Israel-Gaza war

[GeneralMacArthur]

Waleed Shahid is a jerkoff.  This is an extremely blatant push poll.  "Experts have said" something that isn't true.  "Attacks on the people of Gaza" is an obviously biased way to frame a war.

I just know we're going to keep getting this annoying manufactured push-poll result shoved at us from now until the end of the war though, because that's what progressives do.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Waleed Shahid is a jerkoff.  This is an extremely blatant push poll.  "Experts have said" something that isn't true.  "Attacks on the people of Gaza" is an obviously biased way to frame a war.

I just know we're going to keep getting this annoying manufactured push-poll result shoved at us from now until the end of the war though, because that's what progressives do.

Yeah, that's one of the most blatant push polls I've seen in a very long time. The polls on this war continue to be all over the place.

[Silent Hunter]

Indeed, you'd get a different answer if it was "war against Hamas".

[VBM]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

[Indy Texas]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

[GoTfan]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

If you could show me where I'm saying that without trying to twist my words, I'd be grateful.

[Devils30]

Waleed Shahid is a jerkoff.  This is an extremely blatant push poll.  "Experts have said" something that isn't true.  "Attacks on the people of Gaza" is an obviously biased way to frame a war.

I just know we're going to keep getting this annoying manufactured push-poll result shoved at us from now until the end of the war though, because that's what progressives do.

The number of Islamists on Bernie’s campaign is truly astounding.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Waleed Shahid is a jerkoff.  This is an extremely blatant push poll.  "Experts have said" something that isn't true.  "Attacks on the people of Gaza" is an obviously biased way to frame a war.

I just know we're going to keep getting this annoying manufactured push-poll result shoved at us from now until the end of the war though, because that's what progressives do.

The number of Islamists on Bernie’s campaign is truly astounding.

Most of them are not Islamists they are just dickriders who jump on whatever the latest anti-Dem trend is.  Right now the trendy reason to say you hate Joe Biden and the Democrats is because of Palestine.  Six months ago it was student loans or whatever.  Give it six more months and they'll have found a completely new reason to hate him.

It's just like the people who claim they hate Pelosi because of insider trading.  They just hate Pelosi. If it wasn't insider trading it would be something else.  They just jump around until they find a reason that lets them make the best possible case to other people that they should also hate Pelosi.

Usually the reasons they give are completely divorced from reality, or they'll move the goalposts as soon as he actually does what they want.  For instance it used to be that they wanted Joe Biden to call for a ceasefire.  Joe Biden has been negotiating a ceasefire for months and even succeeded back in November.  He recently gave a speech where he called for a ceasefire.  Now they have shifted the goalposts to saying, now he's Genocide Joe because he won't cut off weapons sales to Israel.  If he does that, they'll shift the goalposts again and demand something new.  Just like they did with student loans.  The key thing is that they hate Joe Biden and hate the Democratic Party and are just fishing around for ever more reasons to try and convince other people to also hate us.

[Wiswylfen]

Trump voters aren't so "America First" when it comes to Israel.

https://twitter.com/_waleedshahid/status/1765055486926201084?t=KRWw3Ert3y2Hp1B6T...

Many such cases! So-called 'patriots' who place the interests of a foreign state above those of their own. Not just an American thing, but American 'conservatism' is especially plagued by it.

Waleed Shahid is a jerkoff.  This is an extremely blatant push poll.  "Experts have said" something that isn't true.  "Attacks on the people of Gaza" is an obviously biased way to frame a war.

I just know we're going to keep getting this annoying manufactured push-poll result shoved at us from now until the end of the war though, because that's what progressives do.

"Attacks on the people of Gaza" is a basic statement of reality.

Indeed, you'd get a different answer if it was "war against Hamas".

That would be a rather different world. The Israeli government and military have made their intent perfectly clear many times, literally openly stating it: why do Israel's defenders on here try to deny it?

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

What a question! Here's a more intellectually honest one for you: can the pro-Israel people please explain to me why thousands of children should die?

