Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

At no point did anyone serious really think it was an actual genocide.

Bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

 List of humanitarian and human rights groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza

That's Wikipedia, expect it to slant it as far as it possibly can without lying.

In this case, note:

Throughout 2023 and 2024, humanitarian groups sometimes implied Israel's actions may constitute genocide without explicitly accusing Israel of genocide.

Until the propaganda got so widely spread that they actually would use the g-word. But note that nothing actually changed. And as for why:

The most frequent allegation made is of inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy the group. Specific acts cited by groups include allegations of collective punishment; restricting access to food, water, fuel, and electricity to induce famine; destruction of medical services; destruction of civilian infrastructure; sexual violence; shooting civilians; bombing civilians; and using chemical weapons on civilians.

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any. It's pretending the normal events of war constitute punishment.

Restricting access to food etc: Let's look at what Geneva says about it: Aid must be allowed through to civilians provided there is no threat of diversion. In Gaza it is not a threat, it is 90% diverted. Thus there is no obligation to allow through any aid, denying it would be the normal wartime behavior given Hamas' actions. Thus how can this be genocide??

Destruction of medical services: Israel keeps taking fire from medical facilities. Again, blaming Israel for a situation Hamas created.

Destruction of civilian infrastructure: That's what tends to happen when you build civilian stuff on military stuff. And when you use every building around as a hard point. In reality when an army fights over a city it ends up pretty much trashed even with no intent to wreck it. Again, this is just normal war, not genocide.

Shooting civilians: Yeah, it happens. That's why Geneva is strict about fighting in uniform. When you don't you get soldiers shooting at civilians. Once again, blaming Israel for what Hamas created.

Bombing civilians: If they were allowed to flee not many would be hit. Look at Lebanon--Israel manages to get about 90% combatants despite targeting an organization in an urban environment. Yet again, blaming Israel for Hamas actions.

Chemical weapons: They love to play this one--nope, no chemical weapons have been used. White phosphorus is not a weapon, it is means of obscurement, routinely used because thermal imagers can see through regular smoke.

In other words, the main reasons to call it "genocide" are garbage. When the primary support for something turns out to be garbage it's virtually certain that the position is bogus. And note that that "scholar" group that put out the declaration of it being genocide has an admission requirement of paying the fee. That's it, no credentials needed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring the massive irony of your accusation, produce one post from Toni that blindly accepts Hamas’s propaganda. There are three criteria for your proof to meet to be valid
1) the post is from Toni,
2) the post has an actual acceptance of a Hamas statement, and
3) the “propaganda” is actually false.

If you cannot meet all 3 criteria, you should apologize to Toni because your accusation was uncalled for.

You're moving goalposts with condition #2.

I said "Hamas propaganda", not "Hamas statement". The propaganda does not appear to come from Hamas.

 

[laughing dog]

So here is where we are. Both Hamas and Netanyahu’s renegade government (not Jews in general, for you slimy slanderers) are accusing the other of breaking the so-called cease fire.

It is pretty clear that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire.

Why is it pretty clear? Israel was attacked and there are terrorists unaffiliated with Hamas. Hamas denies it was them. They may be lying, but it isn’t pretty clear at this point.

 

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the massive irony of your accusation, produce one post from Toni that blindly accepts Hamas’s propaganda. There are three criteria for your proof to meet to be valid
1) the post is from Toni,
2) the post has an actual acceptance of a Hamas statement, and
3) the “propaganda” is actually false.

If you cannot meet all 3 criteria, you should apologize to Toni because your accusation was uncalled for.

You're moving goalposts with condition #2.

I said "Hamas propaganda", not "Hamas statement". The propaganda does not appear to come from Hamas.

Your pedantic evasion failed to deflect you didn’t bother to address criteria 1 and 3. Fucking pathetic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

 

[laughing dog]

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

Cooperated or was adjacent enough that MSF could do their jobs? I'm certain MSF has contacts with a lot of bad groups, just so that they can get in safely and render aid. MSF is in some ugly areas and security is critical.

To do your job in Gaza you must do what Hamas wants of you.

