PeterMP

Can we agree that rhetoric and propaganda is used to excite the masses but isn't actually the cause of the war? In WWII there was a lot of racist propaganda and rhetoric in the US related to Japan but after the war US leadership had no problem putting that aside that rhetoric and being an ally with Japan. How well do you know the history here actually? For example, do you know that before the first Israeli/Arab War that the the leader of Transjordan (which was at the time considered the strongest country in the region and the leader of the Arab League) met with Jewish leaders (before the partition) offered them an autonomous Jewish canton within his kingdom and Golda Meir a seat in the countries parliament? That Jewish leaders had agreed that when the UN plan went into place Transjordan would take over the land given to Palestinians? That the Jewish leadership didn't pass any of this information onto anybody else? And that the leader of Transjordan was mostly interested in land including land that was supposed to become the Palestinian state and claiming Jerusalem because of its religious significance (i.e. the presence of the Dome of the Rock)? That while Jewish leadership did not think he would abide to the agreement that they had that they didn't think he would all of the land that was expected to be used to create the Jewish state? And that the ruler of Transjordan actually preferred to have a Jewish state as its neighbor than a state ruled by Palestinians (Arabs can be pretty racist against other Arabs and other Arab groups have a history of looking down on Palestinians)? Transjordan wasn't really interested in killing Jews. They wanted land and they wanted the prestige that would come with being in control of Jerusalem. And they seemed to like the Jews more than Palestinians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_I_of_Jordan (Read the section on "Expansionist aspirations"). While there might have been talk of "wiping the Jews out" that wasn't really the leaders objective. The objective was land, power, and prestige. But no, they shouldn't just roll over and wipe them out. But given they have the strongest military in the region and are the only nuclear state it seems unlikely they'll be wiped out.

Israel is a global power. They are one 9 nuclear states and have the 4th most successful economy in the world (in 2022 according to the IMF) and has support from the US and (at least historically) most of Europe. Israel becomes a nuclear power in the late 1960s which pretty eliminated any possibility of somebody wiping them out. The last major war where you could even imagine there was a chance of Israel being destroyed was in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War) which happened because Israel had taken land from Egypt and Syria in their last war in 1967 and they were trying to get it back (not wipe out Israel, just reclaim land from a previous war). Before that war, Israel was pre-warned by Jordan that at least Syria was going to attack (so helped by one of their neighbors and not a neighbor interested in attacking them). The objective of that war by Egypt and Syria was not to "wipe out" Israel (because that would have almost certainly resulted in a nuclear response) but to reclaim land that was historically theirs that was lost in 1967. Neither country ever comes close to entering into what we consider Israel today. The war lasted days and ends up with Israel in control of even more territory and coming very close to completely wiping out the entire Egyptian army and within striking range of the Syrian capital. After that war, Egypt leaves the Soviet sphere and moves closer to us pretty much eliminating any chance of another attack and in 1978 the Camp David Peace Accords are signed. Israel has had no more of a real threat to wipe them out than us or any other country in the world for essentially my whole life, or the majority of the existence of Israel. Israel has not been "surrounded" by enemies for the vast majority of my life or for the majority of the existence of Israel. Any claim otherwise just isn't credible. It is not 1975 and certainly not 1967. For them to behave the way they did in 1967 might have made sense. But it doesn't make sense in 2024 if you want peace. At some level, yes, I understand what I'm asking Israel to do is unreasonable. But that's where intelligence and education are supposed to come in. And if you think about it, is it really more unreasonable than to keep doing what they've been doing for the last few decades which certainly don't seem to be bringing them peace? If they fail to see where they are that is a failure to understand basic history.

