Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

Israel just anounced temporary cease fires so aid can get in.

Who wants to bet against me that Hammas won't attack just in those windows and use the aid convoys as cover? Anyone?

 

[Arctish]

Israel just anounced temporary cease fires so aid can get in.

Who wants to bet against me that Hammas won't attack just in those windows and use the aid convoys as cover? Anyone?

Are we betting there will be evidence that Hamas attacked, or are we betting that any explosions and/or deaths will be blamed on Hamas and that if satellite and cell phone videos show the shells, bullets, drones, etc. came from IDF positions, the IDF will say it was responding to Hamas activities?

I bet Hamas will catch the blame no matter how it goes down.

Israel controls the timing and duration of the "tactical pause of military activity" (not a cease-fire), which means Israel can start shooting at any time for any reason.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Israel just anounced temporary cease fires so aid can get in.

Who wants to bet against me that Hammas won't attack just in those windows and use the aid convoys as cover? Anyone?

Are we betting there will be evidence that Hamas attacked, or are we betting that any explosions and/or deaths will be blamed on Hamas and that if satellite and cell phone videos show the shells, bullets, drones, etc. came from IDF positions, the IDF will say it was responding to Hamas activities?

I bet Hamas will catch the blame no matter how it goes down.

Israel controls the timing and duration of the "tactical pause of military activity" (not a cease-fire), which means Israel can start shooting at any time for any reason.

The difference is that Israel is trying not to put Palestinian civilians at risk, while Hamas are.

 

[Gospel]

Well what's the measuring stick you use to prove that? Do you count the IDF killing civilians as Hamas killing civilians?

 

[laughing dog]

Israel just anounced temporary cease fires so aid can get in.

Who wants to bet against me that Hammas won't attack just in those windows and use the aid convoys as cover? Anyone?

Are we betting there will be evidence that Hamas attacked, or are we betting that any explosions and/or deaths will be blamed on Hamas and that if satellite and cell phone videos show the shells, bullets, drones, etc. came from IDF positions, the IDF will say it was responding to Hamas activities?

I bet Hamas will catch the blame no matter how it goes down.

Israel controls the timing and duration of the "tactical pause of military activity" (not a cease-fire), which means Israel can start shooting at any time for any reason.

The difference is that Israel is trying not to put Palestinian civilians at risk, while Hamas are.

True, but they are much more prolific in realizing the risk to Gaza civilians than Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't about policies. Think Israel is disclosing that sort of thing?!

Just look at the results. The last numbers I've seen are Israel claiming 15,000 combatants dead, Hamas claiming 36,000 dead, the Ministry of Health claiming 20,000 dead and accounted for. I find the difference between Hamas and the MoH very relevant--looks like the MoH data is meant to be an accounting of the civilians. That gives 20,000:15,000 = 1.33:1. History says 9:1.

And note that 4k of those MoH entries have been found to be garbage. Take them out and it's more likely 1.07:1

So you don't have a source that backs up your claim, all you have is your own guesswork. You used a question mark and exclamation point to indicate incredulity at the suggestion that Israel would let people know what its policies are, and then went straight into doing the math to figure out what its policies are. And then you capped it off with claiming thousands of Ministry of Health entries have been found to be garbage without linking to any sort of documentation that supports your assertion.

What numbers are you even contesting?

Wikipedia has most of the data, albeit with the usual extreme slanting:

Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Note that Wikipedia seems to have a substantially higher number for identified casualties than I've seen elsewhere.)
35.5k Palestinian dead. 24k of those have been identified by the Health Ministry.

Note the major distortion in saying 10,000 are suspected buried in the rubble--that's the ones Hamas is reporting and the MoH is not. In other words, most likely combatants. The Wikipedia article also gives (but dismisses) the IDF numbers.

As for the bad data:
(You'll need to be logged into shitter to see the whole thing.)

Where is the analysis I supposedly ignored? I'd rather read what it says and look into the professional reputation of the authors than read more of your guesswork.

Is there evidence of a sea of fake surrenders in Gaza since October of last year, or did you just make that up?

Fake surrenders should lead to soldiers following safety protocols when taking prisoners, not to them simply killing people who appear to be trying to surrender.

You appear to believe the IDF routinely commits war crimes. Do you really believe that, or are you just reflexively bullshitting without giving much thought to what you're claiming IDF soldiers are told to do when they encounter people who have their hands up and appear to be unarmed?

As usual, it's something so common as to not be newsworthy and the search results are severely cluttered. However:

IDF takes no action against soldiers who killed Gaza hostages

IDF sources suggested that once the war was over it was possible that disciplinary or other action might theoretically be taken against some of the soldiers involved.

www.jpost.com

Further, given the many fake surrender traps Hamas has set throughout the war, including using Hebrew, white flags, and actual children’s items seized by Hamas in Israel on October 7, Halevi and other commanders seem to be willing to recognize the subjective sense of danger felt by the soldiers involved as valid enough to avoid immediate punishment.