So what? Using your criterion, everyone in Gaza is a legitimate target.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

If one is going to kill civilians as collateral damage to a military strike, the strike better damn well be worth it. Was it?

And we have no way of evaluating any given military strike. We can see that overall Israel does better than anyone else. Thus the reasonable assumption is that it was worth it.

Why is it a reasonable assumption?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It can be categorically shown that members of the mafia sometimes wear police officer's uniforms in service of crimes, even lethal crimes. That is itself a crime, and if caught, they should go go jail. This does not however, make it legal for me to shoot anyone I see wearing a police uniform.

Similarly, it is a crime to impersonate a medic in a war zone, and anyone who does so makes themselves a combatant. Bit it is not legal to kill any medic you meet just because someone else once impersonated their identity. Ditto members of the press, children, and other sorts of aid workers. It is obvious that the Geneva Convention did not intend for its rulings to be a blank check to justify any murder, as you have attempted to interpret it.

It is clear that you have no argument as you are making a clearly false one. This isn't impersonation, this is somebody wearing two hats.

Geneva is clear. What isn't clear is why you persist in turning a blind eye towards the exceptions in Geneva. Geneva is written to protect that which is purely civilian, it is not meant to protect military pretending to be civilian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

That is not addressing the point. You have no evidence to show he was a terrorist.

I don't know if he was. I know that as a local employee he has to do the bidding of the terrorists.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

We have reports in reputable news media. You have kneejerk denial of reality.

No. Almost always news media will choose to report stuff they know is not trustworthy vs not having access to report anything.

Any report from the ground in Gaza should be assumed to be from Hamas. The only things remotely credible are intercepts and social media.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

First you deny bombing of safe zones. Now justify it. All in the same post. Are you posting drunk?

It would help if you wouldn't make up fabricated claims.

I never said the IDF didn't bomb safe zones. I said they didn't bomb infrastructure in safe zones. Doesn't mean they didn't bomb Hamas.

 

[Politesse]

It can be categorically shown that members of the mafia sometimes wear police officer's uniforms in service of crimes, even lethal crimes. That is itself a crime, and if caught, they should go go jail. This does not however, make it legal for me to shoot anyone I see wearing a police uniform.

Similarly, it is a crime to impersonate a medic in a war zone, and anyone who does so makes themselves a combatant. Bit it is not legal to kill any medic you meet just because someone else once impersonated their identity. Ditto members of the press, children, and other sorts of aid workers. It is obvious that the Geneva Convention did not intend for its rulings to be a blank check to justify any murder, as you have attempted to interpret it.

It is clear that you have no argument as you are making a clearly false one. This isn't impersonation, this is somebody wearing two hats.

Geneva is clear. What isn't clear is why you persist in turning a blind eye towards the exceptions in Geneva. Geneva is written to protect that which is purely civilian, it is not meant to protect military pretending to be civilian.

And you have zero evidence that the dead man whose memory you are slandering was anything of the sort, let alone all of the people with him at the rime he was killed. Neither did the soldiers who murdered him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, a lot of civilians unfortunately died too, and much of Gaza has been destroyed. But starting wars of aggression has conseqences

Which of those civilians started a war of aggression?

IIRC it was not the civilians at the Nova music festival that started a war of agression

Are you seriously suggesting that "two wrongs make a right"?

No, he is not. What's going on is we find your demand that people not defend themselves unacceptable.

Is seems that living in the same area as people who start wars of aggression is what has consequences. Would you be OK with your family being killed by police, because your next door neighbour started a shootout with them? Would you just shrug, and say "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

It does has consequences.

So, what, you don't mind that your completely innocent family all got killed, because "starting a shootout with the cops has consequences"?

I find that hard to believe, and suspect that you are not actually answering my question at all, but instead are answering a question you hoped I might have asked instead.

It's called war.

Pity Hamas did not really consider that starting a war of agression next door to Gaza might spill over into Gaza itself.

What makes you think that Hamas cared at all about the consequences for Gaza?

So Hamas should be permitted to kill Jews with impunity because they threaten Gazan civilians?