I've made this point before, but Hamas has moved in that direction. The updated Hamas Charter (in 2017) is much less of Israel can't exist and there can't be any Jews in Palestine than the older 1988 one. It doesn't out right recognize the right for Israel exist, but it talks about a Palestinian state in the context of the 1967 borders. Which then leaves the rest of Palestine to be a Jewish state, thought it doesn't explicitly state that. It might not have moved to the point that Israel and many other people are happy with but it did move. The PA has directly recognized a right for Israel to exist (and to my knowledge has not renounced that recognition). So the two main Palestinian governing institutions appear resigned to allowing for a Jewish state in Palestine, and really a Jewish state that is the dominant entity in Palestine.

Pretty much except for in the case of Egypt (where we got more heavily involved), Israel has a pre-WWII mind set. We won. We get things (e.g. land). You get punished (e.g. you lose land). That's not conductive to creating peace. That's conductive for having one conflict to lay the ground work for the next conflict just like WWI laid the ground work for WWII. And you end up in cycles of conflict. And that's where Israel is.

Israel isn't going to be able to do it. The Palestinians aren't going to trust them. Just like even though the Soviets were Allies and on the winning side, they weren't allowed to be part of the force in Japan. And Israel never took on an occupation role in Egypt. History shows that people that don't have a good choice never get tired of losing. They just keep doing what the Palestinians are doing. The Palestinians have been at it longer than Egypt. Why don't they get tired of losing? Because it isn't a matter of getting tired of losing. It is a matter of feeling like there are no good options. The key is to give them another good or better option. Egypt was given a better option. With Japan (and Egypt) all sides agreed because of negotiations in which the people that were the victors and normally make claims (money, land, the deaths of leaders, etc.) were instead offering assistance. If you're Japan, the post-WWII deal is a pretty easy deal to agree to. We'll let your leaders live. We don't want any of your territory. We'll give you a lot of support to rebuild your country. You can have a self-defense force. We'll protect you from the Soviets. We do require some changes to your government. The agreement that Egypt got was a good deal. It was easy to say yes to. We didn't destroy your army, and you can keep your army. We'll give you back your land (Israel had occupied a large part of Egypt). You don't have pay us anything. The people in charge can stay in charge (we aren't going to put your leaders to death). And the US will give you money/aid. Those aren't deals that anybody says no to after losing a war. Those are the sorts of deals that actually bring peace. Those are also the sort of deals that the Palestinians have never been offered.

The first part isn't really true. Very few Jews lived in the area from the time of the Jewish diaspora until the birth of the Zionist movement post-WWI. But there isn't much evidence of issues between the Jews and the Arab/Muslims that lived in the area during those centuries. There's much more history of the Arabs/Muslims fighting. And even at the time of the Jewish diaspora the issue wasn't conflict between the Jews and the Arabs but between the Jews and the conquering Romans. When people say they've been fighting over there for thousands of years, they more mean the Arabs in the context of things like the Sunni/Shia divide and even sects within the Sunnis fighting. But things were really relatively peaceful during most of the Ottoman Empire which was pretty religiously tolerant. The current conflict is almost entirely the result of European Jews moving back to Palestine as part of the post-WWI Zionist movement that really picked up post-WWII and then the UN partition of Palestine. You've got the analogy mixed up. The issue wouldn't have been people calling for the destruction of Japan or Germany. It would have been Japan and Germany calling for the destruction of other countries. Which is exactly what happened. You saying that Israel supporting the strengthening of said countries is no different than France post-WWII saying we don't support rebuilding Germany because they will wipe us out if they get strong enough. Germany's European countries could have objected to rebuilding Germany because Germany had tried to destroy them (in WWI and WWII). We did it anyway. History tells us that sort of thing doesn't tend to be an issue. Even in this conflict. After the war in 1973, we helped Egypt, They got stronger, and after the Camp David Accords in 1978 we have continued to support them. The end result has not been this stronger Egypt trying to wipe out Israel. Israel can't control what other countries do, but their actions haven't helped. And they aren't a poor country themselves. They spend a lot on their military. An ounce of prevention can be better than a pound of cure.

