Israel-Gaza war

[Pres Mike]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

[Vosem]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

No, the whole point of the Nuremberg trials and the IMTFE was holding the Nazis and Japanese to the same standards as the US. Laws which are not universal are not true laws at all.

(Of course, a substantial point of the warfare was that the Nazis and Japanese failed to meet those standards.)

[Devils30]

Give it a rest, even many Jewish people are increasingly speaking out against these brutal war crimes and receiving hatred and even having their identity questioned for not supporting this lunatic right-wing government of Israel.

A few hundred kids trying to piss off their parents by advocating for their own extermination are not a social movement. Regardless, they are still irrelevant. Hamas and the ensuing carefully coordinated global wave of violent Judenhass has awakened every bit of collective trauma from Jewish history. The world is now finding out what we actually meant when we said "Never Again". Pay attention.

That sounds like a threat, to be honest.

I don't have the power to execute any threats on this issue! But Israel definitely wants this attitude to be seen as a threat to any who would escalate this conflict beyond the Israel-Hamas one it is right now, yes.

Your threat is rather vague.

I will point out that soon after the war I heard three neo-conservatives making essentially the same following argument:

1) Israel is entitled to vanquish all its enemies;

2) Iran is one of those enemies;

3) Iran is a distant, more populous nation, so it can only be defeated one way;

4) Therefore, Israel is completely justified in pursuing that one way!

We all know what way that is, don't we?

There is no chance any war with Iran would come without US involvement. Hopefully it won't come to this but any action to remove the Iranian regime would involve the US running the show, not Israel.

[GoTfan]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

[Vosem]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

[GoTfan]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

Right, except you can't really compare the situations here with a conflict in Europe (where an alt-right azi-adjacent party is leading the polls by the way) with this one, which has entrenched itself over the last 76.

By the way, when are you going to walk back your acdusation that I support slavery?

[Vosem]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

Right, except you can't really compare the situations here with a conflict in Europe (where an alt-right azi-adjacent party is leading the polls by the way) with this one, which has entrenched itself over the last 76.

By the way, when are you going to walk back your acdusation that I support slavery?

Sure you can; I just did. One side has decided to break international law by trying to conquer an existing country, and the other side is not that. The situations are very analogous, down to the victor being substantially (although far from entirely) armed by the United States.

I will walk back this accusation when you support the forces fighting Hamas and the Houthis.

[GoTfan]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

Right, except you can't really compare the situations here with a conflict in Europe (where an alt-right azi-adjacent party is leading the polls by the way) with this one, which has entrenched itself over the last 76.

By the way, when are you going to walk back your acdusation that I support slavery?

Sure you can; I just did. One side has decided to break international law by trying to conquer an existing country, and the other side is not that. The situations are very analogous, down to the victor being substantially (although far from entirely) armed by the United States.

I will walk back this accusation when you support the forces fighting Hamas and the Houthis.

I do. I just happen to not think that the deaths of every civilian in Gaza is justifiable.

Walk back the slavery accusation. It's a disgusting thing to accuse me of when you know damn well what my family history is.

[Vosem]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

Right, except you can't really compare the situations here with a conflict in Europe (where an alt-right azi-adjacent party is leading the polls by the way) with this one, which has entrenched itself over the last 76.

By the way, when are you going to walk back your acdusation that I support slavery?

Sure you can; I just did. One side has decided to break international law by trying to conquer an existing country, and the other side is not that. The situations are very analogous, down to the victor being substantially (although far from entirely) armed by the United States.

I will walk back this accusation when you support the forces fighting Hamas and the Houthis.

I do. I just happen to not think that the deaths of every civilian in Gaza is justifiable.

Walk back the slavery accusation. It's a disgusting thing to accuse me of when you know damn well what my family history is.

GoTfan, we had a long conversation over DMs, in which I wrote you substantial information about my family history, but all you said was that you had a "personal history" with slavery. You did not tell me what your family history is. Whatever it is, I'm sorry that it happened to you and your loved ones, and I sincerely think that you're a well-intentioned person. You have every right to disagree with my views; but I think yours are wrong and very dangerous.

It's 2 AM here and I'm going to leave this conversation.

[GoTfan]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies. How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves" Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

Didn't the US hold itself to a higher standard than Al Qaeda? Or what about the Nazis and Japenese

Vosem seems to genuinely believe that anyone and everyone is a legitimate target. It's called unrestricted warfare. He is literally on record as saying that any amount of dead Gazans is justified if Hamas is destroyed.

Some people don't understand that if you kill half of Gazans while eliminating everyone currently in Hamas, there will be something much more extreme to replace it.

No, this is not actually how history has worked to date; it is a lie from the anti-Vietnam movement meant to discourage American intervention in Southeast Asia. You absolutely can defeat ideas by force. The video below, once a patriotic song in East Germany, is a testament to a recent example of this (so recent that I have met participants in the effort); if you teach people that the consequence of an idea is the violent response of the entire world, then they will abandon that idea. This is what violent ideas seeking to overrun existing countries fundamentally deserve.

