Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

When you keep pointing to Israeli actions to explain Hamas you are saying that 10/7 was justified and thus that all the horrors of it were justified.

Now you're being blatantly dishonest.

I have presented no argument that makes the case that the 10/7 terror attack was justified. I have said it was predictable that Hamas would use terrorism in an attempt to force Israel to make changes in policy. I said it was predictable that when Israel supported Hamas in order to weaken the PLO, that decision would eventually bite Israel in the ass. I have said it was predictable that Gazans would resent the State that built and maintains the walls surrounding them, the naval blockade that prevents aid from reaching them, and kills people on the street and children sleeping in their beds with impunity, and that the resentment makes it easier for Hamas to gather recruits.

If 10/7 is entirely because of what Israel did then it's inherently a justified action.

And when you say the response to 10/7 should be to remove the things you blame, you again are indirectly saying it's justified.

You "blame" Hamas but want no consequences, that's not really blame.

I told you long ago that I'm not going to pretend I think you're stupid or a little kid who wandered into a discussion the adults were having. And while I understand you are prone to either-or, black/white, yes/no thinking, you have been discussing issues with people who don't share your mindset long enough for you to at least grasp the concept of "better or worse".

It's not black/white, it's refusing to fall for the deceptions.

There are things that can be done to make a situation better, and things that will make it worse. I believe we should always choose the "make things better" option.

Yes, we should be trying to make things better. The difference is that I look at it from the defense side rather than overall. By trying to minimize overall deaths you inherently fall for the bad guy killing their people. You are saving Gazan lives now at the cost of Israeli lives down the road--and I do not believe a defender is required to sacrifice their people to spare the attacker.

If 10/7 is entirely because of what Israel did (that's a mighty big "if"), the terrorism of 10/7 is not therefore justified. I don't believe terrorism is ever justifiable. It's murder and destruction aimed at the most vulnerable and least culpable members of a society. It makes things worse, usually for people who deserve that "worse" the least.

If it's entirely then Hamas did nothing wrong and thus it must be justified.

And honestly, Loren, you can take that "[y]ou "blame" Hamas but want no consequences" and stuff it right back up the orifice you pulled it from. Stop lying about my posts and my opinions.

That's not a rebuttal.

You say you blame Hamas but you propose to give them what they are after. And whose demands you think should be followed means a lot more than who you "blame".

 

[laughing dog]

You're cheering a strategy that guarantees more 10/7s.

So are you.

Why would you say that?

Destroying the military strike capabilities of a violent Muslim supremacy organization probably won't result in more violent Muslim supremacy terrorism.

Continuing the indoctrination of Muslims into the violent Islamic supremacy probably will, but that's not the same thing.
Tom

You cannot kill an idea by killing people, especially 1000s of innocent civilians. It will breed more terrorists in the future with more revenge fever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are evading the fundamental issue: that death by malnutrition doesn't need to be caused by a blockade, thus is not proof that the blockade is causing starvation.

Malnutrition is the result of a lack of food. Isreal blockaded food.

You’ve got no evidence but conjecture. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of the evidence is not a rebuttal but a denial. One case of malnutrition from the blockade, even if it does not cause death, is one too many.

1) Hamas' count of starvation deaths are vastly below the various wolf cries.

2) Hamas isn't parading them before the cameras.

3) You continue to blame Israel for what is mostly Hamas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, we should be trying to make things better. The difference is that I look at it from the defense side rather than overall. By trying to minimize overall deaths you inherently fall for the bad guy killing their people. You are saving Gazan lives now at the cost of Israeli lives down the road--and I do not believe a defender is required to sacrifice their people to spare the attacker.

Please be specific, how many Gazan civilian lives are acceptable losses per Israeli life allegedly saved?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thank you for the information. An alert may represent more than one rocket. The data for the alerts is taken from the IDF.

Of course it's taken from the IDF, they're the only ones with the tracking to plot impact points. Why does that matter one iota? If they were putting out bogus stuff the people would soon catch on--rocket alerts aren't just a casual thing, they're a dash for the shelters thing, complete with timer. Most alerts will turn into either a boom on the ground or a boom in the sky when the rocket is intercepted.

Just “most”?

Ever hear of duds?

And Iron Beam is in operational testing. A rocket might be destroyed in flight without a boom. Many explosives will burn very energetically without detonating.

Or are you just trying to create doubt where there isn't any?

Just pointing out the IDF - a group you claim is inaccurate - is the source.

Huh? What are you referring to?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No – I understand exactly what you’re saying. You’re just not hearing yourself.

