Israel-Gaza war

[axiomsofdominion]

No I've been extremely clear on this. Expressing concern for civilians lives doesn't make someone a terrorist supporter. After I've expressed such concern in this very thread myself.

Yes it would be horrible to say that anyone who expresses concern for civilian lives is necessarily a terrorist supporters.

What makes someone a terrorist supporter is attributing civilian deaths to a party performing a hostage rescue where they made a clear effort to get in and out with as little fuss as possible because a bunch of militants and/or terrorists opened fire on them, almost killing both Noa and the 3 male hostages including the use of anti-tank and anti-air weapons while charging towards the hostages and rescuers with hundreds of armed men carrying machine guns and firing on them which forced a defensive response.

If there was a hostage situation near Times Square and the NYPD responded by calling in multiple airstrikes, killing hundreds of random passersby to rescue a handful of hostages, would you say that the NYPD deserves no blame or criticism whatsoever and that all responsibility lies with the hostage takers?

Taking you off ignore cause I get a notification about this:

Are you suggesting that it is plausible for their to be hundreds of terrorists with anti-vehicle weaponry in the middle of NYC with a semi-hostile population that they NYT would have to get through? Because that's ridiculous. It could never happen. Posting stuff like this just makes it seem like you are in fact pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism because it is so nonsensical.

[axiomsofdominion]

You know that Hamas simply could have not opened fire on them in a crowded area, right?

What's your point?

Are you saying that Israel should not free its own citizens if there’s even a chance of collateral damage?

No, and don't put words in my mouth.

…The point is that these civilians deaths are all on Hamas because they started a firefight with the IDF in a crowded area, and obviously the IDF isn’t going to worry about collateral when the lives of their soldiers and Israeli citizens are in serious danger.

This is just semantics nonsense that you are using to defend axiomsofdominion calling other users "terrorists".

Do you think that the IDF should have just let their soldiers get killed in this operation?

Weird for him to call it semantic nonsense to justify me calling people terrorist supporters, again not terrorists, when it is the argument I was using to determine who is a terrorist supporter.

[pppolitics]

You know that Hamas simply could have not opened fire on them in a crowded area, right?

What's your point?

Are you saying that Israel should not free its own citizens if there’s even a chance of collateral damage?

No, and don't put words in my mouth.

…The point is that these civilians deaths are all on Hamas because they started a firefight with the IDF in a crowded area, and obviously the IDF isn’t going to worry about collateral when the lives of their soldiers and Israeli citizens are in serious danger.

This is just semantics nonsense that you are using to defend axiomsofdominion calling other users "terrorists".

Do you think that the IDF should have just let their soldiers get killed in this operation?

That a red herring.

Because of Israel's action (rescue operation), some civilians are dead (civilian casualties/collateral damage), so Israel is responsible.

(And just to be clear, I am not saying that Hamas is not responsible.)

Now, whether Israel is justified in taking that action is another matter.

You are falsely conflating two different issues: [whether Israel is responsible] and [whether Israel's action is justified].

[axiomsofdominion]

Question for the pro-Palestine crowd. Who is responsible for the collateral in this operation to free the 4 hostages, Israel or Hamas?

Doesn't matter because they shouldn't have rescued the hostages anyways, don't you know? Insidious of them.

Yeah how dare people get all worked up about the fact that hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the raid to save four Israeli hostages. The lives of the latter are obviously more important, and if you disagree you’re pro-terrorist.

Their deaths were caused by Hamas flooding area with militants. I am very worked up about how potentially hundreds, but we don't know the count of civilians vs militants, of civilians died and frankly I think the people aren't going after Hamas for causing all those deaths is awful.

The thing that is disagreed on is whether Israel is at fault for the deaths. Terrorist supporters like you think they are, non-terrorists agree that Hamas is responsible for starting a giant firefight with heavy explosives and machine guns in a civilian area that caused potentially hundreds of innocent civilians and one Israeli hostage rescuer to die.

Another name for the terrorist ignore list, thanks for outing yourself.

Calling other posters are terrorists should be sanctionable behaviour.