Controversially, the first soldier who opened fire has admitted that he did see the white flag, but still felt it was a trap and that he was in danger.

Read between the lines. The fact that action hasn't been taken (at least as of the article date) clearly shows that Israeli command understands that surrender flags are probably a trap.

Why not read the actual lines?

In publishing the results of its final probe into the issue, the IDF said that despite the soldiers clearly violating the rules of engagement – by firing on persons who presented no immediate danger and were waving a white flag – the enormous complexity of the circumstances led to no immediate punishment.

IDF says the soldiers "clearly violated the rules of engagement".

The decision to not discipline the soldiers does not surprise me. Neither does you inability to admit the rules of engagement do not allow soldiers to shoot people who appear to be surrendering, or that it's a war crime even when Israelis do it.

If they thought he had made a wildly out of line decision do you think they would have him on combat duty? Obviously, they feel he fell for a ruse--which implies that it's a common ruse.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

How long would an Israeli sniper stay undiscovered or alive in the crowded confines of Gaza?

Sounds such a splendid idea when safe in the confines or your office or home typing at a keyboard but absolutely impossible in the real world of Gaza/Israel.

The reason I brought up the book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War is because the raid to free hostages in Gaza last week brought it to mind. Over 200 Somalis were killed and more than 700 wounded in the Battle of Mogadishu as the American forces first raided a meeting of Mohammed Farah Aidid's lieutenants and then fought to get themselves and their wounded comrades to safety.

The book illustrates what I think you're getting at, that it's impossible to avoid civilian casualties when a firefight breaks out in a crowded area. Hell, just looking at all the gun violence in America illustrates the same point. Bullets go flying in all directions, including through walls, when people hyped up on adrenaline start shooting.

But my point stands: shooting through a hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possible ways to eliminate the threat the hostage taker poses. Neither option is acceptable if you value the life of the hostage or want to avoid killing innocents.

You're the one framing it as "to kill the hostage taker". That's not what's going on--the actual situation is shooting to stop the hostage taker from doing additional bad actions.

And Black Hawk Down is what you get when you try your approach. 200 dead + 19 friendlies dead rather than the Israeli approach which would have been a Hellfire or the like with only a few dead.

It seems to me there is a double standard being employed here, where people are arguing in favor of an approach that kills tens of thousands of civilians while at the same time are expressing horror at the thought of tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the exact same way and for the exact same reason, the difference being the race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation of the people being killed.

You seem to not have a concept of who is the aggressor.

The best solution is nobody dead, but if some are to die it's better that they be from the side that chooses war.

I believe in judging actions by one single standard regardless of those factors. If the thought of a Jewish grandmother being killed by a sniper as she holds the hand of a preschooler waving a white flag upsets you, if you think "That's terrible, that little kid's Bubbe was murdered trying to get him to safety!", then IMO you should feel the same way about this. And you should be willing to call it a war crime because that's what it was.

And you simply take it as a given that the shooter was Israeli. That was in all probability Hamas.

*** I'm going to say this again because some folks are really struggling with the notion of criticizing more than one faction in a fight: I wholeheartedly condemn the Hamas fighters who murdered and kidnapped unarmed Israeli civilians, and the Hamas leadership who planned and coordinated the October 7th attack. I support the war effort to remove them from power. I do not support human rights violations, war crimes, and what looks like ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

You "support" the war effort but only to a standard of perfection that's unattainable in the real world.

You claim to not support human rights violations--but almost all of them are from Hamas.
You claim to not support war crimes--but almost all of them are from Hamas.
You claim to not support ethnic cleansing--but the side seeking to do that is Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel just anounced temporary cease fires so aid can get in.

Who wants to bet against me that Hammas won't attack just in those windows and use the aid convoys as cover? Anyone?

Are we betting there will be evidence that Hamas attacked, or are we betting that any explosions and/or deaths will be blamed on Hamas and that if satellite and cell phone videos show the shells, bullets, drones, etc. came from IDF positions, the IDF will say it was responding to Hamas activities?

I bet Hamas will catch the blame no matter how it goes down.

Israel controls the timing and duration of the "tactical pause of military activity" (not a cease-fire), which means Israel can start shooting at any time for any reason.

Israel controls the timing but they have said what the timing will be.

