Israel - Hamas War VI

[Zorral]

So not even Israelis who disagree with you, who say you are wrong, are allowed to have a say.

There are a lot of them.

But you sit there, eyes closed, hands over ears going lalalala kill kill kill those civilians, those women and children and babies, because no real man would do anything else.

[kissdbyfire]

18 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Hamas found the sweet spot to win over phoney progressives

Care to elaborate?

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Seen no evidence that the IDF or the cabinet has said they can't defeat Hamas. Links? I've certainly seen other parties question it, and maybe voices in Israel and the opposition, but if the Israeli government itself is saying it's  not intending to remove Hamas from power, despite various ministers and officers saying so, besides talks involving the US regarding an interim government for Gaza, etc. that would be a surprise to me.

I didn't say they're not intending to do it. I said that they have doubts that they'll succeed. 

I'll try and find links to it but it has all been anonymously reported for obvious reasons. 

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Not what I said. I said that people of Gaza might themselves hopefully apply pressure to Hamas to end this destructive war that they started.

But my whole point is that if Hamas is on the back foot, is now wounded, is in a position where it can be pushed out of power and an interim administration can be put in, that would certainly help the civil society of Gaza to found and form its own government without Hamas. But leaving them in power will make it very hard indeed for anything clean to happen. 

I feel like this is just quibbling. Either you think Palestinians can deal with Hamas (and should) or you think they cannot without help. If the former, different ways of rising up should be possible; if the latter, condemning them for not rising up is ridiculous. 

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I mean, if people really think an ugly civil war in Gaza is somehow better... Well, you know, you have a point, I guess if it's just the brown people killing each other, that's fine...

I guess I look forward to the Gazan Civil War edition where people are again demanding Israel allow in refugees and complaining that no one is stopping the evil deaths of innocents caught in the cross-fire between two factions, and finding yet again a way to blame others rather than the actual genocidal jihadists.

Again, I think it's weird that you on the one hand want Palestinians to rise up against Hamas with rocks but also decry a civil war. Are you just okay with people protesting and getting slaughtered peacefully? That seems neither particularly useful in affecting change nor does it seem very humanitarian. 

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Sadly, Fatah is useless and corrupt, and Abbas is turning 88 this year and seems uninterested in relinquishing power any time soon until the Grim Reaper speaks. I've no trust in Fatah, and polling showed that most people of Gaza didn't feel confident about it.

They feel more confident in it than they do Hamas, right? IIRC that's what the polling showed. 

5 hours ago, Ran said:

Personally, I think the polling shows that there's enough separation of political views between Gaza and the West Bank that the Gazans themselves should field their own governance.

I'm pretty sure that that resulted in Hamas taking over Gaza. 

[Kalbear]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what other choice is there? Do nothing after the worst attack on your country in its history? Negotiate without fighting back? Please, that's not how this works. 

There are, as I mentioned, a LOT of choices. 

One possibility: you view this not as an act of war but as an act of terrorist criminal behavior. You prosecute it as an illegal act. You go after every single person directly responsible. This takes time, but can be done, especially given Israel's ability for intelligence and the Gaza strip's difficulty in being locked down. 

Another possibility: you do not act alone, and you build up a coalition of allies to fight together. 

Another possibility: you first focus on what your strategic aims are and do not start bombing right away, and certainly not in the amount they're currently doing. You focus first and foremost on intelligence, spec ops and going after Hamas leadership in Qatar. 

Another possibility: you do not put Gaza under siege.

This is what folks are objecting to with your argument - you are saying that the only thing that Israel could possibly do is what they're doing now, and their only other option is to do nothing. And that is just not accurate. There is a lot of degrees of behaviors that they could choose to do depending on their goals, on their desire to save civilian lives, on their timetable, on their allies, and on the need to defend themselves. 

 

[fionwe1987]

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what other choice is there? Do nothing after the worst attack on your country in its history?

What? Heck no. I'm not advocating for doing nothing. That's a strawman you're creating.

