War

There was no justification because there is none, and the context is given because it is intentionally targeting civilians and many people are saying things like “If they are saying things like Israel shouldn't take action against Hamas, they are defending and supporting terrorists.” Which is errant nonsense.

Israel ignored both the Egyptians when they gave the heads up that Hamas were planning something big and their own women’s border watch who were told to basically shut up when they reported Hamas were practicing storming guard posts identical to the ones they were staffing, and many subsequently died protecting, so Israel did have a choice, they had the man-power and military resources to close that border, which they have after the fact, and then Hamas would have been stuck with an ineffectual rocket attacks. That I find strange.

1. Israel is bombing innocent Palestinian civilians because Hamas bombed innocent Israel civilians.

2. Hamas is bombing innocent Israel civilians because Israel bombed innocent Palestinian civilians.

This isn't a zero sum game. We can sympathies with the innocents on both sides without supporting terrorists. We can agree that neither of these things should be happening.

We can argue over which side is more to blame than the other while agreeing that stopping both sides from killing innocents is the right thing to do.

Suggestion, move this section to war, it has nothing to do with plastic face.

There was no justification because there is none, and the context is given because it is intentionally targeting civilians and many people are saying things like “If they are saying things like Israel shouldn't take action against Hamas, they are defending and supporting terrorists.” Which is errant nonsense.

Israel ignored both the Egyptians when they gave the heads up that Hamas were planning something big and their own women’s border watch who were told to basically shut up when they reported Hamas were practicing storming guard posts identical to the ones they were staffing, and many subsequently died protecting, so Israel did have a choice, they had the man-power and military resources to close that border, which they have after the fact, and then Hamas would have been stuck with an ineffectual rocket attacks. That I find strange.

Israel may have had a choice then.
They could have chosen to continually fortify the border crossing and hope Hamas doesn't take some other route, and continue with that forever.
Or they could close that border, again, permanently. It isn't like doing that would force Hamas to act then.
Hamas could easily just wait until the border reopens and is easy to get through.

And if they took those actions people would likely still condemn them, as it would need to remain in place until Hamas used its stockpile of rockets.

And with their tunnels it is unclear if that would even stop them, or merely delay them or have them resort to other tactics.

But that is in the past.
The question is what choice to they have now?
They could try to lock Gaza strip down, again with it being permanent; or they can try to wipe out Hamas.

It does not appear to be possible for peaceful coexistence between Hamas and Israel.

1. Israel is bombing innocent Palestinian civilians because Hamas bombed innocent Israel civilians.

2. Hamas is bombing innocent Israel civilians because Israel bombed innocent Palestinian civilians.

This isn't a zero sum game. We can sympathies with the innocents on both sides without supporting terrorists. We can agree that neither of these things should be happening.

We can argue over which side is more to blame than the other while agreeing that stopping both sides from killing innocents is the right thing to do.

1 - Israel is bombing innocent Palestinians which Hamas are using as human shields because Hamas attacked Israel and wants to wipe it out.
2 - Hamas targeted innocent civilians, because they want to wipe out the Jews and want to use those civilians as bargaining chips.

Notice the difference?

Yes, in an ideal world, this would not be happening.
But in an ideal world, there would be free travel without fortified borders and border checkpoints, without racial discrimination and without terrorist groups.

Yes, you can sympathise with the innocent people on both sides without supporting terrorists.
You can say that these innocent people don't deserve to die and shouldn't be dying without supporting terrorists.

But if you start trying to argue over which side is more to blame, when one side is a known terrorist group, known to use human shields, that intentionally targeted civilians, not merely as part of a larger target, but as the actual target, to murder them and kidnap them to use as bargaining chips, with an ideology that shows they want to wipe out the Jews, and where they implemented full Islamic law, demanding everyone in Gaza obey the rules of Islam, and which refuses to engage with any elections which could remove them from power; then it is quite difficult to say they aren't more to blame without defending terrorists.

So let talk about supporting Hamas.

A small history lesson, Netanyahu and his far right allies have always been opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, they called Yitzhak Rabin a traitor for trying to and nearly succeeding with the Oslo accord, that is until probably the most successful assassination in history, in that it totally reversed the dialogue and put an end to the peace process, by an Israeli who parroted the sentiments espoused by Netanyahu and his now national security minister Ben-Gvir who only weeks before the assassination  showed TV cameras the bonnet ornament from then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s car, declaring: “We got to his car. We’ll get to him, too.”

These people courted Hamas because they were the enemy of the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas, the people who were willing to talk peace, allowing funding from Qatar to the tune of millions to be suitcased in to the strip, "Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015."

Smotrich was arrested by Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence) for suspected Jewish terrorism in 2005, and calls himself a proud homophobe.

Ben-Gvir who was in control of the border police that spectacularly ignored the warnings and failed to protect those Israeli civilians, has been convicted of incitement to racism, destroying property, possessing a “terror” organisation’s propaganda material and supporting a “terror” organisation – Meir Kahane’s outlawed Kach group, which he joined when he was 16.

And if you don't believe me here's a report from the Times of Israel, some of which I have quoted above.    https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

Quote from: JJA on December 13, 2023, 05:20:08 AM

1. Israel is bombing innocent Palestinian civilians because Hamas bombed innocent Israel civilians.

2. Hamas is bombing innocent Israel civilians because Israel bombed innocent Palestinian civilians.

This isn't a zero sum game. We can sympathies with the innocents on both sides without supporting terrorists. We can agree that neither of these things should be happening.