You keep repeating: “We don’t know the numbers, and it doesn’t matter anyway.” That isn’t analysis. That’s moral abdication. If civilian deaths are irrelevant to you, just say it clearly: you don’t care how many die, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience your definition of victory.

It doesn't matter because it's the wrong yardstick. I care about how well Israel does at hitting combatants vs civilians, but the overall death toll proves nothing.

And yes, the Arab Peace Initiative was real. You dismiss it as “peace of the dead” without offering any alternative except permanent war. That’s not realism. That’s surrender to violence as the only imaginable future.

"Real" as in it existed. That doesn't prove realistic.

You are falling into the trap of have to do something, therefore ignore whether that something is actually worse. That's exactly what just took us into fascism.

You’re not being misunderstood. You’re being heard – and what you’re saying is exactly the problem.

I'm being misunderstood because most rebuttals are not of what I said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep saying I haven’t shown collective punishment, but blocking food, fuel, and medicine for an entire population to pressure their rulers is exactly what collective punishment means. Calling it something else doesn’t change what it is.

Once again you are skipping a vital step. You are assuming "to pressure their rulers" without evidence. Nor are all types of pressure punishment--taking over the aid distribution puts a huge amount of pressure on Hamas (because they were relying on it for power and income) without in any way being punishment.

You argue military advantage should be measured by civilian-to-combatant death ratios. That’s not how proportionality works. It weighs anticipated strategic gain against expected civilian harm. Reducing war to a body ratio is moral optics, not legal reasoning.

You have some better yardstick? We have no way of measuring strategic gain, I'm using the closest available yardstick.

You accuse me of backwards logic on NATO comparisons. No – I’m saying your standard would condemn every Western urban operation. If that’s your stance, own it. But don’t pretend your outrage is rooted in neutral principle when it’s clearly selective.

No. I'm saying that applying your standard for Israel would condemn every western urban operation.

You are blindly assuming Israel must be wrong and therefore you take this as condemnation of other operations. You have it backwards--it's your standard is wrong.

Finally, you claim I “don’t get it” about hospitals. I get it perfectly. When a hospital is used for military purposes, it loses its protection. That’s the grim reality of war law, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Yet you keep citing strikes on them as evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[NoHolyCows]

No – I understand exactly what you’re saying. You’re just not hearing yourself.

You keep repeating: “We don’t know the numbers, and it doesn’t matter anyway.” That isn’t analysis. That’s moral abdication. If civilian deaths are irrelevant to you, just say it clearly: you don’t care how many die, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience your definition of victory.

It doesn't matter because it's the wrong yardstick. I care about how well Israel does at hitting combatants vs civilians, but the overall death toll proves nothing.

And yes, the Arab Peace Initiative was real. You dismiss it as “peace of the dead” without offering any alternative except permanent war. That’s not realism. That’s surrender to violence as the only imaginable future.

"Real" as in it existed. That doesn't prove realistic.

You are falling into the trap of have to do something, therefore ignore whether that something is actually worse. That's exactly what just took us into fascism.

You’re not being misunderstood. You’re being heard – and what you’re saying is exactly the problem.

I'm being misunderstood because most rebuttals are not of what I said.

You say the overall death toll “proves nothing” because only ratios matter to you. That’s moral tunnel vision. A high combatant-to-civilian ratio doesn’t erase the reality that thousands of civilians are still dead. You’re treating their lives like statistical noise as long as the math flatters your side.

You dismiss the Arab Peace Initiative as unrealistic while offering no alternative except perpetual siege and bombardment. That isn’t realism. That’s fatalism dressed up as strategy. You accuse others of falling into fascism while defending policies that collectively punish civilians to enforce obedience. You’ve normalized a worldview where decency is weakness and domination is the only viable path.

You say you’re misunderstood because rebuttals don’t match your words. But here’s the reality: we’re responding to what your words imply. If you say mass civilian deaths “don’t matter,” don’t act shocked when people hear you defending a moral abyss.

NHC

 

[laughing dog]

You are evading the fundamental issue: that death by malnutrition doesn't need to be caused by a blockade, thus is not proof that the blockade is causing starvation.

Malnutrition is the result of a lack of food. Isreal blockaded food.

You’ve got no evidence but conjecture. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of the evidence is not a rebuttal but a denial. One case of malnutrition from the blockade, even if it does not cause death, is one too many.

1) Hamas' count of starvation deaths are vastly below the various wolf cries.

Irrelevant to the issue of actual harm.

2) Hamas isn't parading them before the cameras.

Not only is that irrelevant to the actual harm, it saves you the trouble of concocting some convoluted denial.

3) You continue to blame Israel for what is mostly Hamas.