That was mostly early on I think. When the PA/PLO was the dominant force, Israel was interested in supporting other organizations to prevent the PLO/PA from consolidating control. I think in terms of Oct. 7, they just didn't believe Hamas had the ability to carry out such an attack and so were lax.

If you tell Hamas, they have to totally capitulate, they aren't going to think that means the leaders get to survive. I'm sorry, but that's just not how the words are used. They are also aren't going to understand it to mean that you are going to pay large sums of money and carve out land for a viable Palestinian state. And I'm not talking about just a lack of punishment. I'm talking about proactively working to create viable states. If your idea of total capitulation, includes potentially allowing the survival of the Hamas leadership and creating the conditions that will create a viable Palestinian state, then I agree. But then you are doing an awful job of communicating that.

My solution is the same as we did after WWII and not after WWI and realistically after we did for Egypt after they lost to Israel in 1973. To help create a situation where the states have the reasonable ability to succeed. "We" (the allies that won WWI) contributed the failure of the German state that was created after WWI because of the requirements on that state that ended WWI. Similarly, Israel's decisions after the various conflicts have contributed to the states around it being failures. Knowing whether the Palestinian state that was created at the partition could be successful or not is hard because it was pretty much attacked immediately. It never even had a chance at getting going. But you can't separate the success of many states with the support that they get from the larger international community, including their neighbors. No different than Japan and Germany are successes today partly because of the support we gave them after WWII, especially in the context of security from the Soviets. If we defeat Japan in WWII and then walk away, there's a much better chance that Japan today is a failed state because they wouldn't have the means/ability to stand up to the Soviets and likely would have ended up giving up territory to the Soviets if not haven fallen under Soviet control. Countries like Lebanon need support in terms of security from Iran (and Iranian agents (e.g. Hezbollah)), but instead of support they get attacked. What Israel should do and should have done is worked with the aggressors (like we did after WWII and didn't do after WWI) with strong appeals to the international community to help those states have the potential achieve success. And that likely includes Israel giving up land that they've claimed (and now settled on) during those disputes. It potentially would have included money coming from somewhere (again with respect to Egypt in 1973 it came from us) to help those countries recover from losing the war (and after WWII for Germany and Japan, the money came from us).

I don't understand your analogy. Do you understand that the peace agreement that ended WWI contributed to WWII? Can you explain how that relates to a bullies parents loving them? What has been left for the Palestinians to live on and the economic support they get or can be obtained from the land they live on is not enough to create a viable state. That condition is partly the result of decisions the Israelis have made at the end of their different conflicts. Palestinians that have been displaced have been forced into the surrounding countries that don't have the means or ability to absorb more poor and uneducated people that are even poorer because they've lost their land and property. And that is also something Israel could help with.