We can argue over which side is more to blame than the other while agreeing that stopping both sides from killing innocents is the right thing to do.

1 - Israel is bombing innocent Palestinians which Hamas are using as human shields because Hamas attacked Israel and wants to wipe it out.
2 - Hamas targeted innocent civilians, because they want to wipe out the Jews and want to use those civilians as bargaining chips.

Notice the difference?

Yes I do. You are pointing out the violent extremists on one side and ignoring the violent extremists on the other.

You clearly have some personal feelings here, so I'm just going to drop this.  I'm not going to argue which side is worse and who commits the most evil acts, I could spend days tabulating the shut both sides have done.  It's fucked up all over and I just want it to stop, but there isn't anything I can do about it. It's just depressing and awful.

The countries that voted "No to ceasefire" were Austria, Czechia, Guatemala, Israel, Liberia, Micronesia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and the USA.

153 of The United Nations voted for peace, and the countries that acted together with the USA and voted for war in this vote were nine above.

Is it only me who notices that none of  the classic allies of the USA, England and France, as well as the other leading countries of NATO, such as Turkey and Germany, act together with the USA? Gutemala is a good ally and quite sufficient to balance any problems with Mexico or Brazil in Central America. If there are problems in the Middle East and Europe, Austria is a good partner and Micronesia is a good global partners in case of tensions with China in the Far East. A politically disastrous foreign policy must have been produced to cause such global loneliness.

Let me explain the seriousness of the situation as follows: This is a vote on war, and none of the NATO members, except Austria, whose founding purpose is related to wars, act together with the most powerful member, the USA. This isolation of the United States was not only a serious blow to the global reputation of the United States, but also paved the way for future discussions regarding the functionality of NATO. If Biden is a pawn that China supports in order to dismantle NATO and weaken the USA, you can be sure that he is fulfilling his duty very elegantly nowadays. I seriously wonder what Qanon and Patriots do in this context.

The USA, which remained silent about Israel's barbarity and even supported the war, has rapidly become isolated in the last two months under the administration of criminal President Biden. What else is the Senate waiting for to unseat the p'resident?

I don't see how the US can be blamed for that.  We're just following Micronesia's lead out of fear of their terrifying... um... I was looking for a joke here but I can't find anything exceptional about Micronesia.

They appear to be almost a US territory like Puerto Rico.  Their citizens can join the US military without having to gain citizenship?  Weird.

Nah, we followed Israel's lead.  Also, 23 abstained.

Also also: this has no power.  Its literally a vote to just say "please stop fighting".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/14/israel-unguided-dumb-bombs-gaza/

The headline says it all, "Unguided ‘dumb bombs’ used in almost half of Israeli strikes on Gaza".

So let talk about supporting Hamas.

A small history lesson, Netanyahu and his far right allies have always been opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state, they called Yitzhak Rabin a traitor for trying to and nearly succeeding with the Oslo accord, that is until probably the most successful assassination in history, in that it totally reversed the dialogue and put an end to the peace process, by an Israeli who parroted the sentiments espoused by Netanyahu and his now national security minister Ben-Gvir who only weeks before the assassination  showed TV cameras the bonnet ornament from then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s car, declaring: “We got to his car. We’ll get to him, too.”

These people courted Hamas because they were the enemy of the Palestinian authority under Mahmoud Abbas, the people who were willing to talk peace, allowing funding from Qatar to the tune of millions to be suitcased in to the strip, "Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015."

Smotrich was arrested by Shin Bet (Israeli intelligence) for suspected Jewish terrorism in 2005, and calls himself a proud homophobe.

Ben-Gvir who was in control of the border police that spectacularly ignored the warnings and failed to protect those Israeli civilians, has been convicted of incitement to racism, destroying property, possessing a “terror” organisation’s propaganda material and supporting a “terror” organisation – Meir Kahane’s outlawed Kach group, which he joined when he was 16.

And if you don't believe me here's a report from the Times of Israel, some of which I have quoted above.    https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

You quoted a source which doesn't have any sources and even states that things were not made publicly or officially and doesn't even have quotes.
What did Far-right Mk Bezalel Smotrich actually say in 2015?

It even seems to be saying that work permits to help Gaza is just helping Hamas.
Would you have preferred it if Israel just entirely cut off the Gaza strip from the outside world?

We can also take the history lesson back further if you want.
Such as when they backed the wrong side in a world war which is why they lost the territory in the first place, with a subsequent world word their former allies tried wiping out the Jewish people making a lot relocate and resulting in the formation of the state of Israel (And a failed uprising in between the wars).
After WWII, a partition plan was made, which the majority of Jews in Israel appeared to support, but the Arabs were very much against, as they wanted all of Palestine for themselves (after they already lost it in a war).
With some Arabs going straight to genocide.

Following this there was a civil war, where both sides were attacking each other, followed by the Arab-Israeli war where other states got involved as well.
At the conclusion of that war, armistices were signed, with Egypt controlling the Gaza strip, Jordan controlling the west bank, and Israel controlling the rest, with more land than the mandate.

Following that, as Egypt decided to close shipping to Israeli vessels, including through the British and French owned Suez Canal, and the Straight of Tiran, with Israel invading to get access to vital shipping routes, and at the end of that war, they went back to Israel.
Egypt then decided to yet again block shipping routes and prep for war, which again resulted in Israel invading Egypt, with Syria and Jordan joining the party later on. At the end of that conflict, Israel was in control of Israel, the west bank, Gaza and the Sinai peninsula, as well as a small part of Syria.
This also resulted in Jews being forced out of Arab lands, and lots of Arabs fled or were forced out of the lands taken by Israel.