Israel is responsible for its actions. Israel substantially reduced the flow of food snd medical supplies into Gaza. It is insane to argue that blockade had no effect on well being. It is insane to argue that reduction in well being was not intended.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for the information. An alert may represent more than one rocket. The data for the alerts is taken from the IDF.

Of course it's taken from the IDF, they're the only ones with the tracking to plot impact points. Why does that matter one iota? If they were putting out bogus stuff the people would soon catch on--rocket alerts aren't just a casual thing, they're a dash for the shelters thing, complete with timer. Most alerts will turn into either a boom on the ground or a boom in the sky when the rocket is intercepted.

Just “most”?

Ever hear of duds?

And Iron Beam is in operational testing. A rocket might be destroyed in flight without a boom. Many explosives will burn very energetically without detonating.

Or are you just trying to create doubt where there isn't any?

Just pointing out the IDF - a group you claim is inaccurate - is the source.

Huh? What are you referring to?

You argue that the iDF lies.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You keep saying I haven’t shown collective punishment, but blocking food, fuel, and medicine for an entire population to pressure their rulers is exactly what collective punishment means. Calling it something else doesn’t change what it is.

Once again you are skipping a vital step. You are assuming "to pressure their rulers" without evidence. Nor are all types of pressure punishment--taking over the aid distribution puts a huge amount of pressure on Hamas (because they were relying on it for power and income) without in any way being punishment.

You argue military advantage should be measured by civilian-to-combatant death ratios. That’s not how proportionality works. It weighs anticipated strategic gain against expected civilian harm. Reducing war to a body ratio is moral optics, not legal reasoning.

You have some better yardstick? We have no way of measuring strategic gain, I'm using the closest available yardstick.

You accuse me of backwards logic on NATO comparisons. No – I’m saying your standard would condemn every Western urban operation. If that’s your stance, own it. But don’t pretend your outrage is rooted in neutral principle when it’s clearly selective.

No. I'm saying that applying your standard for Israel would condemn every western urban operation.

You are blindly assuming Israel must be wrong and therefore you take this as condemnation of other operations. You have it backwards--it's your standard is wrong.

Finally, you claim I “don’t get it” about hospitals. I get it perfectly. When a hospital is used for military purposes, it loses its protection. That’s the grim reality of war law, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Yet you keep citing strikes on them as evidence of wrongdoing.

You say I’m assuming the blockade pressures rulers without evidence. So why else cut off food, fuel, and medicine to an entire population? Humanitarian starvation isn’t a neutral tactic. It’s coercion by definition. Calling it “taking over distribution” doesn’t erase the reality of children going hungry to weaken Hamas’s grip. That is collective punishment, whether you admit it or not.

You argue civilian-to-combatant ratios are the “closest yardstick” for strategic gain. That’s not a yardstick at all. Proportionality isn’t about body counts – it’s about whether anticipated military advantage justifies foreseeable civilian harm. Reducing proportionality to ratios flattens moral reasoning into a spreadsheet.

You insist my standard would condemn every Western urban operation, therefore my standard is wrong. Maybe it condemns them because they deserve condemnation. Your logic amounts to: “If this rules out things we do, the rule must be flawed.” That’s not principle. That’s institutional self-preservation masquerading as moral clarity.

Finally, you say I keep citing hospital strikes as evidence of wrongdoing despite knowing hospitals lose protection when used militarily. Yes – when used militarily. But targeting decisions still require verification, warnings, and precautions. Not every hospital strike is automatically justified just because Hamas violates the rules first. You keep using their war crimes as an umbrella for anything done in response. That’s not law. That’s moral outsourcing.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say Hamas only wants “terrorist prisoners” returned, as if that proves guilt. No – it proves who Hamas prioritizes, not who actually committed violence. You’re still outsourcing justice to enemy PR lists.

It's not "prioritize". They aren't asking for the others at all. And it's not outsourcing, just showing their motives aren't about the people.

Calling Mandela a terrorist “for the right cause” just shows how flexible your labels are. Your neat definitions ignore that state militaries also target civilians, yet never get called terrorists. Your moral categories are conveniences, not principles.

"For the right cause" as in what the left likes. I was talking about why he's popular, not saying his actions weren't wrong.

You say investigations are impossible so there’s no point trying. That’s the logic of impunity. If Israel classifies evidence as secret and Hamas lies, then under your standard, civilians can be slaughtered without accountability because no proof is ever “possible.”

You are blindly focusing on accountability as if it somehow will prove your point. No, it's about trying to show Israel is wrong.