Here's something Israel can do: stop the bombing. Offer the Palestinian people the choice of a plebiscite, in x years, after a stable ceasefire is maintained by both sides, if Hamas releases all hostages, demilitarizes and allows Gaza to be administered by an international coalition temporary government. Meanwhile, Israel pledges an immediate crackdown on violence in the West Bank, and commits to withdrawing from WB settlements.

The plebiscite will be to declare a state of Palestine, and final borders, the specific features of a right of return, etc to be negotiated with the elected, post-plebiscite government, brokered by the UN/a coalition of states friendly to Israel or Palestine, within 3 years of the Plebiscite and election.

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Negotiate without fighting back? Please, that's not how this works. 

What is "this"? 

Note here that you're refusing certain option, then pretending there are no options, to justify civilian death. 

49 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No sympathy huh? My guess is you wouldn't give them much regardless of how they responded. 

Yeah your guess would be wrong. You're determined to label anyone with a critical opinion of the Israeli government as only pretending to have sympathy for Israelis. What horseshit. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There are, as I mentioned, a LOT of choices. 

One possibility: you view this not as an act of war but as an act of terrorist criminal behavior. You prosecute it as an illegal act. You go after every single person directly responsible. This takes time, but can be done, especially given Israel's ability for intelligence and the Gaza strip's difficulty in being locked down. 

Another possibility: you do not act alone, and you build up a coalition of allies to fight together. 

Another possibility: you first focus on what your strategic aims are and do not start bombing right away, and certainly not in the amount they're currently doing. You focus first and foremost on intelligence, spec ops and going after Hamas leadership in Qatar. 

Another possibility: you do not put Gaza under siege.

This is what folks are objecting to with your argument - you are saying that the only thing that Israel could possibly do is what they're doing now, and their only other option is to do nothing. And that is just not accurate. There is a lot of degrees of behaviors that they could choose to do depending on their goals, on their desire to save civilian lives, on their timetable, on their allies, and on the need to defend themselves. 

There are lots of other choices, but you have to ask how reasonable they are.

Your first and second possibilities have the same flaw, they assume you have time, with the former also assuming you can just target people hiding among civilians. Hamas didn't commit an isolated attack, they kept firing rockets for days on end. That's not the time to dither. Plus, you know, they took hostages and the expectation was they were probably going to murder a lot of them. 

Possibility three is sort of what they did. They haven't done a full scale invasion and in fact have told the world they are trying to have a longer term strategy, but at the same time they did have to learn how to fly the plane while they were building it in the sky. 

There's some nuance to the last possibility you suggested and a cruel siege was not the path I'd take, but there was going to be action taken. It's unrealistic to expect anything else. 

At the end of the day Israel didn't have a ton of choices. It was either a light counterattack or a massive one and so far the former has been the case. If they wanted to they could wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth in no time. They haven't done that. Does that mean they've done everything right? Of course not, but there's a lot of Monday morning QBing going on here.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

What? Heck no. I'm not advocating for doing nothing. That's a strawman you're creating.

Here's something Israel can do: stop the bombing. Offer the Palestinian people the choice of a plebiscite, in x years, after a stable ceasefire is maintained by both sides, if Hamas releases all hostages, demilitarizes and allows Gaza to be administered by an international coalition temporary government. Meanwhile, Israel pledges an immediate crackdown on violence in the West Bank, and commits to withdrawing from WB settlements.

The plebiscite will be to declare a state of Palestine, and final borders, the specific features of a right of return, etc to be negotiated with the elected, post-plebiscite government, brokered by the UN/a coalition of states friendly to Israel or Palestine, within 3 years of the Plebiscite and election.

What is "this"? 

So the answer is to largely give the attackers what they want with the hopes Hamas either plays nice or gets kicked out? 

Right....

Quote

Note here that you're refusing certain option, then pretending there are no options, to justify civilian death. 

I said there are no good options and Israel took the one most countries would. And again, no one is justifying civilian deaths. They should always be limited as much as possible, but it's complicated when one side is firing rockets while hiding behind their own civilians. That is maximum cowardice and you all know it. 