Wir haben in Schlachten das Heer uns geschaffen,
Und schlagen den Feind, der uns frech überrannt,
Entscheiden das Los von Geschlechtern mit Waffen,
Und führen zum Ruhm unser heimatlich Land.

Right, except you can't really compare the situations here with a conflict in Europe (where an alt-right azi-adjacent party is leading the polls by the way) with this one, which has entrenched itself over the last 76.

By the way, when are you going to walk back your acdusation that I support slavery?

Sure you can; I just did. One side has decided to break international law by trying to conquer an existing country, and the other side is not that. The situations are very analogous, down to the victor being substantially (although far from entirely) armed by the United States.

I will walk back this accusation when you support the forces fighting Hamas and the Houthis.

I do. I just happen to not think that the deaths of every civilian in Gaza is justifiable.

Walk back the slavery accusation. It's a disgusting thing to accuse me of when you know damn well what my family history is.

GoTfan, we had a long conversation over DMs, in which I wrote you substantial information about my family history, but all you said was that you had a "personal history" with slavery. You did not tell me what your family history is. Whatever it is, I'm sorry that it happened to you and your loved ones, and I sincerely think that you're a well-intentioned person. You have every right to disagree with my views; but I think yours are wrong and very dangerous.

It's 2 AM here and I'm going to leave this conversation.

You obviously don't think that. You've accused me of supporting slavery and tried to characterise me as a Hamas supporter.

[dead0man]

for the love of all that is good and holy, EDIT YOUR FUNKING POSTS!  You don't have to have the entire freaking conversation in every freaking post.  It takes 3 seconds of your time and it saves thousands of people a fraction of a second.  Do the math, assist your fellow man here guys.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies.

How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves"

Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

You have just made an assertion that collapses if one simply responds, "Why?" You provide no why, and there really isn't one. Every set of facts and circumstances are different, and many of those differences rise to the level of a difference in kind. To suggest "rules" have to be applied "equally" across those differences of kinds is the very definition of consistency being the hobgoblin of a simple mind. As to case of Israel, specifically, I would have to say that to extent rules exists we have been particularly lenient with Israel. When one nation's people are killed it is understandable that the aggrieved nation kill some of offender's people in retaliation. But, when the kill ration reaches ten-to-one, or twenty-to-one in Israel's case, it begins to violate the rule and norm that responds should and ought be proportional to the underlying offense.  When responses are grossly disproportional the once victim transforms into the offender. That is what we are witnessing in Gaza.

[BigSkyBob]

Once again, it is purely thanks to Hamas's violation of the Geneva convention, committing a horrendous war crime by intentionally putting civilians in harm's way, that there are so many civilian deaths.  It is not Israel's fault.  Israel would ideally like to have zero civilian casualties if that was possible.  But it's not possible, entirely thanks to Hamas.

Israel must choose between the two goals of (A) destroying Hamas, and (B) avoiding any civilian casualties.  Up until 10/7, they were going with option B.  Hamas and the world have made it clear that Israel will receive nothing but punishment in return for that decision.  So they've now switched to option A.

If you blame Israel and have no smoke for Hamas, that says an awful lot about you.  Either you're so ignorant that you simply don't understand the basics of the conflict as I've described them above, you're so anti-Semitic that you think Israeli war crimes count but Hamas's are actually fine and dandy and justified, or you're so easily taken in by social media propaganda that you think Israel is intentionally murdering civilians and committing various other horrible crimes that they're not actually committing.

It's never made sense of me why apparently the only answer to war crimes is more war crimes. I don't think the abstract goal of "destroying Hamas" is worth Israel blowing up most of Gaza.

The notion that HAMAS can be destroyed is a fantasy. Even if Israel identifies and kills every member of HAMAS, the idea of HAMAS will not die. To the extent the residents of Gaza are allowed their political self-determination, after having their homes destroyed by the Israelis, the politicians most like HAMAS will naturally and normally rise to the top. Before the war, there were two million Palestinians, 200,000 of which snuck into Israel daily for employment, and had an incentive to keep the peace. Those workers had families. After the war, there will be 1.95+ millions Palestinians all of which will hate Israel. Way to go Bibi! You plaved right in the HAMAS's hands and granted them the ultimate victory.

[Vosem]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies.

How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves"

Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

You have just made an assertion that collapses if one simply responds, "Why?" You provide no why, and there really isn't one. Every set of facts and circumstances are different, and many of those differences rise to the level of a difference in kind. To suggest "rules" have to be applied "equally" across those differences of kinds is the very definition of consistency being the hobgoblin of a simple mind. As to case of Israel, specifically, I would have to say that to extent rules exists we have been particularly lenient with Israel. When one nation's people are killed it is understandable that the aggrieved nation kill some of offender's people in retaliation. But, when the kill ration reaches ten-to-one, or twenty-to-one in Israel's case, it begins to violate the rule and norm that responds should and ought be proportional to the underlying offense.  When responses are grossly disproportional the once victim transforms into the offender. That is what we are witnessing in Gaza.

I think "laws should be applied equally" is a very simple concept because if they are not applied equally they will be applied prejudicially, to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others

(sane, apparently not normal?)