If you can't say, then you can't say it was a mistake. Part of saying something was a mistake requires to be saying well if it didn't happen here's what the result would have been and that would have been better. I'm not mincing words. We actually initially demanded a total surrender by Japan. At the time and today, it is recognized that we settled for less by allowing the Emperor and other high ranking government officials to not just live but retain their freedom. I've made this point several times now. I think it would be good for Israel to clearly communicate what the total destruction of Hamas means for the top of their leadership. There is a big difference if you are one of the top people in Hamas between, we're going to let you live and pretty go on with your life as you are now as long as you aren't connected to violence in the future and you have to physically surrender to Israel for some sort of a trial. The difference is life and death. And that sort of thing tends to matter to people a lot, and that difference is not mincing words. In any of these types of negotiations, what happens to the upper leadership is a big deal. We saw it with Japan at the end of WWII. You see it with the British and the IRA (the British allowed the top IRA leadership to live). The deal with Japan also ensured it's territorial integrity (unlike Germany that was divided up). Not having to give up land to the Soviets or having the Soviets as an occupying force was a big deal to the Japanese. We came to negotiated agreement with Japan to end the WWII and did not require total capitulation. And I'm saying you are wrong. Peace doesn't come from total capitulation. That was the difference between WWI and WWII. Israel has peace with Egypt, and that didn't require the total capitulation of Egypt. What history shows that is required for peace is the creation of a system where both sides can be relatively successful (unless you commit a genocide level event and just kill essentially everybody on the other side). With respect to Egypt, peace came because of our aid to Egypt after the war ended gave them a level of success (because we were interested in moving Egypt away from the Soviets) that was then cemented in the Camp David Accords. vs. it hasn't happened with the Palestinians because despite all of the fighting there has never been a process put in place that has allowed the Palestinians to have a reasonable level of success. Germany surrendered and demilitarized at the end of WWI. That surrender didn't bring peace because it resulted in a failed German state, and failed states can never bring you peace. Israel's actions contribute to them being surrounded by failed states (Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon). Even if Israel attacks and completely destroys the militaries of those states, they won't have peace unless there is a path to those states being successful (or the Isrealis kill a lot of people so those states essentially become depopulated). And like Egypt (and realistically Japan after WWII) finding that path to success doesn't necessarily require the total capitulation. We found peace at the end of WWII with Germany and Japan because we allowed them to be successful and even worked to make them successful. The same thing happened after in 1973 with Egypt and Israel and that's why Israel and Egypt haven't fought another war. It isn't because of who did or did not totally capitulate. And this level of thinking doesn't require a degree in international relationships. Its pretty basic college level history. That Israel doesn't seem to understand it seems shocking to me.

The problem is that many of the relevant countries don't have the ability to stop Hamas. Countries like Lebanon and Jordan have issues controlling their territory. Just like Pakistan doesn't really have control of their tribal territories, and al Qeada/Taliban fighters were able to go back and forth. Then as part of that, doing something in Gaza isn't really removing the state that they operate in any more than us doing what we did in Afghanistan. Where they appear to have returned now that we left (that's where we killed al-Zawahiri). Israel is going to have similar issues with Hamas. (And just to be clear before you said that a few al qeada members, but at the time estimates were that nearly a thousand or more al qeada fighters escaped Tora Bora into Pakistan. Now in the end many return to Afghanistan and are killed or captured or are captured in the part of Pakistan that the government actually has good control of. But you can look at our issues in Afghanistan wit the Taliban and see what issues Israel is going to have (where Hamas is more similar to the Taliban than to al Qeada). The Taliban nor al Qeada ever unconditionally surrendered. Many of them hid in Pakistan, and now the Taliban is firmly back in charge. And there is good evidence that al Qeada has also returned. You can say it has to happen, but there doesn't appear to be a clear route for Israel to make it actually happen without pretty serious escalation in terms of the number of dead Gazans and expanding the conflict to other countries in the region which they don't necessarily have the ability to do, especially without support from other countries. And as I've already pointed out many experts doubt it is a practical thing through just military actions. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/israel-gaza-war-can-hamas-actually-be-eliminated-experts-weigh-in.html I'll ask you the same question I asked @CousinsCowgirl84 (which she never answered), are you good with Israel killing or displacing every Palestinian in Gaza to eliminate Hamas? Occupying Lebanon? For us, there was a line in terms of entering Pakistan (except to get bin Laden). In WWII, the line became the number of people that would killed during an invasion of Japan and we decided we could live with the upper level of Japanese government/military leaders living and the Emperor keeping a symbolic position. Where is the line for Israel?