Quote

Yeah your guess would be wrong. You're determined to label anyone with a critical opinion of the Israeli government as only pretending to have sympathy for Israelis. What horseshit. 

Be critical of Israel all you want, but if you're spending all your time in these threads going after them while at best paying minor lip service to the fact they were brutally attacked, that does raise eyebrows. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are lots of other choices, but you have to ask how reasonable they are.

Your first and second possibilities have the same flaw, they assume you have time, with the former also assuming you can just target people hiding among civilians. Hamas didn't commit an isolated attack, they kept firing rockets for days on end. That's not the time to dither. Plus, you know, they took hostages and the expectation was they were probably going to murder a lot of them. 

I disagree. Hamas or Islamic Jihad has been firing rockets for years now. Thanks to the Iron Dome the rocket attacks are not nearly that concerning. They certainly are not what caused the mass murder of Israelis or the hostage taking. 

And, possibly more importantly, what Israel is doing is STILL not stopping the rocket attacks. There is no change in that behavior from before. 

Why don't they have time? What is the urgent threat that exists now that didn't exist 3 weeks ago? Is Hamas going to escape? Put it another way: the US spent over a month before a single military mission was launched against Afghanistan in 2001, and that was with them going after a significantly larger target that had significantly more resources AND the very real possibility that their targets would escape. Are you saying that that is more likely against Gaza? Come on, man. 

As to the former assuming you can target people within civilians - I'm assuming that they can, yes, because they're already saying they're doing that and it's been the capability of modern Western militaries for 20 years now. That they can do what the US did for years and order specific drone strikes, spec ops and other limited engagement missions to go after specific people. It may take a while. So what? If you're not going to be able to get rid of Hamas anyway, what does time matter?

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Possibility three is sort of what they did. They haven't done a full scale invasion and in fact have told the world they are trying to have a longer term strategy, but at the same time they did have to learn how to fly the plane while they were building it in the sky. 

There's some nuance to the last possibility you suggested and a cruel siege was not the path I'd take, but there was going to be action taken. It's unrealistic to expect anything else. 

Again, you're arguing against something no one has said. No one is calling for zero action to be taken. What is being pointed out is that Israel does not have to do all the things it has so far done. For a whole lot of reasons! The siege is not appearing to help them much and hurts them politically and morally. The bombing is causing them far more pressure politically and the military aim is unclear. They have zero interest (so they've said) in administering Gaza - one of the few things they could do that would remove the Hamas presence practically - so the value of what they're doing to stop Hamas from existing is limited and aspirational. They do not have to bomb as much, or as often, or with such a high degree of risk of killing civilians. 

And no, they did not stop for a bit, wait to figure out their aims and then start bombing. They started attacks against Hamas within 6 hours. 

There is no requirement that they have to bomb as much as they have while working on a longer term strategy. No one is forcing them to do that. And point of fact, depending on their long-term strategy it may be a significant strategic risk to do that. If, for instance, they would like to have someone like Jordan or Egypt administer Gaza that is almost impossible to conceive of doing right now. If they want the UN to step in and help in the future - well, that ain't gonna happen. Bombing as they have, with the kind of mistakes they've made (and that is being VERY charitable) limits their choices. 

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

At the end of the day Israel didn't have a ton of choices. It was either a light counterattack or a massive one and so far the former has been the case. If they wanted to they could wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth in no time. They haven't done that. Does that mean they've done everything right? Of course not, but there's a lot of Monday morning QBing going on here.

When you're talking about the deaths of 7000 civilians I think it's reasonable to ask at that moment if it is worth it. It's worth asking before you do more. Would you rather ask AFTER you make mistakes that cost thousands of people's lives? 

[fionwe1987]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So the answer is to largely give the attackers what they want with the hopes Hamas either plays nice or gets kicked out? 

Right....

Wrong. You said Hamas wanted to invite retaliation from Israel that would cause widespread civilian death. 

