But Israel was more or less safe the day after Hamas' attack wasn't it? — bert1

No, Hamas had no plans just to return to business as usual after having let off some steam. Israel's show of force and dismantling of Hamas is part of a larger longer term deterrent strategy.

As if raping someone on Saturday is excused on Sunday because he tells us he's done.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway, unless one believes this war between Israel and Gaza should be fought on the same terms, that is to say, on the terms of 'total war'. Obviously such logic leads nowhere except into the abyss.


But let us also take a moment to note the enabling role of the utterly incompetent Western leadership, which is beyond amateurish and clearly in way over their head.

"When in doubt, proclaim unconditional support for Israel."

By letting the Netanyahu regime run amock, rather than helping Israel, Western leaders may have set in motion events that will ultimately mean the end of Israel as we know it.

Rapprochement in the Middle-East is shattered for the foreseeable future. This future likely holds radical shifts in the geopolitical balance of power, and that balance could very well end up heavily in favor of one or more Arab states.

Meanwhile, world opinion towards Israel is tanking. Israel has oddly managed to manifest itself as the villain as it wreaks a civilian death toll several times that of the initial Hamas attack.

There might be some loud apologists - this is hardly new. What is new is that sensible people all over the world aren't buying it anymore and Israel is diplomatically isolated apart from its Western stooges, who are too incompetent to offer any kind of real support anyway.

Everything that goes up, must come down. And what Israel has done over the past weeks is ensure that when the pendulum swings the other way, the whole region is rife with resentment towards it.

If that should come to pass, I wonder how they will treat Israel. I think Israel can only hope that it won't be treated the same way as it treats the Palestinians.

When you shoot this particular pitbull, the whole neighborhood is likely to fall apart. That's why a giant swat team has pulled up along the coast of your house. Does pulling the trigger really seem like a rational solution? — frank

We're getting too deep in this metaphor, so maybe spell out what everything represents the way you're presenting it. I think I'm assigning different entities to different objects than you maybe.

We've changed the conversation. My question was what you would do if you were Israel, and you've said you'd die the death you deserve. I got my answer to that.

As to whether I'm a hypocrite in holding Palestine to a standard I don't hold Israel to, I could draw all the distinctions between the two, but you'd still disagree. At the most, you'd prove me a hypocrite, not that I'm incorrect about my disgust at the Hamas attacks.

So here's my position: I do not condemn the Israeli response to the Hamas/Palestinian attack and I do not believe the Israelis to be the instigators in this conflict. My stand with Israel is clear here and you can condemn it as you will and find it unsustainable.

But as to your position, do you acknowledge that the recent Palestinian attack on Israel was vile, disgusting, and barbaric? Or, was their response fair game? I'm just waiting for you to tell me that each person involved, from top to bottom, in the planned rape and butchering of innocent children should be located and made to pay the consequences for their crimes just as should occur with the Israelis. But these issues are not mutually exclusive. The same vigor ought be exercised in the correction of injustice regardless of the perpetrator. This would include an insistence that ordinary citizens with knowledge of what occurred and who planned and committed these acts come forward and share the information they have.

That you think I give a pass to the Israelis for the same conduct, means you question my ethical consisitency, but ithat is an aside. The question is whether you accept that you are ethically inconsistent under your same standards you allege I am. If you're not, then let's get to the bottom of who these rapists are. Or, are we just both hypocrites, me siding with the allowance of injustice at the hands of the Israelis and you the Palestinians?

As if raping someone on Saturday is excused on Sunday because he tells us he's done. — Hanover

I wasn't suggesting any excuse, just questioning the rationale of self defence.

if Muslim leaders & their followers would do the same. — Nicholas

I don't remember that bit of the quote. If only folks would do what I want, I wouldn't have to bully them so much. Saith the Lord of the flies.

Civilians get killed in war. Should the Allies not have bombed German cities? — RogueAI

Who are you asking now? The war crimes tribunal? They only prosecute losers. So win at any cost seems to be the moral thing to do. Losers attempt to commit genocide; winners unfortunately, reluctantly, find that collateral damage occurs.

It's a dangerous game asking moral questions, because if you cannot win by fair means, then you ought to be content to lose. The suggestion that one cannot have it both ways is unwelcome.

The Israeli government could simply upgrade its iron dome and station 40,000 troops at the border with the orders to shoot to kill - Hamas terrorists, motor gliders, drones, etc. — FreeEmotion

The iron dome proved ineffective though from the recent attacks.

But anyway, think about the concept of having to protect your life daily from incoming attacks by shrouding yourself in a cloak of defensive missles, hoping death doesn't find its way to your door.

Should the Allies not have bombed German cities? — RogueAI

World War II (1939–1945) involved sustained strategic bombing of railways, harbours, cities, workers' and civilian housing, and industrial districts in enemy territory. Strategic bombing as a military strategy is distinct both from close air support of ground forces and from tactical air power.[29] During World War II, many military strategists of air power believed that air forces could win major victories by attacking industrial and political infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[30] Strategic bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians, and some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations in order to terrorize them and disrupt their usual activities. International law at the outset of World War II did not specifically forbid the aerial bombardment of cities – despite the prior occurrence of such bombing during World War I (1914–1918), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

Strategic bombing during World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.[31] As the war continued to expand, bombing by both the Axis and the Allies increased significantly. The Royal Air Force, in retaliation for Luftwaffe attacks on the UK which started on 16 October 1939, began bombing military targets in Germany, commencing with the Luftwaffe seaplane air base at Hörnum on the 19-20 March 1940.[32] In September 1940 the Luftwaffe began targeting British civilians in the Blitz.[33] After the beginning of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Luftwaffe attacked Soviet cities and infrastructure. From February 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became even less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and civilian areas

The answer would be yes, if there was no other way to win the war, or for that matter, shorten the war.
One possibility is development of the atomic bomb earlier.