That doesn't explain how forcing Egypt to surrender would make things better for Israel today. What is the result of destroying the Egyptian army and forcing Egypt to surrender? Be specific. Do you believe that if Israel had destroyed the Egyptian army that in 1973 there wouldn't be militant Islamic/Arab people trying to destroy Israel? Please tell me what I have wrong. Be specific. Quote what I said you were wrong about and explain why it was right. Japan demilitarized as part of the peace agreement that allowed the in the upper level of their government to survive. That would like if Israel and Hamas come to a peace agreement this week that included Hamas demilitarizing. That is not the same as what you are pushing here. (Denazification did not include the execution of a large number of Nazis.). If Israel wants to require demilitarization of Hamas as part of a peace agreement, that's reasonable. But that's different than saying Hamas has to be destroyed. Yes, I'm aware of what Israel has been saying with respect Lebanon. Is that something you'd advocate? (which I've already asked you) (I will point out this is something we don't think would be a good idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/07/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-blinken/ Partly at least because don't think they can.)

The vast majority of upper level of Hamas leaders weren't living in Gaza before the Oct. attacks. They live in places that are nicer already (and still have leadership roles in Hamas). Saying they have to leave Gaza isn't really a big deal to them. Killing people in Gaza is as likely to cause the Hamas leadership to surrender as killing people in Afghanistan resulted in bin Laden and al-Zawarihi to surrender. (So none.)

Can we go back to the original tweet? In 1973, Israel doesn't destroy the Egyptian army, doesn't force a surrender (because of pressure from us), agrees to something else less then a complete surrender that eventually leads to the Camp David Accords. How was that mistake? In what way his Israel better off if in 1973 they destroy the Egyptian army and force a complete surrender. You defended that tweet over multiple posts. Please take 1973 and what happened with respect to Egypt and explain how that was mistake. Move the goal posts much? There is essentially no evidence that attacking Gaza is going to eliminate Hamas' ability to fire rockets at Israel. Many of them are coming from Lebanon. Are you advocating that Israel invade and occupy Lebanon next? I've said that I don't think Israel has the ability to destroy Hamas. I've got not problem saying that at the level of firing rockets that they don't have the ability to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel. The situation is not directly comparable to Japan. But your statements about Japan and Germany have just mostly been wrong and so I've pointed that out. Do you know where bin Laden was hiding? al-Zawahiri? Do you want to tell me what we did in those cases? Not what Israel is doing, and there was a reason for that. (The reason was that it wouldn't be beneficial to our long term security).

I just want to point that isn't actually really true. A good bit of the al Qeada leadership simply moved to Pakistan. And we knew it. And early on we decided to not chase them. We decided invading Pakistan, including only the tribal regions, wasn't worth it. And we know and always believed that's where bin Laden was. In 2006, we had a good idea where al-Zawahiri pretty precisely (and was right next door in Pakistan) and used a missile attack to try to kill him (and failed). The Pakistanis also claim to have almost captured him (in Pakistan once). Unless you consider hanging out in Pakistan right next to Afghanistan "scattered in the winds" or located "somewhere else in the world entirely." this isn't really true.

I'm saying that in 1973 we forced Israel to not destroy the Egyptian military and do whatever they would have done after doing so. And that's actually worked out for Israel, Egypt hasn't attacked them again, and in 1978 you have the Camp David Accords. Explain to me what you think happens in 1973 if Israel continues their attack on Egypt, does manage to destroy their military, and does whatever they do with the resulting Egypt. How does that work out better for Israel? If continuing to come to cease fires is a mistake because they keep getting attacked. Then you should be able to lay out a reasonable better out come for Israel than what they've had from those cease fires. If the Egyptian military is destroyed and forced to surrender in 1978, do think there aren't militant Arab/Muslim groups that are interested in attacking Israel today? Do you believe that? What is your historical narrative by which Israel is better off today after an Egyptian surrender? We did not destroy the Japanese military. It just isn't true. We didn't invade Japan partly because they still had vigorous means to defend the home islands the result would have been the death of many Americans and Japanese. Japan no longer had the ability to really project power (but Hamas never really has had the ability to project power), but they still readily had the ability to defend their home islands. We agreed to what was essentially a cease fire leaving the whole Japanese hierarchy alive and at least symbolically in place because we decided it wasn't worth the cost in lives. Which isn't really much different from where Israel finds itself with respect to Hamas today. What do you mean by getting rid of their leadership? Their leadership isn't in Gaza? Does that mean invading the countries where their leadership is?