I think to the extent that rules exist they tend to be judged particularly harshly with respect to Israel; for example, the norm is that the proportional response to terrorist attacks perpetrated by a government is the overthrow of that government, regardless of what the "kill ration" (one assumes you meant "ratio") ends up being, which is not a consideration.

Once again, it is purely thanks to Hamas's violation of the Geneva convention, committing a horrendous war crime by intentionally putting civilians in harm's way, that there are so many civilian deaths.  It is not Israel's fault.  Israel would ideally like to have zero civilian casualties if that was possible.  But it's not possible, entirely thanks to Hamas.

Israel must choose between the two goals of (A) destroying Hamas, and (B) avoiding any civilian casualties.  Up until 10/7, they were going with option B.  Hamas and the world have made it clear that Israel will receive nothing but punishment in return for that decision.  So they've now switched to option A.

If you blame Israel and have no smoke for Hamas, that says an awful lot about you.  Either you're so ignorant that you simply don't understand the basics of the conflict as I've described them above, you're so anti-Semitic that you think Israeli war crimes count but Hamas's are actually fine and dandy and justified, or you're so easily taken in by social media propaganda that you think Israel is intentionally murdering civilians and committing various other horrible crimes that they're not actually committing.

It's never made sense of me why apparently the only answer to war crimes is more war crimes. I don't think the abstract goal of "destroying Hamas" is worth Israel blowing up most of Gaza.

The notion that HAMAS can be destroyed is a fantasy. Even if Israel identifies and kills every member of HAMAS, the idea of HAMAS will not die. To the extent the residents of Gaza are allowed their political self-determination, after having their homes destroyed by the Israelis, the politicians most like HAMAS will naturally and normally rise to the top. Before the war, there were two million Palestinians, 200,000 of which snuck into Israel daily for employment, and had an incentive to keep the peace. Those workers had families. After the war, there will be 1.95+ millions Palestinians all of which will hate Israel. Way to go Bibi! You plaved right in the HAMAS's hands and granted them the ultimate victory.

No, actually it is very common for countries to turn against ideologies whose application leads to their destruction by foreign powers. 1979 did not strengthen the Khmer Rouge, 1945 did not strengthen Nazism, and 1871 did not strengthen Bonapartism. The notion that Gaza being obliterated under their watch will strengthen Hamas is a cope.

[BigSkyBob]

Why do people keep insisting that "destroying Hamas" is an abstract goal? It's absolutely possible to destroy a political party by seizing their assets and arresting their leadership and cadres. I understand that Hamas has lots of fellow travelers in Gaza, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to identify and punish these individuals. One could imagine an occupation authority evaluating everyone and separating them into five categories:

1. Major Offenders - Hauptschuldige

2. Offenders: Activists, Militants, or Profiteers - Belastete

3. Minor Offenders - Minderbelastete

4. Followers - Mitläufer

5. Exonerated Persons - Entlastete

This would come with a sliding scale of punishments, with individuals involved in planning or carrying out attacks on the IDF (or civilians, including Palestinian ones) hanged as common criminals, and then lesser penalties for lesser offenses like merely supporting Hamas rule in the abstract. Ultimately you can create a society where it is dangerous not to have proof that you are an exonerated person and pose no threat to Zionism.

The just outcome of this war is the creation of a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism; then a Doha, and then a Manhattan. In practice, I suspect that a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism won't be created until a Manhattan is first, once a Republican Administration defunds UN refugee agencies and "humanitarian" efforts, and friendly jury in Florida bankrupts the New York Times.

A "Gaza without Palestinian liberationism" is a territory where the residents lack political self-determination. Starting at the top of the list, and, working down until you have some survivors you will find the new political class in Gaza. Ultimately, you will have a society where it is dangerous to have been proven to be no threat to Zionism. Those deemed sufficiently innocent will be the ones shouting, "Death to Israel!" the loudest for reasons of self-preservation.

When you talk about someone carrying out such investigation you are talking about Israel doing it because of the simple fact no other nation would be ever considering doing such. Neo-conservative bloodlust isn't a rational policy. Nor, is hanging people. In case you don't know, Israel doesn't have the death penalty. How do you propose hanging "common criminals" when Israel does hang "common criminals?" But, supposing Israel decides the-death-penalty-is-for-thee-and-not-for-me, when the Israelis hang those "common criminals" before their children the children aren't going to think, "Crime doesn't pay!," but, rather, the children will vow vengeance against the people who executed their fathers in such a gruesome manner. HAMAS will thank you for every execution silently. HAMAS will thank you for the gratuitous brutally of their executions silently. You are not going to execute your way to victory.

Fundamentally, your real problem is that you are formulating what victory for Israel could look like rather an accepting the fact that HAMAS has won. The number of radicalize Palestinians is greater, and the number of Palestinians who sneak into Israel for work, and thus have an incentive for peace, is and, perhaps, forever will be, zero.