[Lord Halifax]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

What a question! Here's a more intellectually honest one for you: can the pro-Israel people please explain to me why thousands of children should die?

it might be honest, but it's also superfluous since the answer is so blatantly obvious:
because you can't conquer and occupy Gaza without substantial civilian casualties, and full Israeli control of Gaza is a prerequisite for destroying Hamas

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's tempting as it is to assume the current events in Gaza are a one-off blip in an otherwise long running conflict, the death toll in this instance is truly staggering and not at comporable to the past. Hamas terrorism on October 7th was of course responsible for starting the current conflict, by getting rid of any Israeli opposition for the current campagin and people who celebrated it as some glorious decolonail strike are more vacuumes but the  that does change the reality of current events.

More people have been killed in the last 6 months in Gaza by the IDF  than have been killed for the past 50 years of the conflict prior. So many people seem to to be trying to pretend this distinction doesn't matter but the scale of the campagin in Gaza is horrific and there's no actual end in sight for the conflict.  There's no actual proposal for a long term end to the conflict.

For those who are supportive of continuing the war, just how many palestianian deaths are acceptable for elimating hamas ?. The way people like Mr X, Vosem and Patzer act, they seem to think that killing every single resident in Gaza is worth it if it eliminates Hamas.

It would be one thing to have bombed them for a continual campagin of drone strikes and raids into Gaza to eliminate the Hamas leadership as well as a tightening of the existing blockade but the current plan of discriminate carpet bombing has no point but revenge.

Please show me where I have ever advocated “killing every single resident in Gaza.”   

I’m waiting…

Still waiting…

[Silent Hunter]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

Assassination is harder than you'd think. It's not like the Israelis haven't tried stuff like that before - like in Tunisia in 1985, where the US allowed (by abstaining) the UNSC to condemn the attack.

In this case, the political leadership is in Qatar, a well-defended US ally.

[CumbrianLefty]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

A quite outstanding straw man, even for the "Israel right or wrong no matter what" brigade.

[Pres Mike]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Who says they shouldn't? I'm a Palestinian-American and want Hamas removed. But Israel could have done that with strike teams not indiscriminate bombings that has killed 20k women and children. Modern militaries have the power to minimize civilian causalities, look at the US response in Afghanistan and Iraq (neither were perfect but leaps and bounds better than the Israeli response)

The current conflict has been prolonged by Benjamin Netanyahu to stay in power and cause maximum damage to Gaza Strip in hopes that the Palestinians will flee and live in tent cities in the Sinai desert so Israelis can resettle the strip

[Pres Mike]

To be blunt, neither Hamas nor Netanyahu want a ceasefire. Netanyahu wants to stay in power, which he believes either an indefinite conflict or total victory can do that.

Hamas knows final negotiations will require them to flee Gaza, which they don't want

[AtorBoltox]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Who says they shouldn't? I'm a Palestinian-American and want Hamas removed. But Israel could have done that with strike teams not indiscriminate bombings that has killed 20k women and children.

This take is particularly amusing. Yea, Israel should just send in their Avengers superhero squad who can  journey through hostile urban territory without a problem, disarm militant networks, rescue the hostages, and install a new political leadership in Gaza and make it home back to tel Aviv in time for dinner, all without causing any collateral damage. You really would have to believe the entirety of Israeli civil society is ontologically evil if you genuinely think they have these capabilities but instead have made the choice to carry out a months long military campaign, putting the lives of their own soldiers at risk, and for what reason? Kicks?

[Pres Mike]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Who says they shouldn't? I'm a Palestinian-American and want Hamas removed. But Israel could have done that with strike teams not indiscriminate bombings that has killed 20k women and children.