The mistake isn't the same. If the mistake were the same, the results would be the same. And they aren't. Egypt is not invading Israel. It is hard to imagine that Israel invading Egypt to force an Egyptian surrender would have worked out better for Israel. The only way the argument in your tweet makes much sense is if it is the same countries that keep invading them. Cease fires can result in different out comes. We see that all over the world, including with respect to Israel. Israel occupied Gaza for years (even decades). If they wanted to work rebuilding Gaza, they could have. They didn't. What they did do is make Jewish settlements. Which they finally decided that they couldn't protect and so abandoned. Israel has had time and access to resources to help rebuild a Palestinian country and to support the world in doing so. And hasn't. Maybe the issue is that and not that they've agreed to cease fires. We didn't execute every Nazi. A very small number of Nazis were executed. Many were imprisoned for a short period of time and released as "rehabilitated" and people that weren't overly involved were essentially ignored. 24 people were tried at Nuremberg and only 12 of them were killed (Hitler obviously killed himself). There were millions of people in the Nazi party. In Japan, we even left the Emperor figuratively in power and didn't execute any high ranking Japanese after the war. What happened in Japan today would be recognized as a negotiated cease fire. And after what was realistically a cease fire, we helped them rebuild. No Hamas has not said they would surrender. I'm saying I think it might be good for global support of Israel if Israel would describe what destroying Hamas means in the context of the Hamas leadership. If destroying Hamas means the physical surrender of the Hamas leadership for trial in Israel, then I don't think they will ever surrender. If Israel will except the "destruction of Hamas" being the Hamas leadership saying we surrender and are disbanding while they go on living their lives in the countries they live in now pretty much in the manner they do now, then surrender (and the "destruction" of Hamas) becomes more likely. If surrender is more likely, people around the world are more likely to accept Israel's continue offensive in trying to "destroy" Hamas. If destroying Hamas means the leaders have to physically surrender to Israel, then I think that being less likely the world is less likely to support Israel's continued offensive. That is more likely to result in a war without an end where only people stuck in places like Gaza are actually being punished.

This is extremely misleading in that the implication is that Israel's enemies haven't changed. Trans-Jordan isn't even a country any more. Egypt is no longer attacking Israel. The idea that the more recent conflict is equivalent to every other conflict is false. Being forced to agree to a cease fire with Egypt has not resulted in Egypt continuing to attack Israel. The other thing that has happened historically to prevent wars is the winning side has changed what they do after the war. After WWII, we looked at what we did after WWI and said that didn't work. Let's try something else (giving the people that we had beaten lots of money and land of their own to call a country and helped them rebuild their country). So maybe the issue isn't there are cease fires. Maybe the issue is what happens after the cease fire. I think in the context of this current conflict Israel could help avoid calls for a cease fire by trying to precisely describe what victory looks like and what it is going to take to achieve it. Our objective in WWII was not to kill every member of the Nazi party, or anybody that have sworn allegiance to the Emperor. We've seen the issue with defeating organizations like the Taliban. We weren't willing to kill everybody in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan to defeat the Taliban. Are going to occupy Jordan, Lebanon, Qatar, etc. to destroy Hamas if that's what is actually necessary? Kill/displace everybody that lives in Gaza? Even what does it mean to destroy Hamas? Does this mean killing the Hamas leadership? Or if they say we surrender is that sufficient?

It means that it isn't one person like you first suggested in trying to down play the issue. And your first dismissal of it was wrong. Hopefully people that realized that part of the problem is the uncompensated taking of land that occured and that taking more land by force, especially uncompensated, would not likely be helpful in terms of achieving long term peace wouldn't support it. Hopefully some people would be interested in peace on both sides and see more of the same isn't helpful. By both sides and on both sides. Which is why we came out so forcibly and quickly against it. (and didn't just dismiss it like you've pretty much tried to do in your last post.) Ok. And if it isn't possible to eliminate Hamas without killing every Palestinian in Gaza, that's not a problem?