[Vosem]

Why do people keep insisting that "destroying Hamas" is an abstract goal? It's absolutely possible to destroy a political party by seizing their assets and arresting their leadership and cadres. I understand that Hamas has lots of fellow travelers in Gaza, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to identify and punish these individuals. One could imagine an occupation authority evaluating everyone and separating them into five categories:

1. Major Offenders - Hauptschuldige

2. Offenders: Activists, Militants, or Profiteers - Belastete

3. Minor Offenders - Minderbelastete

4. Followers - Mitläufer

5. Exonerated Persons - Entlastete

This would come with a sliding scale of punishments, with individuals involved in planning or carrying out attacks on the IDF (or civilians, including Palestinian ones) hanged as common criminals, and then lesser penalties for lesser offenses like merely supporting Hamas rule in the abstract. Ultimately you can create a society where it is dangerous not to have proof that you are an exonerated person and pose no threat to Zionism.

The just outcome of this war is the creation of a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism; then a Doha, and then a Manhattan. In practice, I suspect that a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism won't be created until a Manhattan is first, once a Republican Administration defunds UN refugee agencies and "humanitarian" efforts, and friendly jury in Florida bankrupts the New York Times.

A "Gaza without Palestinian liberationism" is a territory where the residents lack political self-determination. Starting at the top of the list, and, working down until you have some survivors you will find the new political class in Gaza. Ultimately, you will have a society where it is dangerous to have been proven to be no threat to Zionism. Those deemed sufficiently innocent will be the ones shouting, "Death to Israel!" the loudest for reasons of self-preservation.

No, actually setting the goal of conquest aside is something all other nations have done and holding Palestine to this standard is very reasonable. I understand that at the moment such a goal is cant in Gazan rhetoric. My point is that it would be historically precedented for this to change as a consequence of severe military defeat, depending on the policies pursued by the next government.

When you talk about someone carrying out such investigation you are talking about Israel doing it because of the simple fact no other nation would be ever considering doing such.

Well, yes, in practice while many of the other Arab countries are co-belligerents only Israel has actually launched a ground invasion of Gaza. I think this is kind of unfortunate (I've said before that the just response to 10/7 would have been every country on Earth bombing Gaza, rather than just one), but it makes sense given current political considerations.

Neo-conservative bloodlust isn't a rational policy. Nor, is hanging people.

Hanging people for rape/murder/assault with a deadly weapon is a perfectly rational policy and it's how we get a society with less rape/murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

In case you don't know, Israel doesn't have the death penalty. How do you propose hanging "common criminals" when Israel does hang "common criminals?"

I get commonly accused of being a sycophant for Israel, but I am in fact perfectly comfortable criticizing them: Israel should adopt the death penalty. At the moment Israel has such a penalty only for the crime of 'genocide', to hold it up as worse than regular murder (and its government has insisted in the past on extraterritorial jurisdiction for this), so it could nevertheless apply such a penalty to "major offenders", but I think this would be a little bit silly.

But, supposing Israel decides the-death-penalty-is-for-thee-and-not-for-me, when the Israelis hang those "common criminals" before their children the children aren't going to think, "Crime doesn't pay!," but, rather, the children will vow vengeance against the people who executed their fathers in such a gruesome manner. HAMAS will thank you for every execution silently. HAMAS will thank you for the gratuitous brutally of their executions silently. You are not going to execute your way to victory.

Take it from someone descended from generations of Bolsheviks: you absolutely can.

Fundamentally, your real problem is that you are formulating what victory for Israel could look like rather an accepting the fact that HAMAS has won. The number of radicalize Palestinians is greater, and the number of Palestinians who sneak into Israel for work, and thus have an incentive for peace, is and, perhaps, forever will be, zero.

No, the government of a city state reduced to ruins has not won. They have not been able to prevent Arab states from becoming Israeli co-belligerents; even if you insist on judging a military conflict by its effects in the political sphere, or in public opinion, Israel has won and in fact quite decisively.

[BigSkyBob]

I don't know about "anti-Semitic", necessarily, but it is unfair and bizarre to hold Israel to a higher standard than other countries; if you really do hold the West to a higher standard than the rest of the world, then this strikes me as meaningfully anti-Western, since its practical effect is just to make life easier for their enemies.

How does holding ourselves (the west) to a higher standard make us "anti our selves"

Applying any rule or limitation to some but not others protects those to whom the rule is not applied and constricts those to whom the rule is applied. There must not ever be a standard which is not applied evenly, to the wealthy and the poor, the white and the black, the Jew and the Greek, the Western and the non-Western.

You have just made an assertion that collapses if one simply responds, "Why?" You provide no why, and there really isn't one. Every set of facts and circumstances are different, and many of those differences rise to the level of a difference in kind. To suggest "rules" have to be applied "equally" across those differences of kinds is the very definition of consistency being the hobgoblin of a simple mind. As to case of Israel, specifically, I would have to say that to extent rules exists we have been particularly lenient with Israel. When one nation's people are killed it is understandable that the aggrieved nation kill some of offender's people in retaliation. But, when the kill ration reaches ten-to-one, or twenty-to-one in Israel's case, it begins to violate the rule and norm that responds should and ought be proportional to the underlying offense.  When responses are grossly disproportional the once victim transforms into the offender. That is what we are witnessing in Gaza.