Some of the posts were deleted and I assume sanctioned but yeah, a certain new user clearly isn't getting the message.

I've not been informed that any of my posts were deleted nor have I been contact by moderators in any form. So how could I get a message when one hasn't been sent?

[pppolitics]

You know that Hamas simply could have not opened fire on them in a crowded area, right?

What's your point?

Are you saying that Israel should not free its own citizens if there’s even a chance of collateral damage?

No, and don't put words in my mouth.

…The point is that these civilians deaths are all on Hamas because they started a firefight with the IDF in a crowded area, and obviously the IDF isn’t going to worry about collateral when the lives of their soldiers and Israeli citizens are in serious danger.

This is just semantics nonsense that you are using to defend axiomsofdominion calling other users "terrorists".

Do you think that the IDF should have just let their soldiers get killed in this operation?

Weird for him to call it semantic nonsense to justify me calling people terrorist supporters, again not terrorists, when it is the argument I was using to determine who is a terrorist supporter.

Because of Israel's action (rescue operation), some civilians are dead (civilian casualties/collateral damage), so Israel is responsible.

(And just to be clear, I am not saying that Hamas is not responsible.)

Now, whether Israel is justified in taking that action is another matter.

You are falsely conflating two different issues, [whether Israel is responsible] and [whether Israel's action is justified], to falsely accuse other users of being terrorist supporters.

[axiomsofdominion]

UN Security Council approves US proposal for permanent ceasefire in Gaza

This is the US proposal that largely matches what Israel has offered, so I'm not expecting any blowback from Israel over this. But there are a few key points that Israel and Hamas can't meet on yet, so it's far from a silver bullet.

This is good. Hamas should accept the ceasefire proposal that not a single person on the UN Security Council opposed. Even Russia merely abstained because they don't want to ever support a single thing the US ever proposes.

Of course Hamas will not accept this. In fact they already rejected it.

[pppolitics]

UN Security Council approves US proposal for permanent ceasefire in Gaza

This is the US proposal that largely matches what Israel has offered, so I'm not expecting any blowback from Israel over this. But there are a few key points that Israel and Hamas can't meet on yet, so it's far from a silver bullet.

This is good. Hamas should accept the ceasefire proposal that not a single person on the UN Security Council opposed. Even Russia merely abstained because they don't want to ever support a single thing the US ever proposes.

Of course Hamas will not accept this. In fact they already rejected it.

Netanyahu doesn't accept the proposal.

[GoTfan]

To bring everyone back to the topic, what effect does Gantz leaving actually have on this at all? The cynic in me says minimal if any.

[axiomsofdominion]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

[pppolitics]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

Hamas demand is for Israel to end the war in return for release of the hostages.

Netanyahu said no.

[GoTfan]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

Hamas demand is for Israel to end the war in return for release of the hostages.

Netanyahu said no.

I didn't ask for either of you to spout off.

Can someone more rational talk about this?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

Hamas demand is for Israel to end the war in return for release of the hostages.

Netanyahu said no.

I didn't ask for either of you to spout off.

Can someone more rational talk about this?

The basic building blocks haven't changed too much. There's not enough common ground yet for things to really conclude.

[axiomsofdominion]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

Hamas demand is for Israel to end the war in return for release of the hostages.

Netanyahu said no.

I didn't ask for either of you to spout off.

Can someone more rational talk about this?

The basic building blocks haven't changed too much. There's not enough common ground yet for things to really conclude.

pppolitics actually had it right. Hamas will accept nothing but an abject surrender from Israel, thousands of prisoners, ranging from probably innocent to hardened terrorists, full withdrawal of Israel from every part of the Strip, and tons more money for them to rebuild their military. Meanwhile what Israel gets is maybe 70 live hostages, a bunch of corpses, and a promise to let Hamas join a Palestinian government which will be heavily armed and bring Hamas to the West Bank.

Bibi's not the only one who would say no to that.