This also led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist group that saw the only way to end the existence of Israel was through terrorism.

Allegedly Israel said it would return the Sinai (but not Gaza) to Egypt (and some other lands), but apparently that message did not go all the way, so they kept it as Egypt didn't ask for it back. Until much later when it was Israel gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.
And then in 2005, Israel even left Gaza. Someone one could argue was a big mistake due to the emergence of Hamas shortly after.

The current president of Palestine also seemed to suggest they would be happy with a 2 state system, sharing the land with Israel.
He has even had allegations mad that his government is effectively a subcontractor for the Israeli government.
So why would Israel want to back Hamas to go against that?

Yes I do. You are pointing out the violent extremists on one side and ignoring the violent extremists on the other.

Which violent extremists on Israel's side are intentionally targeting civilians just to kill civilians while using human shields? Are these extremists part of the leadership of Israel?
Yes, I know there will almost certainly be people in the Israel armed forces that will attack innocent people, but they are normally not the ones in power.

I'm not going to argue which side is worse and who commits the most evil acts, I could spend days tabulating the shut both sides have done.  It's fucked up all over and I just want it to stop, but there isn't anything I can do about it. It's just depressing and awful.

The key thing I was objecting to are those who want to try claiming Israel is mainly to blame.

If you want to just say what is happening is horrible and should end, I wont disagree with that.

153 of The United Nations voted for peace, and the countries that acted together with the USA and voted for war in this vote were nine above.

I wouldn't call a vote to end fighting while saying nothing about a terrorist group which remains in power and active to be a vote for peace.
While a majority voted for amendments, not enough did for it to pass.
For example, one amendment would highlight that Hamas took hostages, by calling for the release of hostages taken by Hamas and other groups.
The other would recognise the terrorist attack by Hamas on the 7th.

Let me explain the seriousness of the situation as follows: This is a vote on war, and none of the NATO members, except Austria, whose founding purpose is related to wars, act together with the most powerful member, the USA. This isolation of the United States was not only a serious blow to the global reputation of the United States, but also paved the way for future discussions regarding the functionality of NATO.

No, it didn't.
If you want something for future discussions regarding NATO, consider Ukraine.

What else is the Senate waiting for to unseat the p'resident?

The senate doesn't have the power to unseat the president.
You would need Congress to charge the president with a crime and then the senate to confirm.
But they are probably waiting for something criminal.
Supporting Israel is not criminal, no matter how much you hate them.

Quote from: JJA on December 13, 2023, 04:43:10 PM

Yes I do. You are pointing out the violent extremists on one side and ignoring the violent extremists on the other.

Which violent extremists on Israel's side are intentionally targeting civilians just to kill civilians while using human shields? Are these extremists part of the leadership of Israel?
Yes, I know there will almost certainly be people in the Israel armed forces that will attack innocent people, but they are normally not the ones in power.

I consider the Israeli settlers bulldozing homes, stealing land and murdering Palestinians as violent extremists.  They are supported and encouraged by the current government in power.

Cutting off water supplies to civilians which cause disease and death is an extremist attack. Also supported by Israel leadership.

I consider killing nearly 20,000 civilians with carpet bombing a violent extremist act.

I don't expect 2 million people trapped with no water, no medical care and running out of food while bombs are dropped on them and their families to feel anything but hate for Israel.  Just as I don't expect Israelis to have sympathy for terrorists killing them and their families. It's no mystery why they hate each other.

Quote from: JJA on December 13, 2023, 04:43:10 PM

I'm not going to argue which side is worse and who commits the most evil acts, I could spend days tabulating the shut both sides have done.  It's fucked up all over and I just want it to stop, but there isn't anything I can do about it. It's just depressing and awful.

The key thing I was objecting to are those who want to try claiming Israel is mainly to blame.

If you want to just say what is happening is horrible and should end, I wont disagree with that.

I want to say terrible things are happening on both sides, and it's far too late to argue who is to blame.  Right now, stopping any atrocities on either side is what I want. I mainly object to people who say Israel is blameless or ignore the crimes of one side or the other. I object to being told I can't sympathize with innocents on one side without supporting the evil people on that side.

It's all horrible, yes.

Jack, none of that is wrong, but it’s a very one sided account of the whole messy history.

There are Israelis who see all of the occupied territories as rightfully belonging to Israel, just as Hamas sees Israel as rightfully Palestinian.  Many of these are in the Likud government, and some have literally been calling for the complete ethnic cleansing of the region.

The Oslo accords were closest they got to finding a workable 2 state solution.  But that was scuppered after the assassination of PM Rabin by an Israeli ultranationalist.  Sharon then stepped up the building of settlements in the occupied territories, which has hardly helped. 

Hamas are fanatical arseholes, but so are many in the Israeli government.  It’s hard to see how the present course benefits Israel either.  It’s seems very unlikely they could crush Hamas without creating a new generation of people who hate Israel just as much.  It could very easily spread to the West Bank too.

On the other hand, Israel obviously can’t just ignore a threat like Hamas as they’ve tried to the last few years.

I don’t have an answer to all this, I doubt anyone does.  It’s a fucking mess.  But at the very least Israel should do everything possible to minimize the civilian suffering, which they clearly aren’t.