It's moot, anyway, as the aid organizations aren't picking up the aid. Strangely, though, the commercial stuff gets through.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The famine that wasn't:

Experts: ICC and UN blamed Israel for a famine that never happened in Gaza - exclusive

‘We found that the food supply entering Gaza is more than sufficient to feed all 2.2 million Gazans according to what is considered a normal diet in North America"

www.jpost.com

And note things like this:

Hamas fired rockets at the Kerem Shalom crossing on May 5, killing five soldiers and causing the border to be shut briefly. However the supplies have resumed since then.

Entirely routine over there--Hamas fires on a crossing to get Israel to close it and Israel gets blamed.

 

[laughing dog]

You claim to not support ethnic cleansing--but the side seeking to do that is Hamas.

Hamas wants to engage in ethnic cleansing of Israel and Jews, but is failing. Israel is successfully engaging in slow motion ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and in Gaza.

In an attempt to forestall the usual horseshit accusations, I think ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter who does it for whatever reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You claim to not support ethnic cleansing--but the side seeking to do that is Hamas.

Hamas wants to engage in ethnic cleansing of Israel and Jews, but is failing. Israel is successfully engaging in slow motion ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and in Gaza.

In an attempt to forestall the usual horseshit accusations, I think ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter who does it for whatever reason.

The population of Gaza has almost certainly increased during the war.

 

[laughing dog]

You claim to not support ethnic cleansing--but the side seeking to do that is Hamas.

Hamas wants to engage in ethnic cleansing of Israel and Jews, but is failing. Israel is successfully engaging in slow motion ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and in Gaza.

In an attempt to forestall the usual horseshit accusations, I think ethnic cleansing is wrong no matter who does it for whatever reason.

The population of Gaza has almost certainly increased during the war.

What factual evidence do you possess that would lead a rational disinterested observer to find your conjecture credible?

 

[Arctish]

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

My response is: that's what snipers are for. If you can't get a clean shot right away, then you patiently wait until the hostage taker makes a mistake and you seize the opportunity to get the hostage back safely.

There are many possible ways to eliminate a threat hiding behind a hostage. Shooting through the hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possibilities, neither of which are acceptable if you value the life of the hostage.

How long would an Israeli sniper stay undiscovered or alive in the crowded confines of Gaza?

Sounds such a splendid idea when safe in the confines or your office or home typing at a keyboard but absolutely impossible in the real world of Gaza/Israel.

The reason I brought up the book Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War is because the raid to free hostages in Gaza last week brought it to mind. Over 200 Somalis were killed and more than 700 wounded in the Battle of Mogadishu as the American forces first raided a meeting of Mohammed Farah Aidid's lieutenants and then fought to get themselves and their wounded comrades to safety.

The book illustrates what I think you're getting at, that it's impossible to avoid civilian casualties when a firefight breaks out in a crowded area. Hell, just looking at all the gun violence in America illustrates the same point. Bullets go flying in all directions, including through walls, when people hyped up on adrenaline start shooting.

But my point stands: shooting through a hostage in order to kill the hostage-taker, or killing everything that moves in the area where you suspect the hostage taker might be hiding, are two possible ways to eliminate the threat the hostage taker poses. Neither option is acceptable if you value the life of the hostage or want to avoid killing innocents.

You're the one framing it as "to kill the hostage taker". That's not what's going on--the actual situation is shooting to stop the hostage taker from doing additional bad actions.

If you're not trying to kill the hostage taker, then why are you shooting? What the heck are you aiming at, or are you not aiming at all?

Your response here makes no sense, especially considering your defense of the IDF shooting people trying to surrender.

And Black Hawk Down is what you get when you try your approach. 200 dead + 19 friendlies dead rather than the Israeli approach which would have been a Hellfire or the like with only a few dead.

A Hellfire missile targeting what? The apartment building where suspected hostage takers were holding hostages?

The IDF killed over 200 people and injured close to 700 when they rescued those 4 hostages on the 8th of this month. That is comparable to the death toll among Somalis in the Battle of Mogadishu.

It seems to me there is a double standard being employed here, where people are arguing in favor of an approach that kills tens of thousands of civilians while at the same time are expressing horror at the thought of tens of thousands of civilians being killed in the exact same way and for the exact same reason, the difference being the race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation of the people being killed.

You seem to not have a concept of who is the aggressor.

The best solution is nobody dead, but if some are to die it's better that they be from the side that chooses war.

I believe in judging actions by one single standard regardless of those factors. If the thought of a Jewish grandmother being killed by a sniper as she holds the hand of a preschooler waving a white flag upsets you, if you think "That's terrible, that little kid's Bubbe was murdered trying to get him to safety!", then IMO you should feel the same way about this. And you should be willing to call it a war crime because that's what it was.

And you simply take it as a given that the shooter was Israeli. That was in all probability Hamas.