You argue perfidy voids civilian status. No – it voids specific protections in direct misuse, not blanket humanity. Geneva exists precisely to stop people from being redefined as combatants because your side finds it easier to kill them.

I'm not sure what you're replying to with this one.

You dismiss mass grave data by pivoting to one photo Israel debunked. That’s not addressing the reality of mass graves. It’s cherry-picking a rebuttal to avoid acknowledging widespread death.

The issue with the photograph was their biggest claim of an Israeli mass grave was shown to be a fraud. I'm not saying there aren't mass graves--but they were dug by Hamas.

You frame pre-1948 land purchases as purely legal while ignoring the mass displacements and militias enforcing them. Legality under colonial frameworks doesn’t erase injustice. That’s basic history, not ideology.

You're still not showing anything of questionable nature.

It is entirely acceptable to buy land/buildings from a landlord and then use them for yourself instead of continuing to lease them. Nothing about colonial, the same thing would happen here.

On Arafat, you reduce failed negotiations to a single decision while ignoring decades of conditions engineered to make sovereignty unattainable. Walking away from a poisoned deal isn’t sabotage. It’s refusing surrender.

I focus on a single decision because that's what mattered. The deal wasn't poisoned! If it had been poisoned Arafat would have pointed out the problem--he didn't. He just walked, a very extreme case of actions speaking louder than words. You're the one trying to promote poisoned deals.

Finally, you say Palestinians cooperate with Hamas out of fear. Maybe some do. But your refusal to recognize oppression as a driver of resistance reveals everything: you see them only as pawns or puppets, never as people pushed to a point where death feels like the only agency left.

They are pawns. Nothing I can do about that. And Hamas is the one that's pushing them to where death is the only agency left. That's how you get people to be cannon fodder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say “They chose war, they got war.” No, Lauren. Children didn’t choose ballots. Elderly didn’t choose Hamas. You’re defending punishing millions for a vote under siege. That isn’t logic. It’s collective retribution.

It's not retribution. It's the consequences of choosing war.

You justify your India analogy as “showing what horrors parents inflict to survive,” but your context was blaming Palestinians for Hamas’s cruelty. You erase their humanity to make their deaths feel justified.

No, the context was showing that people don't always act in the interests of their children.

You pivot on Deir Yassin to uniforms, ignoring the massacre itself. Geneva requires uniforms, yes – it also prohibits executing civilians. You erase that because it shatters your moral framing.

It's not executing civilians. It's mistaking civilians for combatants because they're dressed the same as combatants. See "enemy", shoot, look for more enemies.

You demand “Where did Israel walk?” Camp David, Taba, Annapolis – each ended with settlement expansion, not compromise. Refusing concessions while annexing land isn’t negotiation. It’s conquest with a diplomatic façade.

That's Israel walking??? No, that's Israel refusing to make concessions for talks. The Palestinians walked.

You dismiss B’Tselem because it’s inconvenient, not disproven. And UN casualty counts are cross-verified by multiple agencies. Calling it Hamas propaganda is your shortcut to avoid accountability.

I dismiss it because I've caught them in too much deception. Laying the data out in a fashion that makes combatants look like civilians. Israel drops a missile on a commander, his bodyguards were not actively shooting and thus are listed in a fashion that makes the reader think civilian.

And you already accepted that the body counts are bogus--yet you're right back to saying "cross-verified" when it is obvious they were not verified at all.

You admit you prioritize combatant status over age. That’s a confession: you’re comfortable treating children as lawful targets if it suits your threat perception. That’s not law. That’s moral collapse.

No, it's a recognition of reality.

You excuse sniper killings by claiming fakes. Yet none of your examples prove fabrication – only your refusal to consider evidence that challenges your narrative.

There's no way to prove any of them one way or the other. Never were the shooters actually identified.

I'm simply looking at whether it makes more sense for the shooters to be IDF or Hamas--and all the cases it looks like Hamas.

How did the sniper team get in place and then get out?
For what purpose was the team placed there?
What benefit is obtained from the death of the person?
Why was the shot taken at the time it was?

Try to apply these to Israel and it makes no sense. Some might have (nothing has happened behind IDF lines) had access, there are zero reports of snipers hitting anyone else, there's nothing to be gained. And they seem remarkably good at doing it where some camera is rolling.

Apply it to Hamas and access becomes trivial. And they have a clear benefit--a dead body to parade before the cameras.

You say Palestinians never tried elections. Hamas’s 2006 election was internationally monitored. Israel’s immediate response was blockade. Your claim they “never offered peace” ignores Hamas’s multiple ceasefire proposals, rejected out of hand. You justify snipers at protests by claiming Hamas uses civilians as shields – as if that excuses firing on unarmed demonstrators.