 

[Toni]

I would like to note that it was diplomacy, not genocide, that saved these final survivors of the horror. In particular, American influence. Any American president could have chosen to do as Trump has done. Violence freed 8 hostages. 3 were murdered by their rescuers. 168 were rescued by conference. Let the lesson be clear.

I wonder what will save the next batch of Israeli civilians kidnapped by Gazan militants.
The clear lesson is that violent Muslim supremacists can kidnap civilians and their supporters, like you, will rally to their cause!
Tom

Leave ‘Muslim’ out of it. Like every other conflict, it’s all motivated by money and power, hiding under a cloak of religion.

There are two parts to what he said.

Yes, like every other conflict it's about power (money is a means to power).

But what he was referring to is how much the left supports one of the viler organization on Earth. Why do you bend over backwards to avoid blaming them for what they have done??

I think that Hana’s is vile. That is unrelated to Islam or Muslims.

Just as some, usually white ‘Christians ‘ are Nazis and/or white supremacists, most white people are not Nazis or white supremacists. Nor are most Christian’s Nazis or white supremacists. In fact, most Christians would say that Nazis white supremacists are are not Christians.

You aren't addressing my point at all. You say you don't like Hamas--but you keep taking their side over Israel. Just like most of the left does. You say they are vile but you blindly accept their propaganda and reach the position they are after.

Ignoring the massive irony of your accusation, produce one post from Toni that blindly accepts Hamas’s propaganda. There are three criteria for your proof to meet to be valid
1) the post is from Toni,
2) the post has an actual acceptance of a Hamas statement, and
3) the “propaganda” is actually false.

If you cannot meet all 3 criteria, you should apologize to Toni because your accusation was uncalled for.

The really ironic thing is that I’m extremely anti-Hamas.

As far as I can tell, both sides are indefensibly in the wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

Allegations of collective punishment: Note the lack of proof--because there isn't any.

Segregating Palestinians into Gaza is collective punishment.

 

[laughing dog]

The latest victim of the onslaught was this guy, Omar Hayek, killed on his way out of the city to a satellite clinic. He was waiting at a bus stop. I sure it was a fucking terrorist bus stop. Murderers! This is the fourteenth killing of an MSF staff member since they began operations in Gaza. You'd be safer as a soldier than you are as a doctor when Israel is on the march, at least soldiers get body armor and are allowed to shoot back.

We have one MSF member documented as Hamas.

The relevance is ?

The point is you pretend that "MSF" must be a good guy. We have one case where it is clearly shown they were a very bad guy.

And the relevance of one bad guy to this death is…? And try to respond to the actual question and witount imputing straw men. I know moyjing about Mr Hayek and, clearly, neither do you.

You're not addressing my point.

"MSF" is being presented as evidence it was not a proper action. But one of the dead MSF people was also Hamas. Therefore, being MSF isn't proof they aren't Hamas and thus whether it was a proper action or not can't be established (except for the guy seen in Hamas uniform.)

Since most Gazans are not Hamas, one would think it is up to the IDF to show that Mr Hayek was a terrorist.

The point is some MSF people are terrorists. Thus showing that someone is MSF doesn't show they aren't a terrorist.

Note that he was a local employee, thus almost certainly at least cooperated with the terrorists.

That is not addressing the point. You have no evidence to show he was a terrorist.

I don't know if he was. I know that as a local employee he has to do the bidding of the terrorists.

You don’t know that. So it is disingenuous to insinuate he was a terrorist.

We have Hamas claims of this, doesn't make it true.

We have reports in reputable news media. You have kneejerk denial of reality.

No. Almost always news media will choose to report stuff they know is not trustworthy vs not having access to report anything.

Any report from the ground in Gaza should be assumed to be from Hamas. The only things remotely credible are intercepts and social media.

Those are convenient assumptions but I see no reason to take them as reasonable.

Why in the world should I think this case is any different than what's gone before?

I object to the IDF telling people to move to “safe zones” and then attackjng the safe zones. So please stop misrepresenting my thoughts.

