Hamas Attacks Against Israel

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

Edit:  I have NOT checked the authenticity of the video.

Edited May 6 by TheGreatBuzz

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Now we have to wonder what the ceasefire proposal is one that Israel agrees to. There were some Twitter sources claiming that the US told Hamas the ceasefire would be permanent but Israel as insisted it would only be temporary.

[Renegade7]

25 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Now we have to wonder what the ceasefire proposal is one that Israel agrees to. There were some Twitter sources claiming that the US told Hamas the ceasefire would be permanent but Israel as insisted it would only be temporary.

 

Yea...I'm not buying anything stops Israel from invading Rafah to finish off Hamas. 

 

This ceasefire may help get the rest of the hostages out and maybe some aid in, and that's about it.

 

And I'm usually the optimist...this isn't over from a long shot, and that's pending Israel even agreeing to this cease-fire in the first place, like you said.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Yea...I'm not buying anything stops Israel from invading Rafah to finish off Hamas. 

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

59 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Yea...I'm not buying anything stops Israel from invading Rafah to finish off Hamas. 

 

This ceasefire may help get the rest of the hostages out and maybe some aid in, and that's about it.

 

And I'm usually the optimist...this isn't over from a long shot, and that's pending Israel even agreeing to this cease-fire in the first place, like you said.

 

Israel has no obligation to agree to a ceasefire on Hamas’ terms.

 

Israel shouldn’t stop till they weed out Hamas in Rafah. Otherwise we’ll be back here in a few years. Thats the most likely scenario anyway, but allowing Hamas safe harbor in rajah guarantees it. 
 

Edited May 6 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Fergasun]

I am constantly having to think and re-write my responses in this thread because my emotions get fired up a bit.  And remind myself of the threat that both sides have felt over the years.  For the Jews, its the constant and very real holocausts they havs endured through the years.  For the Palestinians, it's the very real ethnic cleansing and unequal treatment for decades.  

 

Watching the US support the killing of 30,000+ Gazans, displacing the rest and going forward with a war that has an unobtainable objective?  Is that "Hamas propoaganda?"

 

I think both sides are a-holes.  Clearly Israel as the strongest a-hole has most of the power.  How are they going to "finish off Hamas"?  And Hamas as "junior a-hole"... unfortunately violence has not resulted in much gains for them, and they really feel like there is no options that yield productivity, so violence it is.  

 

Moral clarity was easy on October 7th.  The killing of civilians is indefensible. 

 

6 months later, the same applies... except Israel has killed 15x as many civilians.  They're Arabs so, "I really don't care, do you?"  Is IDF violence acceptable because it falls under a state flag?

 

It really should come down to do we value human life.  And yes, "its a war."  But it's a war between sides where one is way, way, outgunned.  

[Renegade7]

47 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Israel has no obligation to agree to a ceasefire on Hamas’ terms.

 

Israel shouldn’t stop till they weed out Hamas in Rafah. Otherwise we’ll be back here in a few years. Thats the most likely scenario anyway, but allowing Hamas safe harbor in rajah guarantees it. 
 

 

We are well past the point of "what's the right thing to do here"...

 

We can't control the past, but we can keep it from controlling us.  Decisions in the present is how we impact the future that we also cannot control.

 

But the plan has been in plain sight, no matter what anyone wants to call it:

 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-03-13/israel-religious-nationalists-gaza

[Captain Wiggles]

16 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

But the plan has been in plain sight, no matter what anyone wants to call it:

 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-03-13/israel-religious-nationalists-gaza

 

So Israel's plan is to commit more war crimes? Great. 😒

 

 

[Renegade7]

6 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

So Israel's plan is to commit more war crimes? Great. 😒

 

 

 

I got bad news for you...

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

I got bad news for you...

