Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

I don't know what you mean by "Those," but let's hear it. I bet it's pretty much still squibs, if not in form, then in function.

The missiles that hit those four men.
The question is, how does the twit cited by Zipr know that they were "civilians"?

Don't you think if they were Hamas they would be carrying weapons?

No, because ditch the weapon and pretend to be a civilian is standard practice.

So again, it is confirmed that the Israeli policy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

UN seemingly halves estimate of Gazan women, children killed​

Again, 14500 is out of 34735 and 7797 is out of 24686. We do not then mathematically say that 14500 should be compared to 7797. Mathematically, we might predict that the full 34735 ought to have nearly the same ratio. So we might compare 14500/34735 to 7797/24686. The former is 41.7% and the latter is 31.6%.

This isn't half (50%), but more like 76%.

It is difficult to say why the numbers are different without examining the specific estimate reports and the context found in the reports. I'd assume that in the first instance, the estimates came from a source that used population demographic estimates in combination of a reported 90% random civilian casualty count to get numbers. While the second report had better information involving specific identifications and so quickly tried to revise numbers.

Actually, it's easy to see what happened here, there's a lot of bad reporting.

The bad reporting is the article from Israeli news. The UN didn't CHANGE anything. They added details about identified counts. There are unidentified and identified persons.

From here:

Fact Check: Did UN halve Gaza death toll?

Amid social media claims to the contrary, U.N. spokesperson Faran Haq said there had been no change in the number of fatalities.

www.newsweek.com

"So what they recently published was that they gave figures for 24,686 out of 34,622 overall fatalities recorded in Gaza, and those 24,686 people are the ones for whom full details have been documented. In other words, people who have been fully identified

but this is obvious from reading the graph.

The UN had been reporting the number of dead that Hamas claimed. They switched to reporting what the Ministry of Health listed, instead. As you say, this is not half. It is, however, approximately how many combatants Israel claims to have killed. If we figure the Hamas data is total dead an the ministry data is mostly civilian dead everything's consistent. By Occam's razor this would be the most sensible interpretation.

I don't think you are far off here except for your assumption of who is a combatant who is not. For example, Netanyahu most recently has said that there were 14,000 Hamas and other fighters killed plus "probably around" (a very very vague estimate by him) 16,000 civilians killed. This is him on the defense, after earlier he said that 1.1 to 1.5 was the ratio and even earlier after Israel had said the ratio was 1 to 2. So we can take that 16,000 figure to be very loose and an underestimate. If it were 2 to 1, the total would be 42,000 which is above 35,000. If it were 1.5 to 1, it'd be 35,000. If it were his least estimate so far of 16K, the total would be 30,000, which is HIGHER than the 25K of identified persons in the counts. Israel's ranges from least to highest are inclusive of the 35,000 figure but ARE NOT inclusive of the 25K figure. This again is because it is only identified persons, not all the bodies observed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel isn't interested in a cease fire that doesn't involve the return of all the hostages. Why in the world should they be expected to accept anything less?

(And note that this turned out to be false, anyway--Hamas quietly changed the terms to be utterly unacceptable.)

What were the terms of the proposed ceasefire?

What did Hamas change them to?

We can discuss what made the new terms unacceptable when we know what they were.

I didn't pay attention to the terms, the first I heard of it was from Hamas substituting dead hostages for live hostages. That would kill the deal so it didn't matter what else it said.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Each time a journalist dies or is injured, we lose a fragment of the truth.

There have been a lot of local journalists who have died. I wonder how many of them had journalism as a day job, but were also fighters for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

Speaking of the latter:
IDF says strike in Rafah killed Islamic Jihad commander who helped lead Oct. 7 attack

There's a reason they don't publish the full names of the "journalists". Those dead "journalists" are at best embedded reporters and most likely Hamas.

Followup on this:

One-third of journalists killed in Gaza were affiliated with terrorist groups

The U.S. head of Reporters Without Borders acknowledged that the NGO applied different standards for Gazan and Israeli journalists killed during the war

jewishinsider.com

33 specifically identified as working for Hamas media.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that you see it as a tit-for-tat. It's not. Israel's main objective is to recover the hostages, not to rack up some particular kill count.

There was a deal for hostages and Bibi killed it because it also meant stopping killing Gazans.
What part of “Bibi does not want peace” don’t you understand?

It's Hamas that killed it by changing the terms.