Hamas "ceasefire" proposals are always outlandish. Most don't include the very point of contention: the hostages.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You say Hamas only wants “terrorist prisoners” returned, as if that proves guilt. No – it proves who Hamas prioritizes, not who actually committed violence. You’re still outsourcing justice to enemy PR lists.

It's not "prioritize". They aren't asking for the others at all. And it's not outsourcing, just showing their motives aren't about the people.

Calling Mandela a terrorist “for the right cause” just shows how flexible your labels are. Your neat definitions ignore that state militaries also target civilians, yet never get called terrorists. Your moral categories are conveniences, not principles.

"For the right cause" as in what the left likes. I was talking about why he's popular, not saying his actions weren't wrong.

You say investigations are impossible so there’s no point trying. That’s the logic of impunity. If Israel classifies evidence as secret and Hamas lies, then under your standard, civilians can be slaughtered without accountability because no proof is ever “possible.”

You are blindly focusing on accountability as if it somehow will prove your point. No, it's about trying to show Israel is wrong.

You argue perfidy voids civilian status. No – it voids specific protections in direct misuse, not blanket humanity. Geneva exists precisely to stop people from being redefined as combatants because your side finds it easier to kill them.

I'm not sure what you're replying to with this one.

You dismiss mass grave data by pivoting to one photo Israel debunked. That’s not addressing the reality of mass graves. It’s cherry-picking a rebuttal to avoid acknowledging widespread death.

The issue with the photograph was their biggest claim of an Israeli mass grave was shown to be a fraud. I'm not saying there aren't mass graves--but they were dug by Hamas.

You frame pre-1948 land purchases as purely legal while ignoring the mass displacements and militias enforcing them. Legality under colonial frameworks doesn’t erase injustice. That’s basic history, not ideology.

You're still not showing anything of questionable nature.

It is entirely acceptable to buy land/buildings from a landlord and then use them for yourself instead of continuing to lease them. Nothing about colonial, the same thing would happen here.

On Arafat, you reduce failed negotiations to a single decision while ignoring decades of conditions engineered to make sovereignty unattainable. Walking away from a poisoned deal isn’t sabotage. It’s refusing surrender.

I focus on a single decision because that's what mattered. The deal wasn't poisoned! If it had been poisoned Arafat would have pointed out the problem--he didn't. He just walked, a very extreme case of actions speaking louder than words. You're the one trying to promote poisoned deals.

Finally, you say Palestinians cooperate with Hamas out of fear. Maybe some do. But your refusal to recognize oppression as a driver of resistance reveals everything: you see them only as pawns or puppets, never as people pushed to a point where death feels like the only agency left.

They are pawns. Nothing I can do about that. And Hamas is the one that's pushing them to where death is the only agency left. That's how you get people to be cannon fodder.

You say Hamas only asks for certain prisoners “showing their motives aren’t about the people.” Of course Hamas’s motives are corrupt – but you’re still accepting their hostage list as proof of guilt. That’s outsourcing moral judgment to a terrorist PR campaign, whether you admit it or not.

You argue Mandela’s popularity was “just the left liking him,” not a reflection on his actions. Yet you call him a terrorist without applying the same label to state forces targeting civilians. Your definitions remain convenient tools for your politics, not consistent principles.

You dismiss accountability by claiming I only want to prove Israel wrong. No – I want any side killing civilians to be accountable. You want to define justice as whatever your allies do. That’s not law. That’s tribalism.

You ask what my perfidy reply addressed. It addressed your logic that widespread Hamas deception voids all civilian protections. It doesn’t. Geneva strips protection for direct misuse, not entire populations based on suspicion.

You say Israel debunked “the biggest mass grave claim” so the rest can be ignored. That’s not logic. That’s strategic denial. Mass graves exist whether one photo was miscaptioned or not. You keep pretending refuting a single example erases the reality of mass death.

You argue colonial land purchases were purely legal, ignoring that law under occupation was designed to privilege settlers. Legality and justice aren’t synonyms. If you can’t grasp that, you’ll never understand why dispossession breeds resistance.

On Arafat, you insist walking away proves sabotage. No – it proves the deal didn’t meet minimum demands for dignity. If it was so generous, why not publish the full maps and terms? Because Israel’s offers preserved control while granting nominal sovereignty – a flag on a cage.

Finally, you say Palestinians are just pawns with “nothing you can do about it.” That’s precisely the problem. You see them as cannon fodder in Hamas’s strategy and dismiss their rage as manipulation. You never ask why their lives became so disposable – only how best to dispose of them.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The war started in 1948. What has changed since that would make those conditions (remember, the only condition was the existence of Israel--war was instantly declared before it did anything) no longer result in war? Whether you can find additional causes since does not change this basic problem.