I think "laws should be applied equally" is a very simple concept because if they are not applied equally they will be applied prejudicially, to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others

(sane, apparently not normal?)

I think to the extent that rules exist they tend to be judged particularly harshly with respect to Israel; for example, the norm is that the proportional response to terrorist attacks perpetrated by a government is the overthrow of that government, regardless of what the "kill ration" (one assumes you meant "ratio") ends up being, which is not a consideration.

Right now, in the United States, if two people commit the same crime, and, one is a drug addict, and, one is not, they are not treated the same. We punish the more innocent one, and we try to rehabilitate the more guilty one. I think that is horrible public policy, but, I don't claim it is "prejudicial" in any fashion. You are asserting an ideal that simply does not exist in the real world.

As to proportional response, you are not being accurate, and, perhaps not truthful. Israel overran the Saini in 6 days. I don't take seriously the viewpoint that Israel could not have capture the Gaza Strip in 6 weeks. The conflict has been dragged out to maximize the damage to the physical infrastructure there. That is not targeting HAMAS, that is targeting civilians. Destroying every home is grossly disproportionate.
 

Once again, it is purely thanks to Hamas's violation of the Geneva convention, committing a horrendous war crime by intentionally putting civilians in harm's way, that there are so many civilian deaths.  It is not Israel's fault.  Israel would ideally like to have zero civilian casualties if that was possible.  But it's not possible, entirely thanks to Hamas.

Israel must choose between the two goals of (A) destroying Hamas, and (B) avoiding any civilian casualties.  Up until 10/7, they were going with option B.  Hamas and the world have made it clear that Israel will receive nothing but punishment in return for that decision.  So they've now switched to option A.

If you blame Israel and have no smoke for Hamas, that says an awful lot about you.  Either you're so ignorant that you simply don't understand the basics of the conflict as I've described them above, you're so anti-Semitic that you think Israeli war crimes count but Hamas's are actually fine and dandy and justified, or you're so easily taken in by social media propaganda that you think Israel is intentionally murdering civilians and committing various other horrible crimes that they're not actually committing.

It's never made sense of me why apparently the only answer to war crimes is more war crimes. I don't think the abstract goal of "destroying Hamas" is worth Israel blowing up most of Gaza.

The notion that HAMAS can be destroyed is a fantasy. Even if Israel identifies and kills every member of HAMAS, the idea of HAMAS will not die. To the extent the residents of Gaza are allowed their political self-determination, after having their homes destroyed by the Israelis, the politicians most like HAMAS will naturally and normally rise to the top. Before the war, there were two million Palestinians, 200,000 of which snuck into Israel daily for employment, and had an incentive to keep the peace. Those workers had families. After the war, there will be 1.95+ millions Palestinians all of which will hate Israel. Way to go Bibi! You plaved right in the HAMAS's hands and granted them the ultimate victory.

No, actually it is very common for countries to turn against ideologies whose application leads to their destruction by foreign powers. 1979 did not strengthen the Khmer Rouge, 1945 did not strengthen Nazism, and 1871 did not strengthen Bonapartism. The notion that Gaza being obliterated under their watch will strengthen Hamas is a cope.

Your argument has the flaw that United States because friends with Japan and Germany after the war. That simply isn't going to happen in Gaza. We did that because we were rational self-interested people. The people of Gaza aren't ever going to blame anyone other than Israel for destroying their homes. That is how human nature works. Employment in Israel was the Trojan Horse that was undermining HAMAS. HAMAS ended it, and Israel took the blame. HAMAS 1 Israel 0.

[Vosem]

Right now, in the United States, if two people commit the same crime, and, one is a drug addict, and, one is not, they are not treated the same. We punish the more innocent one, and we try to rehabilitate the more guilty one. I think that is horrible public policy, but, I don't claim it is "prejudicial" in any fashion. You are asserting an ideal that simply does not exist in the real world.

As to proportional response, you are not being accurate, and, perhaps not truthful. Israel overran the Saini in 6 days. I don't take seriously the viewpoint that Israel could not have capture the Gaza Strip in 6 weeks. The conflict has been dragged out to maximize the damage to the physical infrastructure there. That is not targeting HAMAS, that is targeting civilians. Destroying every home is grossly disproportionate.

I don't think anything you are saying disproves my contention that "the law should be applied equally" is a desirable condition. This doesn't mean that there can't be mitigating factors -- I would support more lenient punishments for very young offenders, who might plausibly reform, than for older offenders, who are likelier to be set in their ways -- but these, too, should be applied equally.

I think highly mobile tank warfare is of a different kind than attempting to storm a heavily fortified city. (I also think, while I substantially disagree with many of his assessments, Modern Bourbon Democrat is obviously correct that the conditions of 21st-century warfare are such that the defenders' advantage has grown substantially.)
 

Your argument has the flaw that United States because friends with Japan and Germany after the war. That simply isn't going to happen in Gaza. We did that because we were rational self-interested people. The people of Gaza aren't ever going to blame anyone other than Israel for destroying their homes. That is how human nature works. Employment in Israel was the Trojan Horse that was undermining HAMAS. HAMAS ended it, and Israel took the blame. HAMAS 1 Israel 0.