The IDF had people move away from the objects they wished to strike. That did not preclude Hamas using the crowds to strike from. And it doesn't even mean that people that died during the evacuation were killed by Israel. Supposedly Israel struck vehicles in the evacuation--but strangely the images never show a vehicle that's taken a hit from a modern weapon, nor do we see a crater. All we see is shrapnel damage--which says it was a roadside bomb, not a weapon from the sky.

We have reports of the IDF bombkng “safe” zones.

That doesn't address the point.

IDF declared zones where there wasn't infrastructure they planned to target. Hamas of course set up in the middle so Gazans would get killed.

Again and again and again Hamas rigs it so civilians die and you blindly blame Israel. Thus they do it again.

First you deny bombing of safe zones. Now justify it. All in the same post. Are you posting drunk?

It would help if you wouldn't make up fabricated claims.

Your false accusations are disgraceful.

I never said the IDF didn't bomb safe zones. I said they didn't bomb infrastructure in safe zones. Doesn't mean they didn't bomb Hamas.

You responded to my objection to bombing safe zones with “explanations” to deflect the reality. The IDF sends people to safe zones and then bombs them. I object to that deceptive practice. Your apologia does not alter the fact it was deceptive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Yes it is. Killing enemy combatants, when the Rules of Engagement permit it, isn't unlawful, but killing anyone else most certainly is.

You can't lawfully kill civillians, reporters, or even combatants who are on your own side. Even enemy combatants cannot be lawfully killed if your RoE and/or lawful
orders prohibit their killing in the given circumstances - for example if they are hors de combat.

Yet again your oversimplification renders your position laughably wrong.

You are citing cases where you can't kill but that doesn't mean you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt.

I am not "citing cases" at all. And I am not seeking to show that "you can't kill a combatant because there are civilians that might get hurt", and indeed, I never said not implied that.

I am successfully showing that your claim:

Killing in war generally isn't unlawful.

Is false.

Any conclusions you reach from that false premise are therefore baseless.

Do you have any defence of your false claim? Or the moral fibre to retract it now that you have had its falsity clearly shown to you?

It seems the answer is "No".

Or rather is "No, but I would like to deflect attention from that".

You still aren't addressing the basic issue: showing that there are unlawful cases doesn't make all cases unlawful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The targeting of Hamas is not what's in dispute.

The problem is you demand unreasonable perfection in doing so.

 

[Politesse]

See, actual moderates? See how fucking stupid that argument sounds when it isn't something you're already inclined to agree with? Not perfect, indeed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“Blame the Jews.” WOW.

Add Pechtel the to trash heap.

No one is “blaming Jews” for anything. We are opposing what we see as genocidal action by the Israeli government. As we would blame any government, like that of Russia and what it’s doing in Ukraine,

But y’all already knew that.

You keep pretending it's about Israel, but that's mostly just a dodge.

 

[Derec]

RFK has a book of collected speeches titled with a phrase he repeatedly used, “To Seek a Newer World.” On the night he won the California primary In 1968 and effectively wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination he said that “compassion” would be the theme of his campaign. A few minutes later he was assassinated,

... by a Palestinian angry about US support for Israel.

Now we have his asshole son trying to end vaccinations, And assholes defending Netanyahu.

I fail to see what RFK Jr., who is a nutjob and originally a creature of the far left, has to do with Netanyahu or this thread more generally.

Shoot me now.

Just go to Gaza and say something against Hamas, and it will happen ...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In all the time this thread has gone on, since the start of the Gaza war, not one person here — not one — has expressed support for Hamas terrorists, and not one person here has displayed a scintilla of anti-Semitism. Yet we are constantly accused of being pro-Hamas and anti-Jew.

How filthy and vile is that?

You do not believe you support Hamas. But you do exactly what they want you to do and that sure looks like support.

And the blind acceptance of anything anti-Israel sure looks like antisemitism. I disagree with Z on this, I do not believe it's conscious antisemitism, but rather the left always blames the side with the perceived power.

 

[laughing dog]

Now that the ceasefire’s been broken, what next?