I consider the Israeli settlers bulldozing homes, stealing land and murdering Palestinians as violent extremists.  They are supported and encouraged by the current government in power.

When they are attacked and end up in a war and take the land during that, it is not terrorism or violent extremism.
Bulldozing homes of terrorists, especially ones which have been booby trapped is not terrorism or violent extremism.

Cutting off water supplies to civilians which cause disease and death is an extremist attack. Also supported by Israel leadership.

I consider killing nearly 20,000 civilians with carpet bombing a violent extremist act.

No, they are fairly standard things for war.
Do you consider the bombing of cities during WWII to be a violent extremist act? For example, the bombing of Berlin killed tens of thousands and left vastly more wounded and homeless.
What about the bombing of Japan with a nuclear weapon? 2 bombs killed over 100 000 people, most civilians.

I don't expect 2 million people trapped with no water, no medical care and running out of food while bombs are dropped on them and their families to feel anything but hate for Israel.  Just as I don't expect Israelis to have sympathy for terrorists killing them and their families. It's no mystery why they hate each other.

And I expect no sympathy from Israel until Hamas is gone.
I expect them to have no sympathy for these people until these people turn against Hamas.
While these support Hamas, obey Hamas and protect Hamas, I expect Israel to not really care much about them at all.

I want to say terrible things are happening on both sides, and it's far too late to argue who is to blame.  Right now, stopping any atrocities on either side is what I want. I mainly object to people who say Israel is blameless or ignore the crimes of one side or the other. I object to being told I can't sympathize with innocents on one side without supporting the evil people on that side.

It's all horrible, yes.

And I recognise it isn't as simple as just stopping.
Just stopping without a long term plan for peace will just result in many more deaths later.
It would be akin to saying just stop fighting during WWII, while still leaving Hitler in power, probably still in control of France and so on.

Jack, none of that is wrong, but it’s a very one sided account of the whole messy history.

There are Israelis who see all of the occupied territories as rightfully belonging to Israel, just as Hamas sees Israel as rightfully Palestinian.  Many of these are in the Likud government, and some have literally been calling for the complete ethnic cleansing of the region.

The Oslo accords were closest they got to finding a workable 2 state solution.  But that was scuppered after the assassination of PM Rabin by an Israeli ultranationalist.  Sharon then stepped up the building of settlements in the occupied territories, which has hardly helped. 

Hamas are fanatical arseholes, but so are many in the Israeli government.  It’s hard to see how the present course benefits Israel either.  It’s seems very unlikely they could crush Hamas without creating a new generation of people who hate Israel just as much.  It could very easily spread to the West Bank too.

On the other hand, Israel obviously can’t just ignore a threat like Hamas as they’ve tried to the last few years.

I don’t have an answer to all this, I doubt anyone does.  It’s a fucking mess.  But at the very least Israel should do everything possible to minimize the civilian suffering, which they clearly aren’t.

I wouldn't say the Oslo accords were scuppered after the assassination. They were still proceeding after that.
But even before, people still opposed them because they were thought to be too heavily in favour of Israel, with Israel only recognising the PLO as the representatives of Palestinians and not wanting to recognise a state of Palestine.
And there are still questions as to if a 2 state solution or a combined 1 state solution would ever work.

And it wasn't just the far-right Israelis going against it. You also had an uprising which was escalated by both sides after a visit to Al-Aqsa.
But in 2005 agreements between Israel and Palestine still allowed progress, including the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 (while still maintaining airspace).
When Hamas took power in 2006, many powers called for them to accept these previous agreements (including the Oslo accords), which they refused to do.
This lead to fighting between Hamas and Fatah, i.e. an internal conflict for Palestine. Effectively west bank which were accepting prior agreements and Gaza strip under control of Hamas.
Following that there has been continued conflict between Gaza and Israel.

What did Smotrich say? https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/1659921474893774850
Just what the article said.

Lamenting the “international delegitimization” of Israel, Smotrich talked openly about Israel’s need for Hamas to counter the diplomatic successes of the PA. “Abu Mazen is beating us in significant spaces,” he said in the interview, referring to PA President Mahmoud Abbas. “And Hamas at this point, in my opinion, will be an asset.” Elsewhere, as The Intercept recently reported, he argued that the PA was causing “great harm to Israel in international forums, and it is better for Israel to work towards its collapse.” (PA = Palestinian Authority)

Israel under Netanyahu believed that Hamas being allowed to control Gaza was a win win, it weakened the PA and gave them a convenient bad-guy they could periodically attack

See, https://theintercept.com/2023/10/14/hamas-israel-palestinian-authority/

“A 2007 diplomatic cable reveals that’s been Israel’s tacit position since Hamas took control of Gaza. According to the cable, then-Israel Defense Forces intelligence chief Amos Yadlin — who this week said that Hamas “will pay like the Nazis paid in Europe” — said at the time that “Israel would be ‘happy’ if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state.” That is effectively what happened.”



Also from that.
“The U.S. directly intervened and tried to initiate a regime change,” Tareq Baconi, board secretary of the Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka, told The Intercept. “There was a moment in time when Hamas was developing a political platform that could have ended us in a very different position. That was entirely blocked by the Americans, primarily the Bush administration. So the idea that this is something that was inevitable is untrue, and it removes American responsibility in landing us wherever we’re at.”

Just what the article said.

No, not what the article said.
It was a quote mine.

He said that in terms of delegitimization of Palestine, Hamas is an asset, not that they would support them, not that they did support them.
It is an asset in a very specific way.
Quite a different picture to what you and the article are painting.