Are you now claiming that they secretly wanted a negotiated peace that would require them to hand in their guns, return all hostages, and lose their power and control over Gaza, one that would acknowledge and codify Israel's status as a legitimate state in the region, and would culminate in a two state solution? 

You need to figure out which diabolical plan you think Hamas is enacting. If your answer is "anything that will let me pretend harming Gazan civilians is justified", then, politely, I have no use for your opinions anymore. 

Then, you need to give something approaching proof that this is the diabolical plan Hamas was enacting. 

And then, if that is indeed what Hamas was doing, given that the solution will be a decent shot at a lasting solution, then yes, I'll say it's fine to give them what they want.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I said there are no good options and Israel took the one most countries would.

So we're going to continue to make up shit? Most countries wouldn't cut off electricity, food and resources to civilians. That is a war crime, period. 

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And again, no one is justifying civilian deaths.

You are. Please stop this double game. 

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They should always be limited as much as possible, but it's complicated when one side is firing rockets while hiding behind their own civilians. That is maximum cowardice and you all know it. 

You keep pointing that finger while ignoring your own pro-murder stance. You're no different from them.

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Be critical of Israel all you want, but if you're spending all your time in these threads going after them while at best paying minor lip service to the fact they were brutally attacked, that does raise eyebrows. 

Yeah I'm really not concerned about your convenient interpretation of my words to continue your noxious positions. It is disgusting. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

. 

At the end of the day Israel didn't have a ton of choices. It was either a light counterattack or a massive one and so far the former has been the case. If they wanted to they could wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth in no time. They haven't done that. Does that mean they've done everything right? Of course not, but there's a lot of Monday morning QBing going on here.

I think it's a poor argument that relies on such a foil; one that relies on an extreme example of total annihilation, which morality aside isn't even a realistic solution since it would trigger a massive international military response.  An extreme example of something Israel is not doing does not make their actual response somehow more appropriate or effective in scope or in purpose.  

[fionwe1987]

Russia could have nuked Ukraine on day 1. They didn't! Clearly they're restrained actors only doing what any nation would do, right? Right?

This "defense" is astonishing in its utter stupidity. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I disagree. Hamas or Islamic Jihad has been firing rockets for years now. Thanks to the Iron Dome the rocket attacks are not nearly that concerning. They certainly are not what caused the mass murder of Israelis or the hostage taking. 

And, possibly more importantly, what Israel is doing is STILL not stopping the rocket attacks. There is no change in that behavior from before. 

Please don't act like they didn't do a lot do a lot of damage and that a lot of people got slaughtered running to bomb shelters or while they were hiding in them.

As to why they're still bombing, they've made it clear, their goal is to end Hamas because what they've been doing has gone on for far too long.

Quote

Why don't they have time? What is the urgent threat that exists now that didn't exist 3 weeks ago? Is Hamas going to escape? Put it another way: the US spent over a month before a single military mission was launched against Afghanistan in 2001, and that was with them going after a significantly larger target that had significantly more resources AND the very real possibility that their targets would escape. Are you saying that that is more likely against Gaza? Come on, man. 

As to the former assuming you can target people within civilians - I'm assuming that they can, yes, because they're already saying they're doing that and it's been the capability of modern Western militaries for 20 years now. That they can do what the US did for years and order specific drone strikes, spec ops and other limited engagement missions to go after specific people. It may take a while. So what? If you're not going to be able to get rid of Hamas anyway, what does time matter?

The US is not right next door to Afghanistan. That does you know change how you approach something like this. 
 

Quote

As to the former assuming you can target people within civilians - I'm assuming that they can, yes, because they're already saying they're doing that and it's been the capability of modern Western militaries for 20 years now. That they can do what the US did for years and order specific drone strikes, spec ops and other limited engagement missions to go after specific people. It may take a while. So what? If you're not going to be able to get rid of Hamas anyway, what does time matter?