It would absolutely be possible to occupy Gaza, install an explicit Collaborationist Party government (and not the PA; a government which installs an education system saying that the IDF victory was good) which is dependent on Israeli backup to remain in power, and then leave them there for a few decades. By the conclusion of that time period those who have done well under Collaborationist rule, and the particularly credulous who have grown up in that education system, will be sufficiently set in their ways that even if there is a shift away from that government there will not be a societal consensus in favor of attacking Israel. Also, those most opposed to Collaborationist rule will gradually leave, and the Collaborationists can keep hanging people who oppose them.

Source: the Eastern Bloc was a thing that existed. This is also basically what the Syngman Rhee regime in South Korea was, in my understanding.

[BigSkyBob]

Why do people keep insisting that "destroying Hamas" is an abstract goal? It's absolutely possible to destroy a political party by seizing their assets and arresting their leadership and cadres. I understand that Hamas has lots of fellow travelers in Gaza, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to identify and punish these individuals. One could imagine an occupation authority evaluating everyone and separating them into five categories:

1. Major Offenders - Hauptschuldige

2. Offenders: Activists, Militants, or Profiteers - Belastete

3. Minor Offenders - Minderbelastete

4. Followers - Mitläufer

5. Exonerated Persons - Entlastete

This would come with a sliding scale of punishments, with individuals involved in planning or carrying out attacks on the IDF (or civilians, including Palestinian ones) hanged as common criminals, and then lesser penalties for lesser offenses like merely supporting Hamas rule in the abstract. Ultimately you can create a society where it is dangerous not to have proof that you are an exonerated person and pose no threat to Zionism.

The just outcome of this war is the creation of a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism; then a Doha, and then a Manhattan. In practice, I suspect that a Gaza without Palestinian liberationism won't be created until a Manhattan is first, once a Republican Administration defunds UN refugee agencies and "humanitarian" efforts, and friendly jury in Florida bankrupts the New York Times.

A "Gaza without Palestinian liberationism" is a territory where the residents lack political self-determination. Starting at the top of the list, and, working down until you have some survivors you will find the new political class in Gaza. Ultimately, you will have a society where it is dangerous to have been proven to be no threat to Zionism. Those deemed sufficiently innocent will be the ones shouting, "Death to Israel!" the loudest for reasons of self-preservation.

No, actually setting the goal of conquest aside is something all other nations have done and holding Palestine to this standard is very reasonable. I understand that at the moment such a goal is cant in Gazan rhetoric. My point is that it would be historically precedented for this to change as a consequence of severe military defeat, depending on the policies pursued by the next government.

When you talk about someone carrying out such investigation you are talking about Israel doing it because of the simple fact no other nation would be ever considering doing such.

Well, yes, in practice while many of the other Arab countries are co-belligerents only Israel has actually launched a ground invasion of Gaza. I think this is kind of unfortunate (I've said before that the just response to 10/7 would have been every country on Earth bombing Gaza, rather than just one), but it makes sense given current political considerations.

Neo-conservative bloodlust isn't a rational policy. Nor, is hanging people.

Hanging people for rape/murder/assault with a deadly weapon is a perfectly rational policy and it's how we get a society with less rape/murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

In case you don't know, Israel doesn't have the death penalty. How do you propose hanging "common criminals" when Israel does hang "common criminals?"

I get commonly accused of being a sycophant for Israel, but I am in fact perfectly comfortable criticizing them: Israel should adopt the death penalty. At the moment Israel has such a penalty only for the crime of 'genocide', to hold it up as worse than regular murder (and its government has insisted in the past on extraterritorial jurisdiction for this), so it could nevertheless apply such a penalty to "major offenders", but I think this would be a little bit silly.

But, supposing Israel decides the-death-penalty-is-for-thee-and-not-for-me, when the Israelis hang those "common criminals" before their children the children aren't going to think, "Crime doesn't pay!," but, rather, the children will vow vengeance against the people who executed their fathers in such a gruesome manner. HAMAS will thank you for every execution silently. HAMAS will thank you for the gratuitous brutally of their executions silently. You are not going to execute your way to victory.

Take it from someone descended from generations of Bolsheviks: you absolutely can.

Fundamentally, your real problem is that you are formulating what victory for Israel could look like rather an accepting the fact that HAMAS has won. The number of radicalize Palestinians is greater, and the number of Palestinians who sneak into Israel for work, and thus have an incentive for peace, is and, perhaps, forever will be, zero.

No, the government of a city state reduced to ruins has not won. They have not been able to prevent Arab states from becoming Israeli co-belligerents; even if you insist on judging a military conflict by its effects in the political sphere, or in public opinion, Israel has won and in fact quite decisively.

The point of war is not to plant your flag on territory, but, rather, to achieve your political goals thru the use of force. HAMAS has achieved its political goals. Sure, each and every member of HAMAS just might die, but, the goals are still achieved. Israel is much further from achieving its political goals than it was in September. People swinging from a rope won't alter these basic facts.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Right now, in the United States, if two people commit the same crime, and, one is a drug addict, and, one is not, they are not treated the same. We punish the more innocent one, and we try to rehabilitate the more guilty one. I think that is horrible public policy, but, I don't claim it is "prejudicial" in any fashion. You are asserting an ideal that simply does not exist in the real world.