I honestly cannot imagine what your argument is. Can you please construct a paragraph of logic reasoning connecting the dots that will explain your obsession with 1948? Remember your own apparent claim that actions by Israel and Hamas or "Arabs" during the years 1949-2025 will be irrelevant if your logic is sensical. One wonders then why you focus so much attention on misdeeds of Hamas.

The war started in 1948. Thus the conditions of 1948 are sufficient to cause the Arabs to attack.

Exactly one condition existed: the existence of Israel.

But your side never looks at this, always trying to find explanations that are based in events that happened during the war.

You dismiss Israeli atrocities while dwelling on your hatred for the actions of "Arabs." I guess you feel that Israeli actions in 1948 were entirely GOOD, and the actions of "Arabs" entirely EVIL, and that this makes the ensuing 77 years irrelevant. I think objective observers would have a more nuanced position about 1948, but I hope we needn't litigate that. After all, you're talking of a time when the GRANDFATHERS of the present combatants were still babies.

I don't hate Arabs. I hate the scum that keep up this eternal war against EastAsia, but none of it is coming from democracies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say there was no prevention, just no bodies. But famine isn’t just corpses. It’s stunted growth, organ failure, kids with permanent cognitive damage from starvation. You dismiss all that because it’s not cinematic enough for your proof standard. That isn’t skepticism. That’s moral blindness.

The claims always predicted large numbers of deaths.

You insist Hamas lies about everything, yet cite Israel’s combatant death claim as if it’s gospel. If you admit tens of thousands are dead, don’t pretend this is purely about bad data formatting. You’re using “fog” to justify refusing to care.

Israel has a record of generally being within 10%. I expect future performance similar to past performance.

Hamas claimed 500 dead at the hospital when one decent look at the scene was enough to call that bogus. Anyone in position to even ballpark the dead would be in position to know it was nothing like 500, it's not a mistake they could have made. That number was pulled out of their ass for the cameras. I expect future performance similar to past performance.

You reduce famine warnings to false prophecies because “no mass graves.” You don’t want to see mass death, so you define it out of existence.

It's not that I don't want to see (and while I have never seen a conflict zone I have seen some rather unpleasant parts of the world), it's that Hamas can't present it. Their PR is very good, if they can't show the press it most likely does not exist.

You reject Amnesty and HRW because they’re inconvenient, but accept IDF figures with 10% grace. That’s not analytical rigor. That’s power loyalty dressed up as critical thinking.

I expect the future to approximate the past. AI and HRW claim verified counts of the dead, but we know there are no verified counts of the dead. Thus they are lending their name to propaganda, I expect them to continue to lend their name to propaganda.

You treat Gaza’s collapsed apartment blocks as math problems, ignoring that real humans live above tunnels. Geneva doesn’t say “evacuation calls = free fire zone.” It requires proportionality, foreseeability, and restraint. Blowing up entire civilian blocks because Hamas dug underneath is military logic, not humanitarian law.

Geneva has no problem with it.

Finally, you keep insisting Geneva’s “preventable” standard just means call ahead. No – it means don’t bomb if civilian harm outweighs gain. Your reading isn’t legal. It’s just moral convenience to justify anything as long as it’s labeled strategic.

They bombed tunnels. They got the civilians out of the buildings that were at risk from the tunnel collapsing. Military target, bend over backwards on protecting civilians--fine by Geneva.

You’re not analyzing. You’re rationalizing, so you never have to face what this war is actually doing to real people.

NHC

I am analyzing. You're just endlessly using Israel-is-bad as the starting point of your analysis and shaping "facts" to match.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I expect Israel to behave as well as the other western powers. In practice, they do far better.

Lauren, you’re not holding Israel to a Western standard — you’re lowering that standard until anything is excusable. You keep shifting the mirror, the baby, the bullet, the meaning of punishment — anything to make sure no action is ever too much to justify.

And here we see the blasphemy problem.

I said Israel is doing much better. You even understood that before in saying that my standard would condemn all western armies. But now without reason you flip it over to Israel is doing worse.

Your own words prove the point: you call mass civilian death just “better than the good guys,” shrug at sloppy data because it’s “from Hamas,” and dismiss every law meant to protect civilians as unrealistic. That’s not integrity. It’s moral permission slip after moral permission slip.

Keep telling yourself it’s clear. It’s clear alright — clear what you’re willing to look away from.