 

[laughing dog]

Each time a journalist dies or is injured, we lose a fragment of the truth.

There have been a lot of local journalists who have died. I wonder how many of them had journalism as a day job, but were also fighters for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

Speaking of the latter:
IDF says strike in Rafah killed Islamic Jihad commander who helped lead Oct. 7 attack

There's a reason they don't publish the full names of the "journalists". Those dead "journalists" are at best embedded reporters and most likely Hamas.

Followup on this:

One-third of journalists killed in Gaza were affiliated with terrorist groups

The U.S. head of Reporters Without Borders acknowledged that the NGO applied different standards for Gazan and Israeli journalists killed during the war

jewishinsider.com

33 specifically identified as working for Hamas media.

If 1/3 of the killed journalists are truly affiliated with Hamas news organisations, that means 2/3 are not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, not a simplified version. An extremely distorted version designed to provoke an emotional reaction. Hamas militants are not strapping babies to their body armor, and Israel is not faced with shooting babies. Instead, Israel bombs neighborhoods in which it knows innocent civilians live on the pretense that this will somehow lead to the destruction of legitimate Hamas military targets. Those children contain women, children, the sick, and the elderly. Everyone knows that. The people firing artillery, dropping bombs, and launching missiles at those neighborhoods never see the innocent people they kill. They are just following orders--a time-tested justification for atrocities committed in times of war. What they are doing is not a necessity. It is an expediency combined with depraved indifference to the lives of innocent civilians who might be in or near the targets that they think might be legitimate military targets. Refusing to kill children in those neighborhoods at this time would not let Hamas "massacre the Jews", and you know it. Hamas is largely broken and on the defensive now. Israel has a greater responsibility to safeguard the lives of Palestinian non-combatants, who require food, water, shelter, and a safe place to stay out of the fighting.

Simplified. Standard tactics for Hamas members who think they're being targeted is to get amongst civilians. And when Israel calls ahead to get a building evacuated Hamas has been known to order the neighbors to run to the rooftop. Some years back a whole bunch got killed that way--they were a bit too slow and the bomb hit before they got to the rooftop to be seen.

And your statement of "pretense" makes no sense. If it were a pretense why would Israel be doing things like calling ahead to get targets evacuated?

Refusing to kill would allow Hamas the freedom to repeat 10/7 which is massacring Jews. They're on the defensive now but that's been the intent all along. Hamas attacks, then runs and hides amongst the civilians to get the world press to stop Israel from coming after them. Usually it dies down quickly because of this but because of all the hostages it hasn't this time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you refuse to kill children in Gaza you let Hamas massacre the Jews.

Holy shit.
Wow.

Holy fucking shit.

Sorry, but reality sometimes offers only extremely unpalatable choices. Doesn't mean you get to not choose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Who gets to decide which answer is the better one?

Yitzhak Rabin believed a Two State solution that would ensure Israel's continuation as a Jewish State for the Jewish people was a better answer than a One State solution in which non-Jews could conceivably become a majority, or a Rogue State that would be a pariah among nations.

It never would have worked. Saying his assassination stopped peace is just an attempt to pin it on the Jews.

Benjamin Netanyahu believes a Jewish State encompassing all of Eretz Israel, with non-Jews having been expelled or confined to ghettos and internment centers, is better.

And I don't agree with him.

You apparently think using nuclear weapons to murder millions in Amman and Damascus is better than allowing non-Jewish refugees to return to their former places of residence inside Israel because it's too dangerous for Jews to live among non-Jews, especially as a potential minority in a century or two, unless it's in the West Bank as an actual minority today, in which case it's perfectly fine.

I think it comes down to which side forces matters. You are basically saying that the side who piles up enough human shields should be given control.

I hope it never comes to that but I would say it would be better for them to take out their attacker than to submit to genocide.

The people currently active in Jewish Voice for Peace think it's better to dismantle institutional power that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the other characteristics bigots use to justify injustice, and replace it with a more egalitarian system of organization that respects and defends human rights.

Just because you like your 'better' better, doesn't mean someone else's 'better' isn't better than yours.

They're idiots. They don't get to say someone else should die rather than defend themselves.

 

[Arctish]

Israel isn't interested in a cease fire that doesn't involve the return of all the hostages. Why in the world should they be expected to accept anything less?