 

 

 

Yeah they've been doing it since before I was born. Don't say it too loudly tho. One might get labeled an antisemite. 😉

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

Protestors are making it too easy. They’re protesting the wrong organizations and rather than consistently demanding peace, a large number of them seem more upset by who is winning. No way to know how many that represents. Are they peace protestors, or are they in line with Hamas’ goals of destroying Israel. That depends on who you ask, and that is a messaging problem. 
 

this movement seems to be well funded but lacks clarity of purpose. It clearly has national level organization but lacks visible national leadership. Students claim to want schools to divest, but how many of us can say that we know exactly what those investments are? Why don’t we? If that’s what they’re using for justification shouldn’t that be in the forefront? 

 

Why does it appear to be well funded?

 

It isn't like they are running tv or radio commercials or buying billboard space to support their protests (that I've seen).  They're literally sleeping outside for free in tents.  

 

Different protestors support different things.  The state of Israel has people in their government communicating different things (some have said they want to see Palestinians removed from Gaza), and the problem is a bunch of college protestors from different universities don't agree on everything?

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Yeah they've been doing it since before I was born. Don't say it too loudly tho. One might get labeled an antisemite. 😉

 

Yep.

 

You should copy-paste this post for 20 years from now when they pushing Palestinians into the Jordan River as part of "war zone evacuations"...

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

What are they buying is a good question. The new CEO of NPR has a degree, as you’d expect, in a relevant field to radio and journalism: Arab and Islamic studies from NYU. The same NYU that’s being reported to having received massive amounts of funding from the Arab world over the last 30 years. What our prestigious universities teach to tomorrow’s leaders is not a trivial issue. Especially if universities are listing their programs for sale to foreign money.

 

The issue of Arab oil money coming into the US is a broader issue that the government (Congress) should address.  Of course they won't.

[Spearfeather]

17 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Yeah they've been doing it since before I was born. Don't say it too loudly tho. One might get labeled an antisemite. 😉

 

I'm just curious. Would you consider what Hamas did on Oct 7th " war crimes ", or not ?

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

Moral clarity was easy on October 7th.  The killing of civilians is indefensible. 

 

6 months later, the same applies... except Israel has killed 15x as many civilians.  They're Arabs so, "I really don't care, do you?"  Is IDF violence acceptable because it falls under a state flag?

 

It really should come down to do we value human life.  And yes, "its a war."  But it's a war between sides where one is way, way, outgunned.  

I’ve never thought the fact Israel has a better military matters. We lay waste to people we go to war with. The difference is crazy staggering. Having a superior military only means it’s dumb for them to screw with you, because the only thing preventing your annihilation is the one side not wanting to do it. 
 

Your post reads as oversimplifying the situation and then casually throwing out “yeah the holocaust happened” as an attempt to say you care are the Israelis, then very one-sided the rest of it as pro Palestinian. 
 

Gaza is 141 square miles. Of course going after Hamas means dealing with civilians in the area 

 

Hamas did this with their attack. They are the government of Gaza as elected by the people that live there. 
 

I’ve posted the polls before but according to Gallup Palestinians support terrorist organizations and terrorist acts like bombing food markets (ie: specifically targeting just civilians) in a significantly higher rate than everywhere else in the Middle East 

 

then you have things like this

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514

 

sorry but the “civilians will get hurt and have no where to flee to” doesn’t do much for me when said civilians have entangled themselves with terrorists, intentionally. 

Edited May 6 by tshile

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Yep.

 

You should copy-paste this post for 20 years from now when they pushing Palestinians into the Jordan River as part of "war zone evacuations"...

I think the timeline is more 2-6 months. If they are actually going to invade the rafah camps… I mean that’s basically all that’s left isn’t there? Isn’t that where the people who fled, fled to? 
 

if they actually do it (they’re in the outskirts areas now I believe) then I think 20 years from now there won’t be a Gaza Strip …

 

I’m not sure they’re gonna actually do it though. Guess we’ll see. 

 

 

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think the timeline is more 2-6 months. If they are actually going to invade the rafah camps… I mean that’s basically all that’s left isn’t there? Isn’t that where the people who fled, fled to? 
 

if they actually do it (they’re in the outskirts areas now I believe) then I think 20 years from now there won’t be a Gaza Strip …

 

I’m not sure they’re gonna actually do it though. Guess we’ll see. 