Quote from: JJA on December 16, 2023, 03:31:57 AM

I consider the Israeli settlers bulldozing homes, stealing land and murdering Palestinians as violent extremists.  They are supported and encouraged by the current government in power.

When they are attacked and end up in a war and take the land during that, it is not terrorism or violent extremism.
Bulldozing homes of terrorists, especially ones which have been booby trapped is not terrorism or violent extremism.

Quote from: JJA on December 16, 2023, 03:31:57 AM

Cutting off water supplies to civilians which cause disease and death is an extremist attack. Also supported by Israel leadership.

I consider killing nearly 20,000 civilians with carpet bombing a violent extremist act.

No, they are fairly standard things for war.
Do you consider the bombing of cities during WWII to be a violent extremist act? For example, the bombing of Berlin killed tens of thousands and left vastly more wounded and homeless.
What about the bombing of Japan with a nuclear weapon? 2 bombs killed over 100 000 people, most civilians.

Do you believe this mass murder of civilians on our part brought us closer to winning the war?  Or are you just saying we committed atrocities so Israel gets to commit war crimes as well?

Pop quiz.  Why did Japan surrender?  I'll give you a hint.  Whatever they said in public it wasn't incinerating civilians.

Do you believe this mass murder of civilians on our part brought us closer to winning the war?  Or are you just saying we committed atrocities so Israel gets to commit war crimes as well?

Pop quiz.  Why did Japan surrender?  I'll give you a hint.  Whatever they said in public it wasn't incinerating civilians.

I understand what happens during war.
That if you have a civilian population supporting the war effort that will prolong the war, and disabling their capability to do so, and possibly even destroying them, reduces that ability.
That is
That is why in games like Age of Empires, raiding the economy is a viable strategy. You destroy their means of production and you stop them being able to attack or defend.
As for what actually ended the war, some people are divided, with some saying Japan's surrender was inevitable, with others saying the nuclear bombs dropped is what pushed them to surrender. Would doing that on a non-civilian target, with no civilian deaths have the same effect? Who knows.

Quote from: Jura-Glenlivet II on December 16, 2023, 01:07:41 PM

Just what the article said.

No, not what the article said.
It was a quote mine.

He said that in terms of delegitimization of Palestine, Hamas is an asset, not that they would support them, not that they did support them.
It is an asset in a very specific way.
Quite a different picture to what you and the article are painting.

 No, you are wrong.

From Haaretz the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel.

This is solidlydocumented. Between 2012 and 2018, Netanyahu gave Qatar approval to transfer a cumulative sum of about a billion dollars to Gaza, at least half of which reached Hamas, including its military wing. According to the Jerusalem Post, in a private meeting with members of his Likud party on March 11, 2019, Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state (as reported in former cabinet member Haim Ramon’s Hebrew-language book “Neged Haruach”, p. 417).

In an interview with the Ynet news website on May 5, 2019, Netanyahu associate Gershon Hacohen, a major general in reserves, said, “We need to tell the truth. Netanyahu’s strategy is to prevent the option of two states, so he is turning Hamas into his closest partner. Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.”

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-11/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-needed-a-strong-hamas/0000018b-1e9f-d47b-a7fb-bfdfd8f30000

No, you are wrong.

Doesn't seem like it.
They think Hamas is an assert in that it is delegitimising Palestine. Not in that they are actively creating it and supporting it.

From Haaretz the longest running newspaper currently in print in Israel.

This is solidlydocumented. Between 2012 and 2018, Netanyahu gave Qatar approval to transfer a cumulative sum of about a billion dollars to Gaza, at least half of which reached Hamas, including its military wing. According to the Jerusalem Post, in a private meeting with members of his Likud party on March 11, 2019, Netanyahu explained the reckless step as follows: The money transfer is part of the strategy to divide the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Anyone who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the transfer of the money from Qatar to Hamas. In that way, we will foil the establishment of a Palestinian state (as reported in former cabinet member Haim Ramon’s Hebrew-language book “Neged Haruach”, p. 417).

Notice how many links you are going through.
You appeal to a newspaper, which then appeals to another paper, which then appeals to what allegedly happened in a private meeting.
Are there official records of this private meeting, clearly showing what was said?

Because right now you are sounding like the conspiracy nuts that say the US was behind 9/11.

Quote from: Crouton on December 16, 2023, 10:23:18 PM

Do you believe this mass murder of civilians on our part brought us closer to winning the war?  Or are you just saying we committed atrocities so Israel gets to commit war crimes as well?

Pop quiz.  Why did Japan surrender?  I'll give you a hint.  Whatever they said in public it wasn't incinerating civilians.

I understand what happens during war.
That if you have a civilian population supporting the war effort that will prolong the war, and disabling their capability to do so, and possibly even destroying them, reduces that ability.
That is
That is why in games like Age of Empires, raiding the economy is a viable strategy. You destroy their means of production and you stop them being able to attack or defend.
As for what actually ended the war, some people are divided, with some saying Japan's surrender was inevitable, with others saying the nuclear bombs dropped is what pushed them to surrender. Would doing that on a non-civilian target, with no civilian deaths have the same effect? Who knows.

Japan held off surrendering because their leadership thought Russia was going to join their side for some reason.  Once it became clear that Russia was going to carve them up they decided that surrendering to the US would work out better for them. 

Japan then publicly claimed that they surrendered because we had the A bomb.  Like we found out a cheat code which otherwise then would have won.