As to proportional response, you are not being accurate, and, perhaps not truthful. Israel overran the Saini in 6 days. I don't take seriously the viewpoint that Israel could not have capture the Gaza Strip in 6 weeks. The conflict has been dragged out to maximize the damage to the physical infrastructure there. That is not targeting HAMAS, that is targeting civilians. Destroying every home is grossly disproportionate.

I don't think anything you are saying disproves my contention that "the law should be applied equally" is a desirable condition. This doesn't mean that there can't be mitigating factors -- I would support more lenient punishments for very young offenders, who might plausibly reform, than for older offenders, who are likelier to be set in their ways -- but these, too, should be applied equally.

I think highly mobile tank warfare is of a different kind than attempting to storm a heavily fortified city. (I also think, while I substantially disagree with many of his assessments, Modern Bourbon Democrat is obviously correct that the conditions of 21st-century warfare are such that the defenders' advantage has grown substantially.)
 

Your argument has the flaw that United States because friends with Japan and Germany after the war. That simply isn't going to happen in Gaza. We did that because we were rational self-interested people. The people of Gaza aren't ever going to blame anyone other than Israel for destroying their homes. That is how human nature works. Employment in Israel was the Trojan Horse that was undermining HAMAS. HAMAS ended it, and Israel took the blame. HAMAS 1 Israel 0.

It would absolutely be possible to occupy Gaza, install an explicit Collaborationist Party government (and not the PA; a government which installs an education system saying that the IDF victory was good) which is dependent on Israeli backup to remain in power, and then leave them there for a few decades. By the conclusion of that time period those who have done well under Collaborationist rule, and the particularly credulous who have grown up in that education system, will be sufficiently set in their ways that even if there is a shift away from that government there will not be a societal consensus in favor of attacking Israel. Also, those most opposed to Collaborationist rule will gradually leave, and the Collaborationists can keep hanging people who oppose them.

Source: the Eastern Bloc was a thing that existed. This is also basically what the Syngman Rhee regime in South Korea was, in my understanding.

BigSkyBob is a notorious troll; just put him on ignore. 

[Vosem]

The point of war is not to plant your flag on territory, but, rather, to achieve your political goals thru the use of force. HAMAS has achieved its political goals. Sure, each and every member of HAMAS just might die, but, the goals are still achieved. Israel is much further from achieving its political goals than it was in September. People swinging from a rope won't alter these basic facts.

No, they didn't. The goal of 10/7 was to create a wider war in which other powers, like Hezbollah and Iran, would enter on Hamas's side. That didn't happen. Instead, a war emerged in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia chose to act as Israeli co-belligerents. 

In what way are we now closer to an independent Palestinian state? Much less one run by Hamas?

[BigSkyBob]

Right now, in the United States, if two people commit the same crime, and, one is a drug addict, and, one is not, they are not treated the same. We punish the more innocent one, and we try to rehabilitate the more guilty one. I think that is horrible public policy, but, I don't claim it is "prejudicial" in any fashion. You are asserting an ideal that simply does not exist in the real world.

As to proportional response, you are not being accurate, and, perhaps not truthful. Israel overran the Saini in 6 days. I don't take seriously the viewpoint that Israel could not have capture the Gaza Strip in 6 weeks. The conflict has been dragged out to maximize the damage to the physical infrastructure there. That is not targeting HAMAS, that is targeting civilians. Destroying every home is grossly disproportionate.

I don't think anything you are saying disproves my contention that "the law should be applied equally" is a desirable condition. This doesn't mean that there can't be mitigating factors -- I would support more lenient punishments for very young offenders, who might plausibly reform, than for older offenders, who are likelier to be set in their ways -- but these, too, should be applied equally.

I think highly mobile tank warfare is of a different kind than attempting to storm a heavily fortified city. (I also think, while I substantially disagree with many of his assessments, Modern Bourbon Democrat is obviously correct that the conditions of 21st-century warfare are such that the defenders' advantage has grown substantially.)
 

Your argument has the flaw that United States because friends with Japan and Germany after the war. That simply isn't going to happen in Gaza. We did that because we were rational self-interested people. The people of Gaza aren't ever going to blame anyone other than Israel for destroying their homes. That is how human nature works. Employment in Israel was the Trojan Horse that was undermining HAMAS. HAMAS ended it, and Israel took the blame. HAMAS 1 Israel 0.

It would absolutely be possible to occupy Gaza, install an explicit Collaborationist Party government (and not the PA; a government which installs an education system saying that the IDF victory was good) which is dependent on Israeli backup to remain in power, and then leave them there for a few decades. By the conclusion of that time period those who have done well under Collaborationist rule, and the particularly credulous who have grown up in that education system, will be sufficiently set in their ways that even if there is a shift away from that government there will not be a societal consensus in favor of attacking Israel. Also, those most opposed to Collaborationist rule will gradually leave, and the Collaborationists can keep hanging people who oppose them.