NHC

If we accept Hamas data at face value we still end up with Israel doing far better than the good guys. At face value we get about 1.5 civilians per combatant. Typical western performance is around 10 to 1.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You say “They chose war, they got war.” No, Lauren. Children didn’t choose ballots. Elderly didn’t choose Hamas. You’re defending punishing millions for a vote under siege. That isn’t logic. It’s collective retribution.

It's not retribution. It's the consequences of choosing war.

You justify your India analogy as “showing what horrors parents inflict to survive,” but your context was blaming Palestinians for Hamas’s cruelty. You erase their humanity to make their deaths feel justified.

No, the context was showing that people don't always act in the interests of their children.

You pivot on Deir Yassin to uniforms, ignoring the massacre itself. Geneva requires uniforms, yes – it also prohibits executing civilians. You erase that because it shatters your moral framing.

It's not executing civilians. It's mistaking civilians for combatants because they're dressed the same as combatants. See "enemy", shoot, look for more enemies.

You demand “Where did Israel walk?” Camp David, Taba, Annapolis – each ended with settlement expansion, not compromise. Refusing concessions while annexing land isn’t negotiation. It’s conquest with a diplomatic façade.

That's Israel walking??? No, that's Israel refusing to make concessions for talks. The Palestinians walked.

You dismiss B’Tselem because it’s inconvenient, not disproven. And UN casualty counts are cross-verified by multiple agencies. Calling it Hamas propaganda is your shortcut to avoid accountability.

I dismiss it because I've caught them in too much deception. Laying the data out in a fashion that makes combatants look like civilians. Israel drops a missile on a commander, his bodyguards were not actively shooting and thus are listed in a fashion that makes the reader think civilian.

And you already accepted that the body counts are bogus--yet you're right back to saying "cross-verified" when it is obvious they were not verified at all.

You admit you prioritize combatant status over age. That’s a confession: you’re comfortable treating children as lawful targets if it suits your threat perception. That’s not law. That’s moral collapse.

No, it's a recognition of reality.

You excuse sniper killings by claiming fakes. Yet none of your examples prove fabrication – only your refusal to consider evidence that challenges your narrative.

There's no way to prove any of them one way or the other. Never were the shooters actually identified.

I'm simply looking at whether it makes more sense for the shooters to be IDF or Hamas--and all the cases it looks like Hamas.

How did the sniper team get in place and then get out?
For what purpose was the team placed there?
What benefit is obtained from the death of the person?
Why was the shot taken at the time it was?

Try to apply these to Israel and it makes no sense. Some might have (nothing has happened behind IDF lines) had access, there are zero reports of snipers hitting anyone else, there's nothing to be gained. And they seem remarkably good at doing it where some camera is rolling.

Apply it to Hamas and access becomes trivial. And they have a clear benefit--a dead body to parade before the cameras.

You say Palestinians never tried elections. Hamas’s 2006 election was internationally monitored. Israel’s immediate response was blockade. Your claim they “never offered peace” ignores Hamas’s multiple ceasefire proposals, rejected out of hand. You justify snipers at protests by claiming Hamas uses civilians as shields – as if that excuses firing on unarmed demonstrators.

Hamas "ceasefire" proposals are always outlandish. Most don't include the very point of contention: the hostages.

You say “It’s not retribution, it’s consequences.” That’s semantics, Lauren. When civilians are made to suffer to punish their rulers’ choices, that is collective retribution by definition – regardless of whether you prefer to call it “consequence.”

You insist your India analogy was merely about parents harming children to survive. But you used it specifically to frame Palestinians as complicit in their own children’s harm – erasing the distinction between victim and oppressor to justify their deaths as inevitable.

On Deir Yassin, you pivot to uniforms and mistaken identity. Geneva bans perfidy precisely because it endangers civilians – but massacring villagers wasn’t shooting enemies in uniform. Women and children weren’t combatants misidentified. They were civilians targeted to terrorize. Your historical sanitizing doesn’t change what happened.

You ask where Israel walked from talks. Camp David, Taba, Annapolis: each time final status talks ended with Israel continuing settlement expansions and refusing meaningful sovereignty. “Refusing concessions” while annexing land isn’t negotiation – it’s stalling to cement control.

You dismiss B’Tselem because you caught them “listing bodyguards as civilians.” Even if one report framed deaths questionably, it doesn’t erase their extensive documentation of settlement violence, dispossession, and administrative abuses. Your logic is selective deletion: discredit one fact to ignore the entire record.

You say you prioritize combatant status over age because it’s “reality.” That’s an admission you’re comfortable labeling children as targets if it fits your threat frame. Geneva was written precisely to restrain that moral collapse.