Prosecuting a war like it's a game of Civ 4 is all well and good if you happen to be among the top .01% that rules that world.  For the rest of the us we have a strongly vested interest in reinforcing the notion of international law and human rights.

Japan held off surrendering because their leadership thought Russia was going to join their side for some reason.  Once it became clear that Russia was going to carve them up they decided that surrendering to the US would work out better for them. 

Japan then publicly claimed that they surrendered because we had the A bomb.  Like we found out a cheat code which otherwise then would have won.

Prosecuting a war like it's a game of Civ 4 is all well and good if you happen to be among the top .01% that rules that world.  For the rest of the us we have a strongly vested interest in reinforcing the notion of international law and human rights.

And what basis do you have for your claim that it was because of the Russians, rather than the atomic bomb?
From what I have heard, they were not planning on surrendering and were instead planning for an invasion of Japan which would prolong the war and kill far more people, especially on the allies side.
Yes, Japan would have likely lost. But at a much greater price, and with likely a much larger death toll on both sides, including civilian deaths.

As for a "strongly vested interest", I would rather war didn't happen in the first place.
And that interest in the protection of civilians will likely vary depending on what side of the war you are on, and if you are being bombed, or this war is to protect you.
If you are the one being bombed, you will likely care quite a lot about those protections.
However, if you are on the stronger side, that is currently bombing an enemy city, an enemy which poses a serious threat to you, you might have a much less vested interest.

You then have all the people conscripted to fight in a war, that would probably also not want the war to happen, and if bombing the enemy means you don't die, then that sure sounds good.
And all the loved ones of the soldiers. Again, if there is a choice between throwing hundreds of thousands of soldiers at the enemy with a large portion likely to die, or bombing the enemy out of existence, I'm pretty sure most would pick the bombs.

Yes, it is inhumane, but so is sending loads of troops to fight and die; and if they are conscripted you don't even have the argument that they chose it.
Killing conscripted soldiers is just as inhumane as killing civilians.
And sending those conscripted soldiers to fight and die is just as inhumane as killing civilians.
War is inhumane.

Today I want to approach this war from a different perspective; the pescpective of Lilith and Eva.

Lilith felt wronged and her children were bullied and genocided by the high angels counsil.  As a response, she takes pleasure in killing Eve's children at every opportunity. We can criticize her for doing this, that is, trying to kill us for revenge, but we also have to accept that she has her reasons.

The fact that Lilith was a smarter woman than Eve and naturally her children rule the world is indisputable. This explains why world leaders pit people against each other and start a world war at every opportunity. For them, the fact that more people die in wars is almost like a religious ritual and family tradition.

Hitler's killing of the Jews, Israel's killing of the Palestinians, or the Ottoman Empire's murder of the Karamanids are actually just one step in Lilith's revenge on Eve. In this context, anyone who wants war is the common enemy of humanity, regardless of the reason they want it. When the war supporters among us decrease and concepts such as hatred management and anger management come to the fore, humanity will be able to move one step further.

And what basis do you have for your claim that it was because of the Russians, rather than the atomic bomb?
From what I have heard, they were not planning on surrendering and were instead planning for an invasion of Japan which would prolong the war and kill far more people, especially on the allies side.
Yes, Japan would have likely lost. But at a much greater price, and with likely a much larger death toll on both sides, including civilian deaths.

As for a "strongly vested interest", I would rather war didn't happen in the first place.
And that interest in the protection of civilians will likely vary depending on what side of the war you are on, and if you are being bombed, or this war is to protect you.
If you are the one being bombed, you will likely care quite a lot about those protections.
However, if you are on the stronger side, that is currently bombing an enemy city, an enemy which poses a serious threat to you, you might have a much less vested interest.

You then have all the people conscripted to fight in a war, that would probably also not want the war to happen, and if bombing the enemy means you don't die, then that sure sounds good.
And all the loved ones of the soldiers. Again, if there is a choice between throwing hundreds of thousands of soldiers at the enemy with a large portion likely to die, or bombing the enemy out of existence, I'm pretty sure most would pick the bombs.

Yes, it is inhumane, but so is sending loads of troops to fight and die; and if they are conscripted you don't even have the argument that they chose it.
Killing conscripted soldiers is just as inhumane as killing civilians.
And sending those conscripted soldiers to fight and die is just as inhumane as killing civilians.
War is inhumane.

The timeline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

The short version.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LuqqoFmU9I0

The longer version.


Just apply some common sense to this.  Which is more likely?
Japan didn't surrender after we incinerated 68 cities but that 69th(nice) was what finally did it.
Or
The Red Army which had already gobbled up half of Europe is now marching in their direction.

Now think about where you get your history from and why they might present it a certain way.  It's in both Japan's and America's best interest to portray the A bomb as the main reason Japan surrendered.  Japan gets to excuse their loss due to their opponent cheating.  And we get to excuse what was arguably a war crime as a miracle of modern physics that likely saved more lives than it took.

an enemy which poses a serious threat to you

The enemy poses about as much threat to Israel as rowdy protesters pose a threat to Homelander.  The only reason they took so many casualties was because the IDF was busy on the West Bank kicking Palestinians out of their homes.  The number of casualties on the Israeli side hasn't changed since October 7 should tell you exactly how much of a threat Hamas is.