[GoTfan]

Gantz leaving the coalition has no impact because Hamas won't agree to a deal. If Hamas had any sort of reasonable demands for a deal then Bibi's coalition would easily lose the votes it needs to stay in power. But sadly because Hamas is so intransigent there's basically nothing people pushing for peace can do. That's what happens when you murder and rape hundreds of Israelis who are often peace activists and then make ridiculous demands. The anti-peace groups simply point and laugh at people asking for a ceasefire.

Hamas demand is for Israel to end the war in return for release of the hostages.

Netanyahu said no.

I didn't ask for either of you to spout off.

Can someone more rational talk about this?

The basic building blocks haven't changed too much. There's not enough common ground yet for things to really conclude.

pppolitics actually had it right. Hamas will accept nothing but an abject surrender from Israel, thousands of prisoners, ranging from probably innocent to hardened terrorists, full withdrawal of Israel from every part of the Strip, and tons more money for them to rebuild their military. Meanwhile what Israel gets is maybe 70 live hostages, a bunch of corpses, and a promise to let Hamas join a Palestinian government which will be heavily armed and bring Hamas to the West Bank.

Bibi's not the only one who would say no to that.

You just can't stop, can you? Onto ignore you go.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

To bring everyone back to the topic, what effect does Gantz leaving actually have on this at all? The cynic in me says minimal if any.

Unfortunately minimal - Gantz isn't part of Netanyahu's initial coalition, so his leaving doesn't threaten it. But Gallant, who is part of Netanyahu's original team, seems to be getting tired of him as well and that could be more significant. Quite a few centrist Jewish/Israeli pundits I follow, like Shael Ben-Ephraim, think new elections could be more likely than they were a few days ago.

[GoTfan]

To bring everyone back to the topic, what effect does Gantz leaving actually have on this at all? The cynic in me says minimal if any.

Unfortunately minimal - Gantz isn't part of Netanyahu's initial coalition, so his leaving doesn't threaten it. But Gallant, who is part of Netanyahu's original team, seems to be getting tired of him as well and that could be more significant. Quite a few centrist Jewish/Israeli pundits I follow, like Shael Ben-Ephraim, think new elections could be more likely than they were a few days ago.

One can only hope that Gallant is at the end of his rope regarding the wannabe dictator's shtick.

[axiomsofdominion]

To bring everyone back to the topic, what effect does Gantz leaving actually have on this at all? The cynic in me says minimal if any.

Unfortunately minimal - Gantz isn't part of Netanyahu's initial coalition, so his leaving doesn't threaten it. But Gallant, who is part of Netanyahu's original team, seems to be getting tired of him as well and that could be more significant. Quite a few centrist Jewish/Israeli pundits I follow, like Shael Ben-Ephraim, think new elections could be more likely than they were a few days ago.

Shael is a bit shady, I eventually stopped following him when I was active. But he has good inside intel on Israel sometimes. The thing is that for Gallant to break with Bibi you need something he can achieve. Which is again why the intransigence of Hamas is a problem. I wasn't trolling in my other post regardless of what GoTFan thinks. An actual offer that Bibi refuses because of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is likely what would cause Gallant to crack.

[pppolitics]

Just waiting for Al Jazeera to run a story on their reporter aiding the kidnapping and jailing of Isreali hostages within Gaza.

I will post up the link once Al Jazeera publish it.

Abdullah Al-Jamal was an Al Jazeera reporter and Hamas spokesperson.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/09/idf-confirms-al-jazeeras-al-jamal-held-3-of-rescued-captives/

"The IDF and Shin Bet confirmed on Sunday that the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, who were rescued Saturday from Nuseirat in the Gaza Strip, were the ones held in the house of an Al-Jazeera "journalist" Abdullah Al-Jamal."

Looks like Al Jazeera is a total chicken raffle now.

IDF gets caught lying again.

Abdallah Aljamal never worked for Al Jazeera, although Al Jazeera did once published an opinion piece from him.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Just waiting for Al Jazeera to run a story on their reporter aiding the kidnapping and jailing of Isreali hostages within Gaza.

I will post up the link once Al Jazeera publish it.