I'd argue in most instances they are trying. Obviously they've fucked that up several times and I'm sure there are those in the government and on the ground who don't mind "making mistakes." But overall it is really hard to launch a counteroffensive against a group that is hiding being innocent people. 

Quote

Again, you're arguing against something no one has said. No one is calling for zero action to be taken. What is being pointed out is that Israel does not have to do all the things it has so far done. For a whole lot of reasons! The siege is not appearing to help them much and hurts them politically and morally. The bombing is causing them far more pressure politically and the military aim is unclear. 

Man there were some people in these threads who said Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza before they really even responded. Others called for them to negotiate without fighting back. Please don't tell me no one said that. 

Pretty much everyone has said Israel is making mistakes that are getting innocent people killed. I don't think there's a debate about that. However, the downplaying of what happened to citizens in Israel, many of whom aren't Jewish, is frustrating. 

Quote

They have zero interest (so they've said) in administering Gaza - one of the few things they could do that would remove the Hamas presence practically - so the value of what they're doing to stop Hamas from existing is limited and aspirational. They do not have to bomb as much, or as often, or with such a high degree of risk of killing civilians. 

If they did that they'd just be called invaders. Again, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

Quote

And no, they did not stop for a bit, wait to figure out their aims and then start bombing. They started attacks against Hamas within 6 hours. 

Which is what pretty much anyone else would do. It's not like they couldn't figure out where they were being bombed from initially.
 

Quote

There is no requirement that they have to bomb as much as they have while working on a longer term strategy. No one is forcing them to do that. And point of fact, depending on their long-term strategy it may be a significant strategic risk to do that. If, for instance, they would like to have someone like Jordan or Egypt administer Gaza that is almost impossible to conceive of doing right now. If they want the UN to step in and help in the future - well, that ain't gonna happen. Bombing as they have, with the kind of mistakes they've made (and that is being VERY charitable) limits their choices. 

As far as I know neither Jordan or Egypt want to do that. 

Quote

When you're talking about the deaths of 7000 civilians I think it's reasonable to ask at that moment if it is worth it. It's worth asking before you do more. Would you rather ask AFTER you make mistakes that cost thousands of people's lives?

It's a lot easier to ask that as a theoretical question. Unfortunately an active war makes that more complicated. 

40 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Wrong. You said Hamas wanted to invite retaliation from Israel that would cause widespread civilian death. 

Are you now claiming that they wanted a negotiated peace that would require them to hand in their guns, return all hostages, and lose their power and control over Gaza?

You need to figure out which diabolical plan you think Hamas is enacting. If your answer is "anything that will let me pretend harming Gazan civilians is justified", then, politely, I have no use for your opinions anymore. 

I did say Hamas wanted Israel to retaliate. Is that in dispute? Others, like you, have said Israel should negotiate with Hamas instead and largely be the party that's giving up the most in the deal. 

41 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I think it's a poor argument that relies on such a foil; one that relies on an extreme example of total annihilation, which morality aside isn't even a realistic solution since it would trigger a massive international military response.  An extreme example of something Israel is not doing does not make their actual response somehow more appropriate or effective in scope or in purpose.  

And yet people were very quick to assume Israel would do the most extreme thing which they haven't. It's so frustrating reading people downplay how bad the actions of Hamas were and have been over the years while immediately jumping to shit on the Israel government. I've always said this government is garbage, but just the overwhelming lack of consideration for how horrific this event was is rather alarming. Not so much here, but people all over the world were blaming Israel for getting attacked just hours after it started. Do you not get how painful that is for the global Jewish community? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Russia could have nuked Ukraine on day 1. They didn't! Clearly they're restrained actors only doing what any nation would do, right? Right?

This "defense" is astonishing in its utter stupidity. 

Russia attacked Ukraine. Terrible analogy.  What you're saying is more akin to saying Ukraine shouldn't have fought back. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Bael's Bastard]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia attacked Ukraine. Terrible analogy.  What you're saying is more akin to saying Ukraine shouldn't have fought back. 