I really get the impression that you haven't put much time into understanding exactly what's happening in Gaza.  It's not that the IDF is targeting civilians exactly.  It's that they're not really targeting anything.  They're just destroying everything and indiscriminately killing everyone.  They even shot their own hostages for the crime of waving a white flag at them.

Meanwhile, Hamas, the people you probably think Israel is targeting, they're in fortified tunnels beneath Gaza.  They're going to be the last ones who die.

Killing conscripted soldiers is just as inhumane as killing civilians.

This is horrible logic.  Using this logic you can justify October 7 or Sep 11.

War is inhumane.

This is a nonsense statement.  This is like saying all politicians are bad so I'm not going to vote. 

"Inhumane" is bad right?  Shouldn't we then push to make a war in progress less inhumane then?  It might surprise you to learn that brutality in a war is not the same thing as effectiveness.  Often it's a sign of ineffectiveness. 

Israel's actions are not going to make Israel safer.  When all this is over the only thing they will have done is killed a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.

Don't you just love Jacky?

We were all on the side of Hamas and terrorism for suggesting that Israel was being a tad over zealous in killing 18,000 plus people even when we qualified it with the fact that what Hamas did was vile and wrong.

Then when I pointed out using a Times Of Israel article that Netanyahu and his people had allowed funding to Hamas to split the Palestinian caucus, I was quoting sources with no sources, so then I provide the sources, including the interview with Smotrich and a direct quote from ex-  Israel Defense Forces intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, it was quote mining and they didn't mean what they specifically said.
Finally I quote an article from the oldest newspaper in Israel, that quotes a book written by a former cabinet member and his recollections and a direct quote from a Major General of the reserves saying “Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.” And I'm a conspiracy nut, all because he can't admit this was something he had no knowledge of and it doesn't fit the story he has bought into.

The reason I use Israeli sources on this is because I figure as they are intimately involved in this, they have better knowledge and incite into what is and has happened with their country than me, it turns out that no, the keyboard warrior from Aus' is the definitive expert, silly me.   

Just apply some common sense to this.  Which is more likely?
Japan didn't surrender after we incinerated 68 cities but that 69th(nice) was what finally did it.
Or
The Red Army which had already gobbled up half of Europe is now marching in their direction.

Yes, what is more likely?
That Japan already knew they were going to lose the war and were just hoping to inflict large amounts of casualties on their enemy to try to get more favourable terms, and then a new enemy joining which would have just caused more deaths which they were happy for suddenly made them stop and want peace and surrender.
Or
That Japan already knew they were going to lose the war and were just hoping to inflict large amounts of casualties on their enemy to try to get more favourable terms, but a new weapon was being used which appeared to be capable of causing vastly more destruction to them without a significant loss of life to their enemy, especially with the uncertainty of how many bombs the allies had.

It is quite unlikely that a country which knew it was likely going to be defeated but wanted more favourable terms would turn around and surrender just because another military joined which would likely launch an invasion with lots of casualties on both sides.

They knew they would be invaded given enough time. They knew they would lose, given enough time. But a conventional assault would mean they get to take out loads of the enemy as well, demoralising them and making them more likely to accept better terms for surrender.

Even with the previous bombing of cities, this required lots of planes from the allies with lots shot down, which while minor is still inflicting damage upon the enemy.
But with the atomic bombs, only a single bomber was required to do the same damage, making it much harder to take out.

With the atomic bombs they had the prospect of annihilation of Japan without significant casualties on the other side.

Now think about where you get your history from and why they might present it a certain way.

And do the same for you.
It is in their interest to present the atomic bomb as an entirely unneeded atrocity; one which didn't bring about the end of the war, but instead was a war crime which just harmed innocent civilians.
Both sides can be biased.

Japan gets to excuse their loss due to their opponent cheating.

How?
This just shows they were not able to develop a better weapon while their enemy was.
That they lost the nuclear arms race and because of that they lost the war.
But given it just means they ended the war early with less loss of life, and they still would have lost without it, that doesn't really save them.
All it means is they lost sooner and weren't able to damage the enemy as much.

They still lost and they would have lost regardless.

The enemy poses about as much threat to Israel as rowdy protesters pose a threat to Homelander.  The only reason they took so many casualties was because the IDF was busy on the West Bank kicking Palestinians out of their homes.  The number of casualties on the Israeli side hasn't changed since October 7 should tell you exactly how much of a threat Hamas is.

BS.
Israel is not a super-hero with godlike powers that will magically prevent their people from being killed by terrorists.
Likewise, Hamas is not just a collection of rowdy protesters. They are an organised terrorist group with access to military weaponry.
The victims of Oct 7th are not the only victims.
There have been plenty of Israeli deaths before, and even some after.

Even if there were no deaths after, all that shows is that Hamas is currently not in a position to attack.
But if Israel just stopped, and acted like nothing happened, it would again place Hamas in a position where they can attack.

So it would just show that in the current circumstances of Gaza under siege, Hamas is not a threat to the rest of Israel.

I really get the impression that you haven't put much time into understanding exactly what's happening in Gaza.  It's not that the IDF is targeting civilians exactly.  It's that they're not really targeting anything.  They're just destroying everything and indiscriminately killing everyone.  They even shot their own hostages for the crime of waving a white flag at them.

Meanwhile, Hamas, the people you probably think Israel is targeting, they're in fortified tunnels beneath Gaza.  They're going to be the last ones who die.

They are targeting the known location of Hamas, the Gaza strip.
And they are also going into the tunnels.

You also have statements that the IDF people who shot the hostages defied protocol, from the IDF Chief of Staff.