Source: the Eastern Bloc was a thing that existed. This is also basically what the Syngman Rhee regime in South Korea was, in my understanding.

Sorry, if you invade a nation and install a "government" that answers to Israel, and only Israel, that government is de facto Israeli occupation. Vichy France was Germany.  At some level you know this. But, somehow you think that it would be a fig leaf to impose policies that apparently you are unwilling to suggest Israel implement directly. At some level I am sure that you are aware that you are sentencing the "collaborators" to death, but, I don't think you care. The local population will kill them all in the fullness of time. They will live short lives, watching their backs, and living in fear. These are people you simply don't care about, so have no problem using up. I doubt Israel will find sufficient volunteers. Then, you are going to have to find "teachers" who are willing to teach the Israeli-directed propaganda. Some of these teachers will suffer the fate of other collaborators, but the vast majority won't be inspired by the project and will do a lousy job. The kids parents will do a good job at radicalizing them. Israel doesn't have the death penalty, so no one is going to swing from a rope. [And, don't give me crap about Israel passing the death penalty because it will be used to selectively target non-Jews, something that is allegedly very bad in your judgment.]

[BigSkyBob]

The point of war is not to plant your flag on territory, but, rather, to achieve your political goals thru the use of force. HAMAS has achieved its political goals. Sure, each and every member of HAMAS just might die, but, the goals are still achieved. Israel is much further from achieving its political goals than it was in September. People swinging from a rope won't alter these basic facts.

No, they didn't. The goal of 10/7 was to create a wider war in which other powers, like Hezbollah and Iran, would enter on Hamas's side. That didn't happen. Instead, a war emerged in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia chose to act as Israeli co-belligerents. 

In what way are we now closer to an independent Palestinian state? Much less one run by Hamas?

HAMAS stated their goal was to capture a sufficient number of Israelis to win the release of Palestinians held prisoner in Israel. And, yes, they are much closer to a Palestinian state than yesterday. Yesterday, it was a pipe dream, and, tomorrow it is actually on the table as the international community is forced to take another look at the situation. Nor, is it accurate to describe Egypt as a "co-belligerent." Israel wanted the Gaza population to flee thru Egypt and Egypt outright refused to play along.

[Vosem]

Sorry, if you invade a nation and install a "government" that answers to Israel, and only Israel, that government is de facto Israeli occupation. Vichy France was Germany.  At some level you know this. But, somehow you think that it would be a fig leaf to impose policies that apparently you are unwilling to suggest Israel implement directly. At some level I am sure that you are aware that you are sentencing the "collaborators" to death, but, I don't think you care. The local population will kill them all in the fullness of time. They will live short lives, watching their backs, and living in fear. These are people you simply don't care about, so have no problem using up. I doubt Israel will find sufficient volunteers. Then, you are going to have to find "teachers" who are willing to teach the Israeli-directed propaganda. Some of these teachers will suffer the fate of other collaborators, but the vast majority won't be inspired by the project and will do a lousy job. The kids parents will do a good job at radicalizing them. Israel doesn't have the death penalty, so no one is going to swing from a rope. [And, don't give me crap about Israel passing the death penalty because it will be used to selectively target non-Jews, something that is allegedly very bad in your judgment.]

The Eastern Bloc existed, quite stably, for 40 years, after which point it became unnecessary. You just can't argue with the actual experience of history. (And Vichy, unlike the Eastern Bloc, was brought down by foreign invasion rather than rebellion from within.)

The point of war is not to plant your flag on territory, but, rather, to achieve your political goals thru the use of force. HAMAS has achieved its political goals. Sure, each and every member of HAMAS just might die, but, the goals are still achieved. Israel is much further from achieving its political goals than it was in September. People swinging from a rope won't alter these basic facts.

No, they didn't. The goal of 10/7 was to create a wider war in which other powers, like Hezbollah and Iran, would enter on Hamas's side. That didn't happen. Instead, a war emerged in which Egypt and Saudi Arabia chose to act as Israeli co-belligerents. 

In what way are we now closer to an independent Palestinian state? Much less one run by Hamas?

HAMAS stated their goal was to capture a sufficient number of Israelis to win the release of Palestinians held prisoner in Israel. And, yes, they are much closer to a Palestinian state than yesterday. Yesterday, it was a pipe dream, and, tomorrow it is actually on the table as the international community is forced to take another look at the situation. Nor, is it accurate to describe Egypt as a "co-belligerent." Israel wanted the Gaza population to flee thru Egypt and Egypt outright refused to play along.

The international community is gleefully arming Israel, and it is arming nearby countries to the extent that they agree to shoot down rockets from Hamas and the Houthis -- ie, to act as Israeli co-belligerents. The Israeli leader, who formally supported a Palestinian state from 2010-2024, withdrew this support after the attack. Multiple European countries have expelled pro-Palestinian demonstrators (notably France); the current front-runner in the American elections is a man who has promised to do so.

Gaza cannot fight a stronger opponent forever. And whatever cannot go on forever will eventually stop. Simple as.