(And note that this turned out to be false, anyway--Hamas quietly changed the terms to be utterly unacceptable.)

What were the terms of the proposed ceasefire?

What did Hamas change them to?

We can discuss what made the new terms unacceptable when we know what they were.

I didn't pay attention to the terms, the first I heard of it was from Hamas substituting dead hostages for live hostages. That would kill the deal so it didn't matter what else it said.

Why would that kill the deal? Doesn't Israel want the bodies back so the families can have closure?

Anyway, you said Hamas quietly changed the terms of a deal. Where did you get your information?

Support your claims, Loren.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Each time a journalist dies or is injured, we lose a fragment of the truth.

There have been a lot of local journalists who have died. I wonder how many of them had journalism as a day job, but were also fighters for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

Speaking of the latter:
IDF says strike in Rafah killed Islamic Jihad commander who helped lead Oct. 7 attack

There's a reason they don't publish the full names of the "journalists". Those dead "journalists" are at best embedded reporters and most likely Hamas.

Followup on this:

One-third of journalists killed in Gaza were affiliated with terrorist groups

The U.S. head of Reporters Without Borders acknowledged that the NGO applied different standards for Gazan and Israeli journalists killed during the war

jewishinsider.com

33 specifically identified as working for Hamas media.

I am not surprised. If we invaded China and started killing journalists there, most would be Chinese. Since Hamas is only a fraction of Gaza but has a bit of control of infrastructure, it is reasonable that more than the small fraction but less than the vast majority of journalists would have affiliations with Hamas.

Stating they are affiliated with pro-Hamas networks, though, is not the same as stating they are combatants. And in your best case scenario, that 1/3 were terrorists, it would mean 2/3 killed were not. As. The. Best. Case. Scenario.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You don't seem to recognize it when Muslims do it any more than Barbos recognizes it when Russians do it.
Tom

Hamas has no ability to commit ethnic cleansing against the Israelis.

No they don't.
That would take a much bigger part of the Muslim community.

Then why do you continue to claim Hamas is committing ethnic cleansing?

Hamas is attempting to commit ethnic cleansing. The fact that they aren't very successful at it doesn't change that.

So they're attempting to do the impossible?

Is ethnic cleansing that doesn't remove everyone not ethnic cleansing?

Just because they can't do it all at once doesn't change the nature of the act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's fair. I am tired of being told that whatever Israel does in the name of "security" is okay.

Since nobody has better answers I don't feel that criticism is appropriate. It's always the faith-based belief that there must be a better answer--the lack of anyone suggesting one should be recognized as significant.

i am also tired of the arrogant“ there are no better answers “ response that is driven by the faith- based belief that Israel always chooses the best options.

I'm not saying Israel always chooses the best options. I'm saying their track record is far above second place, but you consider it unacceptable.

And note that you aren't addressing my point one bit. You're still claiming there's something better, despite there not being a whiff of evidence of it.

I am tired of the human shield whining excuse for killing civilians. Yes, the presence of civilians makes the task of killing Hamas targets more difficult and/or dangerous for the IDF. But waiting until the target is home to drop the bomb is inexcusable. Not bothering to confirm the target is inexcusable, Making the distribution of relief food, water and medical supplies is inexcusable.

I am sick and tired of the “not killing Gazans” means the genocide of Jews sometime before the end of the universe. Not only is that claim a passive aggressive accusation of anti-semitism except when it is an explicit accusation, it is an insult to the intelligence to anyone with a functioning brain.

And note that we have no solid evidence of any failure to confirm the target. Just because something is "aid" doesn't mean it's not Hamas. And doesn't mean it's real. We have one car supposedly hit--in a fashion inconsistent with any weapon they're using. We've seen a truck damaged--in a fashion that looks to me like an AI goof. In other cases we have wreckage--but with no evidence of what actually happened.

And the biggest obstacle to aid is still Hamas:

Soldiers shocked | Tons of food from humanitarian aid found in Hamas hideouts

Soldiers operating in Zeitoun found food forcibly taken by Hamas from humanitarian aid distributors. The terror organization first distributed the aid to its operatives and then to the civilians in the area.

www.israelnationalnews.com

Exactly as we have been saying--the aid is going to Hamas, not the people.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With vicious anti-Muslim bigotry?

We are talking about Islamists, not merely Muslims.