No one knows if there was another way, and no one knows how long the war would have lasted.

There is even a difference of opinion on who should have won WWII.

I consider the Palestinians to have a right to use violence against Israel to fight their oppression since quite clearly peaceful means has gotten them nothing — Benkei

The use of violence in resistance is not permitted by International Law, is it?

There may have been a non-violent, though possibly illegal method to fight the oppression, and achieve their goals, no-one can prove that there was not. I am sure that among 1 million people something could have been devised.

So here's my position: I do not condemn the Israeli response to the Hamas/Palestinian attack and I do not believe the Israelis to be the instigators in this conflict. My stand with Israel is clear here and you can condemn it as you will and find it unsustainable. — Hanover

Could you clarify this stand? Do support the goal of a decisive victory over Hamas, despite the civilian deaths and destruction, or do you support the apparent revenge bombings and attacks by Israel that are clearly punishing civilians and the total blockade?

I believe the instigators of this conflict were the British Mandate of the 19xx. I feel sorry for these pawns in the front line while Kings and Queens and Bishops stay safe.

The use of violence in resistance is not permitted by International Law, is it? — FreeEmotion

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination.

We need world structures so such disputes can be resolved by a court

We're getting too deep in this metaphor, so maybe spell out what everything represents the way you're presenting it. I think I'm assigning different entities to different objects than you maybe. — Hanover

What's the pitbull? Hamas or the Gaza strip? Israel is attacking both. Gaza is 2 million people, 55% of which live in refugee camps, and 80% are in poverty. I know you're hearing nothing but politically motivated Israel bashing, but that's not where I'm coming from. I think Israel actually is in the process of committing a major moral screw-up, not that you or anybody else can do anything about it, but to avoid it, they need to stop the attack and pursue Hamas by other means.

↪RogueAI Yes, carpet bombing was a war crime. — Benkei

What should the Allies have done then to relieve pressure on the Russians?

What should the Allies have done then to relieve pressure on the Russians? — RogueAI

Something else

I don't think the calculus would be that cynical that they actually think it's in their interest but anything that's an obstacle to a two-state solution is not necessarily a bad thing in Likud's book (until of course when it is, like now). — Benkei

Yes, that sounds plausible.

Not commit war crimes. Not every problem has an acceptable solution. You think that's an excuse to pursue non-acceptable solutions. I don't.

What should the Allies have done then to relieve pressure on the Russians?
— RogueAI

Something else — bert1

:roll:

Al Jazeera journalist from Gaza had his wife and son killed. The images are so brutal.

Israel is walking a fine line, this may cost them very much in the near future.

Not commit war crimes. Not every problem has an acceptable solution. You think that's an excuse to pursue non-acceptable solutions. I don't. — Benkei

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them.

At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation.

They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

You reap what you sow.

You quote but you don't give a source.

In any case, "they started it" is just a tu quoque fallacy. Do you have anything interesting to add or just here to glorify whatever Israel does?

So here's my position: I do not condemn the Israeli response to the Hamas/Palestinian attack and I do not believe the Israelis to be the instigators in this conflict. My stand with Israel is clear here and you can condemn it as you will and find it unsustainable. — Hanover

I didn't ask you to condemn this response. Go back. Read my post and try again and then I'll entertain your questions. The answers of which should be clear already from my recent posts where I've gone into them.

Simplistic, I know – Iran has used Hamas to open the slaughterhouse-trap door and Israel is raging through it like a bull bristling with US/NATO arms & advsors. Soon less military aid for Ukraine and relief for Russia's failed invasion? :chin: TBD.

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination. — Tzeentch

Hamas, and many Palestinians, consider the existence ofany Jewish state in "Palestine" to be "occupation" of Arab lands. So I guess it's just endless fighting until Israel ceases to exist.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway — Tzeentch

1400 dead is the most Jews killed since the Holocaust, and then to have protests erupt around the world with anti-Semitic slogans being shouted ("gas the Jews" in Sydney) and the major uptick in anti-Semitism over the past 5-10 years leaves some of us worried.

Hamas, and many Palestinians, consider the existence ofany Jewish state in "Palestine" to be "occupation" of Arab lands. So I guess it's just endless fighting until Israel ceases to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

I think if Israel treated Palestinians the way it treats Jews, Hamas would disappear in a puff of satisfaction.

I see where you're coming from, frank. It's a nice idea. Unfortunately granting the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship just isn't feasible if Israel is looking to survive as a democratic, Jewish state. There have been periods where Israel has tried treating them nice but it's hard when your very existence drives a certain element of palestinian society to homicidal rage.

I don't. I think you open the borders of israel to all of the west bank and gaza and you just get busloads of dead jews.

Unless what you mean by 'treat palestinians the way it treats jews' doesn't involve opening the borders... Does it? Is that part of what you mean by that?

Unfortunately granting the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship just isn't feasible if Israel is looking to survive as a democratic, Jewish state. — BitconnectCarlos

That will fall by the wayside eventually. Future generations will see that trying to establish a Jewish state was a bad idea which just stained their religion with blood. One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! There will still be dumshits whining about this or that, but in general, the worst will be behind them. Free at last, and all that.

I don't. I think you open the borders of israel to all of the west bank and gaza and you just get busloads of dead jews. — flannel jesus

I doubt it. Most Palestinians are just regular people.

Unless what you mean by 'treat palestinians the way it treats jews' doesn't involve opening the borders... Does it? Is that part of what you mean by that? — flannel jesus

It means treat them with respect. No more trying to get rid of them.

Future generations will see that trying to establish a Jewish state was a bad idea which just stained their religion with blood. — frank

:100:

One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! — frank

Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations?