which you would approve? (I know I have asked this before but am still awaiting a reply).

I already told you. And I already told you I already told you in a post you quoted.

In other words, nothing.

The post you're referring to is a list of what you want in Gaza. It contains nothing about what Israel is supposed to do in order to make those things happen, you are just taking it as a given that Israel is the obstacle and completely ignoring that it's Hamas doing it.

You're looking for your keys under the streetlight.