In the real world, Ukraine identifies its struggles with Israel's, while Russia courts Hamas and is the primary benefactor of Hamas' (and Hizbullah's) greatest supporter.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[TrueMetis]

Weird that we're treating Israel's action as the best course of action when we have 20 years of evidence in Afghanistan that this kind of thing doesn't work. Hamas has leadership and personnel outside of Gaza, there is no possible way this actually leads to the destruction of Hamas. It may in fact increase their power as desperate angry people join in the hopes of revenge. Unless you kill every possible recruit I guess.

Edited October 27, 2023 by TrueMetis

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I did say Hamas wanted Israel to retaliate. Is that in dispute?

I don't know. Is it? That's what I asked you. Does Hamas want a negotiated peace, plebiscite, etc that I laid out? Some subsection of that?

Or is it a retaliation from Israel? You've now claimed both, so I assume you're disputing the retaliation claim now? Please clarify. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Others, like you, have said Israel should negotiate with Hamas instead and largely be the party that's giving up the most in the deal. 

Ah, we now come to the first clear cut goalpost shifting.

You have said the civilian deaths are justified because Israel had no other option. But you're now saying it does have options, only it will, in your estimation, lose more than the other parties in the deal. 

Shouldn't this question at least get asked of the Israeli people before committing them to a course that directly makes such a deal harder by the hour? 

Would you support a ceasefire, exchange of prisoners, etc. to buy time for an Israeli referendum which presents multiple options, and is held in a short time frame, and the results of which will be binding on the current unity government?

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet people were very quick to assume Israel would do the most extreme thing which they haven't. It's so frustrating reading people downplay how bad the actions of Hamas were and have been over the years while immediately jumping to shit on the Israel government. I've always said this government is garbage, but just the overwhelming lack of consideration for how horrific this event was is rather alarming. Not so much here, but people all over the world were blaming Israel for getting attacked just hours after it started. Do you not get how painful that is for the global Jewish community? 

You are insisting that criticism of the Israeli government be in proportion to criticism of Hamas. Not in intensity or stated position, but in reiteration. 

You're failing to see that by focussing my criticism on the Israeli government, I'm according the Israeli people the respect due a democratic state that they actually do have a say over. 

Believe what you will about the Palestinian ability to resist Hamas, would you at least agree that the Israeli government is susceptible to more reason by virtue of whatever remains of the Israeli democratic tradition, despite Netanyahu's attacks on it? 

You are measuring the wrong metric if you think the greater number of words directed at criticizing the Israeli government is about giving Hamas any kind of pass.

They are murderers, rapists, arsonists, kidnappers and child killers. I have seen no evidence to make me change my mind, I need no video to feel utter contempt for them. I do not know, though, why I must keep finding new words to criticize these monsters. 

It is exceedingly odd to be asked to repeat judgement that cannot change in new words, as payment to speak of the aspect of this situation that is evolving, and hopefully will evolve past this current madness. 

I will not say it again, but if you insist I must, I can copy and paste my condemnation of Hamas, or any version of it you prefer, at the start of any future reply to you.

My views on them will not change, though. It will be a performance to satisfy a nonsensical metric. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Russia attacked Ukraine. Terrible analogy.  What you're saying is more akin to saying Ukraine shouldn't have fought back. 

No, it really isn't. I'm saying that restraint from total destruction isn't proof of anything. That holds whether you have causus belli or not.

Or are you making an argument that maximalist escalation is the immediate and only option if you have cause for war? 

Edited October 27, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

I’ve seen on Reddit someone postulate Israel’s poor handling of optics and social media warfare, is due to Netanyahu’s hard right populist approach.

Perhaps this is to humanity’s benefit more “liberal”, socially aware and clever people directing propaganda apparatus wouldn’t do things like like this or try to things like this: 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Care to elaborate?

I’m tired of this notion progressives must agree with whatever military response Israel shows Hamas else they’re hypocrites.

 

[Craving Peaches]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who is shrugging? Who is saying just accept all civilian deaths? 