It hasn't been just one person. And in this CNN article, a pollster puts the percentage of Israelis that want to re-establish settlements in Gaza at 25-40% (though that doesn't necessarily mean removing all Palestinians). https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/middleeast/israel-far-right-gaza-settler-movement-cmd-intl/index.html Okay. What does minimizing civilian deaths mean, especially in the context of a goal that might not be achievable?

I don't think it is pointless. Because it isn't clear that Hamas can be destroyed this way. And certainly not destroyed in this way that practically does any good (i.e. destroyed and not replaced by an organization that will have similar goals and similar methods (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood)). But whether that goal is reasonable and achievable and how well they are minimizing civilian casualties has been questioned. e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/israel-gaza-war-can-hamas-actually-be-eliminated-experts-weigh-in.html#:~:text=It has substantial support in,still not eliminate the organization. Even Israel admits that they haven't been successful in minimizing civilian deaths. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-67447942 And Biden called their bombing indiscriminate (early on): https://apnews.com/article/biden-israel-hamas-oct-7-44c4229d4c1270d9cfa484b664a22071 And emptying Gaza of Palestinians has been raised by at least one person in the Israeli government. You can't even discuss what Israel shouldn't do with respect to Palestinians in trying to destroy Hamas? Or whether they've set themselves a goal that can be achieved without eliminating Palestinians from Gaza (to be clear that doesn't mean killing them but would also include moving them to somewhere else)? Is it not possible that Israel will do things that are "wrong" that having a discussion of what that would look like so that we know if we see it pointless and retarded?

I'm not trying to blame Israel. I specifically said in my post, you can keep going back to you are blaming a bunch of dead people that doesn't do any good. I'm trying to point out flaws in your logic and yes by pointing to the extremes. But I'll also note that you didn't answer the question. What do you draw the line? And why do you get decide that's where the line is drawn? Would you rather we discuss something that has been proposed by some Israelis in the government? In trying to destroy Iranian supported organizations is Israel allowed to dispose every Gazan of their land and make Gaza part of Israel? You ignored the key question to continue placing simplistic blame on Palestinians.

I started my first post with "Did anybody read the NYT story?" And the rest of my post wasn't a summation of the story. It was a description of how the tweet was misrepresenting the story. The point of my initial post was that people were commenting on NYT they hadn't even actually read. Which lead to people just commenting on a poll/story that they hadn't looked at. (I also think you are still misrepresenting the poll. And the easy answer is that Trump supporters are delusional and aren't concerned about anything related to Trump in terms of his ability to be President. That they think Trump is great and most have no concerns about him being President again. But that's not worth my time.)

At what cost? vs. at what risk. In targeting people supported by Iran is there a limit to how many people, including civilians and children, that Israel can kill? Can Israel kill every Palestinian (commit genocide) if they are targeting people supported by Iran? Does the practicality of the people attacking and destroying Israel matter? If they just killed every Gazan to destroy people supported by Iran, would other Palestinians then be justified in attacking Israel and killing civilians? Where do you draw the line? Why do you get to decide what is justified (vs. let's say some Palestinian)? (Hamas only used to attack Israeli military personal and sites. They changed because Israeli non-military personal (settlers) were attacking and killing Palestinians and Israel wasn't really doing anything about it. They see Israeli citizens as legitimate targets because Israeli citizens were attacking, taking land from, and killing Palestinians. Hamas' position in their view is justified based on prior Israeli actions. Just like you and Israel are justifying Israel's current and unprecedented (in the context of this conflict) attack on Gaza as justified based on Hamas' prior actions. And you can keep going back until you are arguing about what a bunch of dead people did. Which IMO doesn't do any good.)