*** I'm going to say this again because some folks are really struggling with the notion of criticizing more than one faction in a fight: I wholeheartedly condemn the Hamas fighters who murdered and kidnapped unarmed Israeli civilians, and the Hamas leadership who planned and coordinated the October 7th attack. I support the war effort to remove them from power. I do not support human rights violations, war crimes, and what looks like ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

You "support" the war effort but only to a standard of perfection that's unattainable in the real world.

You claim to not support human rights violations--but almost all of them are from Hamas.
You claim to not support war crimes--but almost all of them are from Hamas.
You claim to not support ethnic cleansing--but the side seeking to do that is Hamas.

If you can't (or won't) read the words I wrote with comprehension, stop pretending you are responding to them.

 

[laughing dog]

Arctish
The tacit principle underlying the justification of the IDF death and destruction toll is that Gazan civilians are not real people just unfortunate obstacles to the utopian goal of wiping out Islamic terrorists in Gaza. Nothing else matters.

That principle drives every handwaved dismissal of any proposed amelioration of current tactics. It drives the straw men and eye popping excuses.

Every party in this tragic mess wants “peace” on their own terms. Serious proponents of peace realize peace requires courage, compassion and compromise not excuses nor accusations. Real peace requires a mutual level of trust something that region lacks.

Israelis are victims of Hamas and their ilk. Gazan civilians are victims of Hamas and the IDF. All victims deserve compassion and as much protection from harm as possible. IDF apologists disagree because Gazan civilians are not real people.

 

[Tigers!]

Found this gem from the mid-late 80s. Yes Prime Minister On the Arabs and Israel
Nothing much has changed in 40-odd years

 

[ZiprHead]

Opinion I’ve never seen Israelis as gloomy as they are today

Visiting Israel, as I did last week, is a depressing experience as the war in Gaza nears its ninth month. I’ve been coming to Israel for a quarter-century, and I’ve never seen Israelis as gloomy as they are now — not even during the second intifada in the early 2000s, when Palestinian terrorists were regularly blowing up public buses.

“There is a sadness and lack of hope that permeates everyone,” one Israeli journalist told a group of visiting American scholars organized by the nonpartisan group Academic Exchange. Said a member of an Israeli think tank: “We are in dire straits. We are facing the worst threats since the [1948] War of Independence.” An archaeologist confessed: “I’ve never been as pessimistic as I am now about Israel’s future. … It’s depressing. It’s scary.” These are not isolated voices: In a May poll, only 37 percent of Israeli Jews said they were very optimistic about Israel’s future, down from 48 percent in March.

Israel has undertaken the most extensive mobilization of reserves in its history, and the citizen-soldiers are getting exhausted from the constant call-ups. One student at Hebrew University — a reservist in the tank corps — told us about how he had to study for his university courses in the middle of the night, while sitting inside his tank near the Lebanese border. “Many of us are tired,” he said. He and other reservists are furious that the ultra-Orthodox — a community of 1.2 million people in a country with 7 million Jews — remain exempt from military service, thereby increasing the burden on the rest of society. (The Israeli Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the ultra-Orthodox must be conscripted.)

 

[lpetrich]

I like this.
Netanyahu rattled: Israel court rules military must draft ultra-Orthodox men | AP News

Under longstanding arrangements, ultra-Orthodox men have been exempt from the draft, which is compulsory for most Jewish men and women, who serve three and two years respectively as well as reserve duty until around age 40.

...
Politically powerful ultra-Orthodox parties, key partners in Netanyahu’s governing coalition, oppose any change to the current system. If the exemptions are ended, they could bolt the coalition, causing the government to collapse and likely leading to new elections at a time when its popularity has dropped.

...
The ultra-Orthodox see their full-time religious study as their part in protecting the state. Many fear that greater contact with secular society through the military will distance adherents from strict observance of the faith.

...
It did not say how many ultra-Orthodox should be drafted, but the military has said it is capable of enlisting 3,000 this year.

...
The court also ruled that state subsidies for seminaries where exempted ultra-Orthodox men study should remain suspended. The court temporarily froze the seminary budgets earlier this year.

...
Israel’s ultra-Orthodox make up roughly 13% of the 9.9 million population. The community has a high birthrate, making it the fastest-growing segment of the population, at about 4% annually. Each year, roughly 13,000 ultra-Orthodox males reach the conscription age of 18 but less than 10% enlist, according to the Israeli parliament’s State Control Committee.

Ultra-Orthodox men attend special seminaries that focus on religious studies, with little attention on secular topics such as math, English or science. Critics have said they are ill-prepared to serve in the military or enter the secular work force.

These men spend all day studying Jewish religious lore, and there is a lot of it. "... their part in protecting the state"? As if they are brigades of sorcerers in the IDF, fighting by casting magic spells.