This is horrible logic.  Using this logic you can justify October 7 or Sep 11.

Why?
Conscripts are effectively civilians that are forced to fight.
They don't really have a choice.
And no, that cannot be used to justify Oct 7 or Sep 11, because even if they were against military targets, they wouldn't be justified.

This is a nonsense statement.  This is like saying all politicians are bad so I'm not going to vote.

"Inhumane" is bad right?  Shouldn't we then push to make a war in progress less inhumane then?

No, it isn't a nonsense statement, for the very reason that it is not a simple question to answer.
Will doing so make the war take much longer, resulting in much more loss of life and more inhumanity in general?
Because of this, the question can be asked if we should strive to end the war as quickly as possible, even if it involves some significant "inhumanities" to do so, with the hope of making it more humane overall?

It is not a simple question with a simple answer.

It might surprise you to learn that brutality in a war is not the same thing as effectiveness.  Often it's a sign of ineffectiveness.

And that can be a sign of the side carrying out that intentionally choosing an ineffective strategy, or it could be a sign that the only way to stop the enemy is ineffective.
As a comparison, consider various treatments for diseases. If you have a localised bacterial infection, it can often be treated by antibiotics, sometimes even through topical applications. That is quite effective as it pretty much only destroys the bacteria. Conversely, if you have cancer, the best treatments are typically poisons administered indiscriminately which indiscriminately kills cells, with the hopes that more cancer is killed due to their greater energy demands and greater rate of replication. These cancer treatments aren't as effective, but it is the best we have.

Hamas is not like a standard military with clearly defined military outposts which can be targeted and destroyed in an efficient and effective strike against Hamas. Instead it is far more like a cancer, spread throughout without a clearly defined target to attack, leading to less efficient and less effective strikes against them.

Israel's actions are not going to make Israel safer.  When all this is over the only thing they will have done is killed a lot of people who had nothing to do with it.

That remains to be seen.
If they just stop now and allow Hamas to return to power, that is all that would have happened.
If they irradiate Hamas, then it may have made Israel safer.

Edit: fixed quote attribution. No idea how I messed that up.

Don't you just love Jacky?

You mean your fantasy version, where you just strawman me?

Then when I pointed out using a Times Of Israel article that Netanyahu and his people had allowed funding to Hamas to split the Palestinian caucus, I was quoting sources with no sources, so then I provide the sources, including the interview with Smotrich and a direct quote from ex-  Israel Defense Forces intelligence chief Amos Yadlin, it was quote mining and they didn't mean what they specifically said.

Yes, you claimed that Israel saw Hamas as an asset and helped grow them.
For this, the quote you used simply identified that Hamas is an asset when it comes to delegitimizing Palestine, without any indication of funding or supporting them.

Finally I quote an article from the oldest newspaper in Israel, that quotes a book written by a former cabinet member and his recollections and a direct quote from a Major General of the reserves saying “Openly Hamas is an enemy. Covertly, it’s an ally.” And I'm a conspiracy nut, all because he can't admit this was something he had no knowledge of and it doesn't fit the story he has bought into.

Sure, a quote from a previous cabinet minister, who finished their political career in 2009, from a different party (it split in 2005), yet somehow knows what happened in a private meeting of that different party in 2019.
That would be like a former Canadian military general, who retired in 2009 saying the US captured an alien spacecraft in 2019 and talked about in a top secret 2019 meeting for US generals.

Likewise, that general retired in 2014.
Does he have anything official showing that they are covertly treating Hamas as an ally and supporting it, or is it just their belief?

I get all my Japanese WWII history from Godzilla.

Everything about Japan's role in world war two is pure bs. The USA practiced burning wooden Japanese houses in the Nevada desert for months. The reason for Japan's surrender was not the non-existent so-called atomic bomb, but the mass civilian deaths. Today, houses in the world are made of reinforced concrete and in this case, the effect of the so-called atomic bomb of the USA, Russia or Israel is zero. We see this in the wars taking place in different geographies of the world.

It is understandable that an AI bot acts as if this fact does not exist, but it is interesting that the moderators, who have been on this forum for years and have seen all the posts, play the role of fools. Then suddenly the number of brain signals per second drops from 100 trillion to minus 5. But he's smart, hell yeah.

Jacky, whilst I am not surprised at your dismissal of evidence contrary to your stance (It’s Jacky FFS!), it does beggar belief that you maintain it in the face of three respected Israeli Newspapers and countless other sources available at the click of a search engine in favour of the official line of an extreme religious regime bent on apartheid containment and “mowing the grass” as far as Gaza’s concerned.

A cursory look at “Israel, Qatar, money for Hamas” throws up the New York Times, MSN, CNN, The Telegraph and so on. The New York Times article is behind a paywall but it is extensively quoted in the Irish Times, including,
“The payments were part of a string of decisions by Israeli political leaders, military officers and intelligence officials – all based on the fundamentally flawed assessment that Hamas was neither interested in nor capable of a large-scale attack.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2023/12/12/buying-quiet-inside-the-israeli-plan-that-propped-up-hamas/.

And here’s a quote from a Reuters piece.

“Israel used to permit the Gulf state to send millions of dollars into Gaza through Israeli border crossings to support Hamas' cash-strapped government. But Israeli authorities halted such Qatari aid in May, demanding more checks on how the money is used.” Reuters.

But hey I’ll defer to Australia’s middle east expert, furiously defending his original badly researched hawkish declaration.