This take is particularly amusing. Yea, Israel should just send in their Avengers superhero squad who can  journey through hostile urban territory without a problem, disarm militant networks, rescue the hostages, and install a new political leadership in Gaza and make it home back to tel Aviv in time for dinner, all without causing any collateral damage. You really would have to believe the entirety of Israeli civil society is ontologically evil if you genuinely this but instead have made the choice to carry out a months long military campaign, putting the lives of their own soldiers at risk, and for what reason? Kicks?

Israel was able to take the majority of the Gaza Strip in a 10 days back in Jan 2009 in Operation Cast Lead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%932009)

A lightning strike would quickly occupy the strip, surgical teams could than go in suspected Hamas buildings and tunnel locations. This also would have removed the rocket launching strikes

The current military approach, while minimizing Israeli causalities, has prolonged the conflict by several months. This means more destroyed buildings, more homeless refugees, more starving people. More disease. Bombings on both sides are a thing because Israel didn't launch a full invasion, instead going block by block.

Its obvious that Netanyahu wants a prolonged conflict to stay in power. Its also obvious the far right ghouls in his cabinet wants to make Gaza uninhabitable. 

And there are many in Israel who are frustrated that the conflict has lasted so long. It has economic impacts

[Vosem]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

What a question! Here's a more intellectually honest one for you: can the pro-Israel people please explain to me why thousands of children should die?

Because in the absence of a campaign to destroy the government of Gaza, many many more people would ultimately die? Your attitude ultimately reduces to "fighting a war is never justified", and I don't really believe that you (or the vast majority of people who say things like this, for that matter) hold it consistently. Why shouldn't Ukraine just surrender to Russia (this would've saved many more children, incidentally, in Mariupol), and why shouldn't Iraq have just surrendered to Da'esh?

This is not actually the crux of your objection to the Israeli campaign, so please spare us the histrionics.

[Vosem]

U.N. Says Inquiry Finds Evidence of Sexual Assault in Hamas-Led Attack on Israel

In their report, the experts said they had found “reasonable grounds” to believe that sexual violence occurred during the Hamas-led incursion into Israel, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations: the Nova music festival site and its surroundings, Road 232, and Kibbutz Re’im.

“In most of these incidents, victims first subjected to rape were then killed, and at least two incidents relate to the rape of women’s corpses,” the report said.

The report said it found “a pattern of victims, mostly women, found fully or partially naked, bound, and shot across multiple locations,” and although the evidence was circumstantial the pattern could indicate some of form of sexual violence and torture.

It also said it had found “clear and convincing evidence” that hostages being held in Gaza were assaulted.

Combatants sexually assaulting female civilians has been a regrettable feature of armed combat for basically all of modern human history.

This is why it is: (1) ludicrous for people to claim Hamas sexually assaulting captives is beyond the realm of possibility; (2) unreasonable to expect this to merit any more attention than was given to rape victims in other wars (the Bangladeshi war of independence, Sudan's war in Darfur, Tigray, etc).

Why do rape victims in Israel get a congressional resolution condemning their assailants but rape victims in Ethiopia do not?

Presumably Congress is doing this to demonstrate that it considers the Israeli war effort to be justified, like their electorate does.

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

It does not actually seem very clear that the war has generated meaningful diplomatic collateral damage; behind-the-scenes reporting has continued to suggest that further rapprochement with Gulf states continues to be likely after the war ends. I guess you could consider the ICJ case meaningful, but I think it is probably likelier that an ultimate decision contrary to Israel's position would meaningfully hurt the ICJ rather than Israel itself.

Anyway, I think this technique can work against a dispersed underground group which is very dependent on leadership (certainly Sudoplatov detailed just how well it worked against OUN), but it is very slow (it took the Soviet Union decades, and they probably had more resources at their disposal than the Israelis), and would not solve the fundamental problem of a bordering government planning invasions of your territory. The only solution to that is unconditional surrender by the government of Gaza, and agreement to enforce Israeli directives and policy, or the destruction of Gaza to the point that its government cannot be coherently said to exist.

[VBM]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

Why didn’t the US just assassinate Hirohito instead of going to war with Japan and causing over a hundred thousand civilian casualties?