You dismiss sniper killings as Hamas fakes because it’s “more logical.” Yet your only evidence is your assumptions about motive and logistics. No actual proof. Just narrative preference. Meanwhile, independent investigations, including Israeli human rights groups, have documented systematic targeting of medics and journalists. You ignore it because it shatters your moral certainty.

You say Palestinians never offered peace. Hamas’s 2006 election was internationally recognized. Israel responded by blockading the Strip before Hamas fired a single rocket in government. As for ceasefire proposals, yes, they are flawed – but your refusal to even engage shows you don’t want peace terms. You want surrender.

Finally, you justify sniper fire at protests by claiming Hamas uses civilians as shields. That’s the rhetoric of every power that fires into crowds: blame the bodies for being in the way.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lauren,

You keep calling my perspective “magic spells,” but really, it’s just refusing to accept that cruelty is the only way forward. You say you’re open to realistic solutions, but every time one is offered, you dismiss it as naïve because it requires Israel to give up the comfort of control.

I call them magic spells because you keep pretending they'll work.

You call them realistic, but none are.

You blame Iran for Gaza’s misery, as if bombs, walls, and economic strangulation were minor details. Iran exploits despair, yes. But despair had to exist first.

Despair didn't exist before 1948.

Despair didn't exist before the second intifada.

You say you treat children, ambulances, and hospitals “as what they act like.” But that’s the problem. You see every risk as proof of guilt and every civilian as a threat to be managed, not a person to be protected. That’s not clarity. That’s surrendering to fear.

I see the symbols misused and thus not getting protected status.

And when you call basic human rights “Hamas talking points,” you reveal everything. These aren’t slogans. They’re the bare minimum of decency any side should uphold, no matter who they’re fighting.

NHC

You have it backwards. You're repeating Hamas lies about what's happening and being upset that I won't accept the lies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You say Geneva “doesn’t say much more than it does,” but it says exactly what you ignore: that aid must reach civilians unless there is direct, concrete evidence it will be used for combat. Suspecting diversion isn’t the same as proving it. Blocking food because some might end up with fighters isn’t legal. It’s collective punishment.

Read it again.

1) It says "diversion". It doesn't say "for combat".

2) There's no doubt about the diversion.

3) It's not because the fighters might end up with it. It's because the fighters will use access to it as a means of control and a means of income.

4) You still haven't established "punishment".

You ask where Geneva imposes alternative obligations. It’s in the principle of humane treatment embedded throughout – if direct passage fails, arrangements must be made. That’s customary IHL codified through decades of case law you keep waving away because it complicates your absolution.

Where does it say that? You gave a very nebulous answer before that was just a statement of general principles, the means spelled out in the various articles.

You shrug that Israel’s control comes with obligations but dismiss them instantly by claiming “diversion.” That’s not law. That’s a blank check to starve civilians under the pretext of security.

Diversion was happening.

You insist Hamas abuses erase Israel’s duties. No. That’s not how law works. Both can violate simultaneously. Your worldview treats it like moral algebra: Hamas bad, therefore Israel’s ledger is clean. Reality doesn’t work like that.

It is how the law works. Aid is permitted unless it's being diverted. Israel gets complete say on the details of distribution.

You say you’d love an answer but reject every proposal as “shit.” Maybe because any real solution requires giving up the comfort of domination.

You're suffering from leftist disease--the assumption that there must be an answer and the side with the power is under a duty to find it.

You claim food trucks can’t reach kids anyway. That’s the trap you defend: blockade starves them, Hamas exploits them, and your solution is to shrug because fixing it isn’t neat.

Hamas exploits them is the limiting factor.

You dismiss bombings of hospitals and aid convoys with “Hamas exploits them.” Even if true, it doesn’t erase obligations to verify and protect. “They might abuse it” is not a license to turn humanitarian corridors into free-fire zones.

Again, you find something that you can tag as "civilian" and fail to recognize the dual nature.

You ask “What Israel statement?” Israel itself has acknowledged civilian casualties and confirmed strikes on sites later shown to be civilian. You ignore these because it punctures your “all Hamas propaganda” excuse.

Sites proven to be civilian? Proven how???

And don't count Israeli apologies as proof. They tend to apologize if they can't quickly conclude they aren't responsible, which ends up with them apologizing for some things that didn't happen.

Finally, your incel analogy fails because radicalization under occupation isn’t just perception. It’s lived reality reinforced by daily brutality. Incels imagine oppression. Palestinians endure it. Pretending there’s no difference is moral laziness rebranded as analysis.

NHC

Which utterly ignores my point. You were citing that study that radicalization stems from "oppression" as proof that Israel oppressed.