Abdullah Al-Jamal was an Al Jazeera reporter and Hamas spokesperson.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/09/idf-confirms-al-jazeeras-al-jamal-held-3-of-rescued-captives/

"The IDF and Shin Bet confirmed on Sunday that the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, who were rescued Saturday from Nuseirat in the Gaza Strip, were the ones held in the house of an Al-Jazeera "journalist" Abdullah Al-Jamal."

Looks like Al Jazeera is a total chicken raffle now.

IDF gets caught lying again.

Abdallah Aljamal never worked for Al Jazeera, although Al Jazeera did once published an opinion piece from him.

Okay, he’s an Al-Jazeera contributor

[axiomsofdominion]

Just waiting for Al Jazeera to run a story on their reporter aiding the kidnapping and jailing of Isreali hostages within Gaza.

I will post up the link once Al Jazeera publish it.

Abdullah Al-Jamal was an Al Jazeera reporter and Hamas spokesperson.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/09/idf-confirms-al-jazeeras-al-jamal-held-3-of-rescued-captives/

"The IDF and Shin Bet confirmed on Sunday that the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, who were rescued Saturday from Nuseirat in the Gaza Strip, were the ones held in the house of an Al-Jazeera "journalist" Abdullah Al-Jamal."

Looks like Al Jazeera is a total chicken raffle now.

IDF gets caught lying again.

Abdallah Aljamal never worked for Al Jazeera, although Al Jazeera did once published an opinion piece from him.

Okay, he’s an Al-Jazeera contributor

First the IDF was killing innocent journalists, now they aren't, thank god. His only real "journalism" credentials were some insane stuff in the Palestine Chronicle. One particular article is hilariously ironic in light of recent events.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

No I've been extremely clear on this. Expressing concern for civilians lives doesn't make someone a terrorist supporter. After I've expressed such concern in this very thread myself.

Yes it would be horrible to say that anyone who expresses concern for civilian lives is necessarily a terrorist supporters.

What makes someone a terrorist supporter is attributing civilian deaths to a party performing a hostage rescue where they made a clear effort to get in and out with as little fuss as possible because a bunch of militants and/or terrorists opened fire on them, almost killing both Noa and the 3 male hostages including the use of anti-tank and anti-air weapons while charging towards the hostages and rescuers with hundreds of armed men carrying machine guns and firing on them which forced a defensive response.

If there was a hostage situation near Times Square and the NYPD responded by calling in multiple airstrikes, killing hundreds of random passersby to rescue a handful of hostages, would you say that the NYPD deserves no blame or criticism whatsoever and that all responsibility lies with the hostage takers?

Taking you off ignore cause I get a notification about this:

Are you suggesting that it is plausible for their to be hundreds of terrorists with anti-vehicle weaponry in the middle of NYC with a semi-hostile population that they NYT would have to get through? Because that's ridiculous. It could never happen. Posting stuff like this just makes it seem like you are in fact pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism because it is so nonsensical.

So you're conceding that there is some responsibility on the "hostage rescuers" for the consequences of the strategy they choose. Good, we're getting somewhere.

Osama Bin Laden was America's #1 enemy and yet he was taken out in a nighttime raid with minimal collateral damage. Whereas this rescue plan couldn't have possibly resulted in anything but collateral damage, considering they chose to strike a building next to a crowded market in the middle of the day. What's actually nonsensical is a "plan" that assumes Hamas would just let the IDF walk up and rescue the hostages without resistance; the fact that they have "anti-vehicle weaponry" should not be a shock, they've been using RPGs for years at this point. What goes beyond the nonsensical and into the manifestly ludicrous is claiming that the IDF bears no moral responsibility whatsoever for choosing a plan that any idiot who's been paying attention to the conflict for more than five minutes would know would inevitably lead to a bloodbath.

If, in fact, the goal was to kill as many Palestinians as possible under the pretense of a "hostage rescue operation" then it hardly could have been planned any better. Otherwise, the only possible way you could think the IDF bears no responsibility whatsoever is if you think Palestinian life is basically worthless since the "plan" you defend had zero (if not negative) consideration for the inevitable collateral damage.

[Yelnoc]

Just waiting for Al Jazeera to run a story on their reporter aiding the kidnapping and jailing of Isreali hostages within Gaza.