Israeli government officials, multiple people on the other thread seemed to have the attitude along the lines of 'sad, but that's war', and apparently some on this one, loads of other people online...

I said this on the other thread, but some people (not you) really did appear to be taking the words right out of Tzipi Hotolevy's mouth when it came to civilians in Gaza: It's all Hamas' fault, Israel has no obligation not to starve Gaza, this is a war etc. I don't think anyone is suggesting Israel do nothing or that there should be no civilian casualties. The former would be silly, and the latter, while ideal, would be impossible. But the idea that the Israeli army is responding with discretion and proportionality isn't holding much water for me due to the scale of civilian deaths. They say almost everything is Hamas infrastructure, whether it be a hospital or a refugee camp or a mosque. Now I've no doubt Hamas may store weapons in some locations but I don't think it is realistically lining up with the number Israel is bombing. I don't think they have a way to know for sure where everything is stored. And combined with certain remarks ministers have made, it makes me think the Israeli government, at best, does not particularly care how many civilians die in the attempt to remove Hamas. Which is defeating the point of the whole aim by making it more likely that people will support Hamas or make something to take up their mantle. Of course, as I mentioned before, this also does not explain the reported instances of deliberate civilian targeting, or the withholding of essential supplies to everyone, as Zorral mentioned.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

However, the downplaying of what happened to citizens in Israel, many of whom aren't Jewish, is frustrating. 

[...]

Which is what pretty much anyone else would do.

It's not downplaying.

There's an implicit assumption that goes beyond politics here, that an individual, family, or nation that has been struck hard should strike back hard.

And I dunno, but that's a bit bizarre to me. As a matter of fact, and contrary to what several people say in these threads, as a rule, states don't answer terrorist attacks with military attacks. In the crushing majority of cases, that's just not an option. Most of the time, it's about intelligence and special operations rather than mobilizing the actual military. You're powerless, so all you can do is grieve, and hope someone will get the bastards, later.

I'm genuinely baffled by these arguments, because in the hours it took me to reach my folks after the attacks, I do not remember having had thoughts for revenge. My mind was entirely focused on what I may have lost, and on what it would mean if someone I knew had been taken hostage (edit: and fearing already that Netanyahu was the worst fucking guy to be in charge if that was the case).

And honestly, I dunno, I only had the thought today tbh, but I'm starting to wonder if any of the "hawks" in these threads has actually gone though this... ? Because the one person who wrote they'd lost someone in a terrorist attack in Israel is definitely on the "dove" side here. And I know that if I had lost someone, I would have been torn apart by grief, and hated everyone and everything about this sordid conflict that has been going on for decades. I might not have given much thought to the people being killed in Gaza tbh, but I would definitely not have supported the bombings either.
Because honestly, if you've lost someone, what good is it to "strike back" ? What good does it achieve to kill others? It's not going to bring them back, and it's stupid to numb the pain with hatred.

And I'm sorry to have to point it out, but all the hawks in these threads don't seem to be caring much about the hostages. If this is about protecting Israeli lives, why are people already acting as if they were all dead? The families of the hostages (which are very often families of victims) do not want this to escalate, they want everything done to get their folks back.
And that's rational, and that's humane. And I'm sorry, but bombing the shit out of the other side is neither humane, nor rational. It's just stupid.

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

At the end of the day Israel didn't have a ton of choices. It was either a light counterattack or a massive one and so far the former has been the case.

That's not true.

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not so much here, but people all over the world were blaming Israel for getting attacked just hours after it started. Do you not get how painful that is for the global Jewish community? 

There's a few people here who have no qualms about blaming Palestinians for Hamas, and countless on the internet who are blaming Islam.
I'm sorry to have to say it, but I'm probably one of the few who can, so I'll just say it: Israel and Jews can't always play the victim card. Yes, we are the targets and victims of terrorism, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum, and always talking about how others hate us is not going to win anyone over that wasn't already on "our side" (for their own reasons).
If anything, doing that while barely acknowledging the consequences of Israeli actions will only make us more hated.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Rippounet