 

 

 

You are correct on Gaza is pretty much gone, all she wrote.

 

Jordan Rover reference is for when they come after the West Bank next. 

 

They've already accelerated building in East Jerusalem.

 

If it walks like a duck AND quacks like a duck...

Edited May 6 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I think the timeline is more 2-6 months. If they are actually going to invade the rafah camps… I mean that’s basically all that’s left isn’t there? Isn’t that where the people who fled, fled to? 
 

if they actually do it (they’re in the outskirts areas now I believe) then I think 20 years from now there won’t be a Gaza Strip …

 

I’m not sure they’re gonna actually do it though. Guess we’ll see. 

 

 

 

Gaza doesn't border the Jordan river.  The West Bank does.  Gaza is on the Mediterranian.

[Captain Wiggles]

23 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm just curious. Would you consider what Hamas did on Oct 7th " war crimes ", or not ?

 

 

Clearly 

[PeterMP]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

Having a superior military only means it’s dumb for them to screw with you, because the only thing preventing your annihilation is the one side not wanting to do it.

 

I'm not sure this applies in this case.  The implied assumption is that the one with the superior military doesn't already want to annihilate the other side.  (This didn't start on Oct. 7.)

 

If the side with the superior military already seems set on annihilation, then what?

Edited May 6 by PeterMP

[Spearfeather]

8 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Clearly 

 

Ok.

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You are correct on Gaza is pretty much gone, all she wrote.

 

Jordan Rover reference is for when they come after the West Bank next. 

 

They've already accelerated building in East Jerusalem.

 

If it walks like a duck AND quacks like a duck...

Oh duh, of course. Well. They were already stepping up aggression in the West Bank shortly after the initial attack. But yes, I assume the West Bank is finished as well one way or another. It was so fragmented already it’s basically just a formality at this point. 

15 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure this applies in this case.  The implied assumption is that the one with the superior military doesn't already want to annihilate the other side.  (This didn't start on Oct. 7.)

 

If the side with the superior military already seems set on annihilation, then what?

I was speaking to the idea that I quoted which was that having a superior military means anything morally. 
 

I think you’re seeing the answer to “then what?” now, in the general sense. Generally I think history shows your options are surrender, fight until they annihilate you, or hold on long enough to get them to decide it’s no longer worth it. 
 

I don’t think the third option exists when you’re neighbors. 
 

Taliban had the third option and exercised it. Ukraine and Gaza/West bank don’t really have that option. 

Edited May 6 by tshile

[PokerPacker]

9 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

Thanks a lot you ****in' protestors...

 

Now innocent people who had nothing to do with this are being affected.

 

 

[bearrock]

2 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Moral clarity was easy on October 7th.  The killing of civilians is indefensible. 

 

6 months later, the same applies... except Israel has killed 15x as many civilians.  They're Arabs so, "I really don't care, do you?"  Is IDF violence acceptable because it falls under a state flag?

 

It really should come down to do we value human life.  And yes, "its a war."  But it's a war between sides where one is way, way, outgunned.  

 

I mean intentional killing of civilian is indefensible regardless of the scale.  And at this point, I think both Hamas leadership and Netanyahu and his cronies are doing it intentionally, or at least with reckless abandon.

 

I really don't get why Hamas being way outgunned any role in the moral calculus though.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

I'm just curious. Would you consider what Hamas did on Oct 7th " war crimes ", or not ?

 

I don’t think this is a great argument.

 

It’s a problem with the media. We see these crazy ass protestors on TV waving Hamas flags and jump to the conclusion that anyone questioning Israel is being pro Hamas.  Few arguments worth less than the for or against us argument.

 

We should all agree that countries should avoid committing war crimes and not excuse it as necessarily justified while acknowledging the reality that no country at war lives up to those standards.

 

The only deterrent to war crimes is penalties for anyone who commits them, but we have a long way to go until anything close to that happens.

 

 

Edited May 7 by CousinsCowgirl84