I will post up the link once Al Jazeera publish it.

Abdullah Al-Jamal was an Al Jazeera reporter and Hamas spokesperson.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/09/idf-confirms-al-jazeeras-al-jamal-held-3-of-rescued-captives/

"The IDF and Shin Bet confirmed on Sunday that the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, who were rescued Saturday from Nuseirat in the Gaza Strip, were the ones held in the house of an Al-Jazeera "journalist" Abdullah Al-Jamal."

Looks like Al Jazeera is a total chicken raffle now.

IDF gets caught lying again.

Abdallah Aljamal never worked for Al Jazeera, although Al Jazeera did once published an opinion piece from him.

Okay, he’s an Al-Jazeera contributor

First the IDF was killing innocent journalists, now they aren't, thank god. His only real "journalism" credentials were some insane stuff in the Palestine Chronicle. One particular article is hilariously ironic in light of recent events.

Dude, could you please stop spamming this thread? Half the posts on this page are yours.

[Horus]

Just like their Lehi forefathers.

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/1800222647000977879?t=WacXXdCFn0U7U2ioaN-K...

[VBM]

No I've been extremely clear on this. Expressing concern for civilians lives doesn't make someone a terrorist supporter. After I've expressed such concern in this very thread myself.

Yes it would be horrible to say that anyone who expresses concern for civilian lives is necessarily a terrorist supporters.

What makes someone a terrorist supporter is attributing civilian deaths to a party performing a hostage rescue where they made a clear effort to get in and out with as little fuss as possible because a bunch of militants and/or terrorists opened fire on them, almost killing both Noa and the 3 male hostages including the use of anti-tank and anti-air weapons while charging towards the hostages and rescuers with hundreds of armed men carrying machine guns and firing on them which forced a defensive response.

If there was a hostage situation near Times Square and the NYPD responded by calling in multiple airstrikes, killing hundreds of random passersby to rescue a handful of hostages, would you say that the NYPD deserves no blame or criticism whatsoever and that all responsibility lies with the hostage takers?

Taking you off ignore cause I get a notification about this:

Are you suggesting that it is plausible for their to be hundreds of terrorists with anti-vehicle weaponry in the middle of NYC with a semi-hostile population that they NYT would have to get through? Because that's ridiculous. It could never happen. Posting stuff like this just makes it seem like you are in fact pro-Hamas and pro-terrorism because it is so nonsensical.

So you're conceding that there is some responsibility on the "hostage rescuers" for the consequences of the strategy they choose. Good, we're getting somewhere.

Osama Bin Laden was America's #1 enemy and yet he was taken out in a nighttime raid with minimal collateral damage. Whereas this rescue plan couldn't have possibly resulted in anything but collateral damage, considering they chose to strike a building next to a crowded market in the middle of the day. What's actually nonsensical is a "plan" that assumes Hamas would just let the IDF walk up and rescue the hostages without resistance; the fact that they have "anti-vehicle weaponry" should not be a shock, they've been using RPGs for years at this point. What goes beyond the nonsensical and into the manifestly ludicrous is claiming that the IDF bears no moral responsibility whatsoever for choosing a plan that any idiot who's been paying attention to the conflict for more than five minutes would know would inevitably lead to a bloodbath.

If, in fact, the goal was to kill as many Palestinians as possible under the pretense of a "hostage rescue operation" then it hardly could have been planned any better. Otherwise, the only possible way you could think the IDF bears no responsibility whatsoever is if you think Palestinian life is basically worthless since the "plan" you defend had zero (if not negative) consideration for the inevitable collateral damage.

Is there any proof that the IDF knew collateral was “inevitable”?

[OSR stands with Israel]

That's not some scandal. At the end of the day when it comes to who you root for in foreign elections, you will obviously root for the parties that advocate for your interests the most regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.  For example Bush rooted for Blair over Howard in 2005 despite the fact that Blair was from a left leaning party and many Republicans openly rooted for Blair in 2005 due to Howard running a more paleocon campaign.

Right now the most pro Israel politicians in Europe are people like Wilders so it makes sense for Israel to root for them