Why didn’t the Allies just assassinate Hitler and Nazi leadership instead of participating in a world war that caused millions of deaths?

[GoTfan]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

Why didn’t the US just assassinate Hirohito instead of going to war with Japan and causing over a hundred thousand civilian casualties?

Why didn’t the Allies just assassinate Hitler and Nazi leadership instead of participating in a world war that caused millions of deaths?

You're creating a strawman to argue against. As usual.

[VBM]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

Why didn’t the US just assassinate Hirohito instead of going to war with Japan and causing over a hundred thousand civilian casualties?

Why didn’t the Allies just assassinate Hitler and Nazi leadership instead of participating in a world war that caused millions of deaths?

You're creating a strawman to argue against. As usual.

How is it a strawman? Can you prove that Israel is easily capable of assassinating Hamas leadership but is just choosing not to?

[GoTfan]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

Here's a productive, reasonable consequence that would have generated no literal or diplomatic collateral damage: assassinating the leadership of Hamas, nearly all of whom are not in Gaza.

Why didn’t the US just assassinate Hirohito instead of going to war with Japan and causing over a hundred thousand civilian casualties?

Why didn’t the Allies just assassinate Hitler and Nazi leadership instead of participating in a world war that caused millions of deaths?

You're creating a strawman to argue against. As usual.

How is it a strawman? Can you prove that Israel is easily capable of assassinating Hamas leadership but is just choosing not to?

Because they have done very similar operations before.

[CumbrianLefty]

The way that Israel has conducted this war is, completely and manifestly obviously, a choice. It really is bordering on absurdity to claim otherwise.

[Wiswylfen]

Can the pro-Palestine people please explain to me why Hamas should face no consequences for their actions?

What a question! Here's a more intellectually honest one for you: can the pro-Israel people please explain to me why thousands of children should die?

it might be honest, but it's also superfluous since the answer is so blatantly obvious:
because you can't conquer and occupy Gaza without substantial civilian casualties, and full Israeli control of Gaza is a prerequisite for destroying Hamas

'Substantial civilian casualties' aren't an unfortunate consequence; they're a deliberate choice. The destruction of homes and tower blocks—this is a war crime, by the way—is an intentional punishment of noncombatants for not overthrowing Hamas or something (we might remember that the Israeli government has done far more to support Hamas, in an attempt to undermine the State of Palestine, than Gazan civilians).

You might dare venture, given all the public statements from the Israeli government and military, that this also conveniently helps out on the genocide/'ethnic cleansing' side of things.

Because in the absence of a campaign to destroy the government of Gaza, many many more people would ultimately die? Your attitude ultimately reduces to "fighting a war is never justified", and I don't really believe that you (or the vast majority of people who say things like this, for that matter) hold it consistently. Why shouldn't Ukraine just surrender to Russia (this would've saved many more children, incidentally, in Mariupol), and why shouldn't Iraq have just surrendered to Da'esh?

This is not actually the crux of your objection to the Israeli campaign, so please spare us the histrionics.

That I'm not particularly friendly towards Israel is no secret: surprisingly, I have no time for a state that we are told is our ally yet commemorates terrorists who murdered civilians and soldiers from our country in cold blood, and sells arms to aggressors against us because their PM has a sick, personal interest in British soldiers dying.

Nevertheless, my objection to killing children for not single-handedly overthrowing Hamas (lol)/going to the artificial island in the Mediterranean is not some matter of absolute pacifism, or even really related to that.

Why didn’t the US just assassinate Hirohito instead of going to war with Japan and causing over a hundred thousand civilian casualties?

Why didn’t the Allies just assassinate Hitler and Nazi leadership instead of participating in a world war that caused millions of deaths?

Why don't the children just round up all the Hamas fighters, resurrect the hostages we shot dead waving a white flag, and move to the artificial island in the Mediterranean instead of forcing us to bomb them as punishment for not doing so? It is quite something that anyone backing Israel would try this one.