The Muslim attacks on Israel have also been going on for decades. It's kinda like a continuation of the attacks that resulted in Israel in the first place.
Except now, Jews can defend themselves. And they're doing so. Even when it's not politically correct.
Tom

Of the 5 sentences, only the third one is balanced. The rest are pure propaganda.

You say "balanced"--in other words, you admit the first two are true. And what's unbalanced about them?

No, I did not. of the 5 sentences, I found the 3rd as as balanced which
means I found sentences 1, 3 , 4 and 5 as unbalanced. In fact, I found them to be oure propaganda.

Most people know propaganda is thought to be untrue.

And once again you derail rather than address the issue.

What's not balanced?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... That illegal confiscation of Palestinian land -- Tom? Agree with LP that Might Makes Right? ...

It isn't a matter of might makes right.

I choose the side that is defending itself. I choose the side that isn't trying to engage in genocide.

You missed the point. We are NOT talking about the current War -- There are no easy solutions there.
We ARE talking about the abusive behavior over the decades which have led to Palestinian resentment.
in particular we are talking about the confiscation by religious extremists of West Bank land justified only by "God gave this land to me."

YOU are on record as supporting this confiscation on some legalistic grounds that it's a no-man's land. (Cite?)
BUT, what prevents Palestinians from grabbing that land back if neither side can claim it legally?
The answer to that is implicit in your claim: Might makes Right.

To grab it the Palestinians would have to declare statehood. That's something they will not do because that either leaves them with defining land that's not part of Palestine or it leaves it totally obvious that they want a one state with them in control.

A far-fetched Dream? Surely so, ...

What are you smoking?!

What Arab nation would touch that with a 10' pole?? To even appear to act against Islamist violence would cause major internal trouble.

Is English your first language? I say, AGREEING with you, that a certain peace-keeping is "Surely a far-fetched Dream." You ask me what I'm smoking.

I'm saying that no Arab nation would actually do it even if you could get Israel and Hamas to agree.

 

[Arctish]

Who gets to decide which answer is the better one?

Yitzhak Rabin believed a Two State solution that would ensure Israel's continuation as a Jewish State for the Jewish people was a better answer than a One State solution in which non-Jews could conceivably become a majority, or a Rogue State that would be a pariah among nations.

It never would have worked.

In your opinion.

Others believe it would have worked. They include the diplomats and government officials from Sweden, the United States, and Israel who negotiated the Accords.

You have given me no reason to believe you know more about diplomacy, international treaties, and what works for nation-states than they do.

Saying his assassination stopped peace is just an attempt to pin it on the Jews.

Not on the Jews, Loren. Only the violent Zionist bigots who are willing to murder anyone who might thwart their ambitions in the Middle East.

Not all Jews are violent.

Not all Jews are Zionists.

Not all Jews are bigots.

Not all Jews are opposed to the Two State solution and would murder an Israeli Prime Minister for trying to forge one. And (this is important so pay attention) not all people willing to murder an Israeli Prime Minister to prevent him from succeeding in his stated goals are Jews, or Zionists, or even Israelis.

Benjamin Netanyahu believes a Jewish State encompassing all of Eretz Israel, with non-Jews having been expelled or confined to ghettos and internment centers, is better.

And I don't agree with him.

You apparently think using nuclear weapons to murder millions in Amman and Damascus is better than allowing non-Jewish refugees to return to their former places of residence inside Israel because it's too dangerous for Jews to live among non-Jews, especially as a potential minority in a century or two, unless it's in the West Bank as an actual minority today, in which case it's perfectly fine.

I think it comes down to which side forces matters. You are basically saying that the side who piles up enough human shields should be given control.

I hope it never comes to that but I would say it would be better for them to take out their attacker than to submit to genocide.

So you agree. You think it would be better to murder millions of civilians in a nuclear firestorm than allow a few thousand Christian and Muslim refugees return to their former homes inside Israel.

That is your 'better' idea.

The people currently active in Jewish Voice for Peace think it's better to dismantle institutional power that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the other characteristics bigots use to justify injustice, and replace it with a more egalitarian system of organization that respects and defends human rights.

Just because you like your 'better' better, doesn't mean someone else's 'better' isn't better than yours.

They're idiots. They don't get to say someone else should die rather than defend themselves.

No one says that except you.

 

[Swammerdami]

... That illegal confiscation of Palestinian land -- Tom? Agree with LP that Might Makes Right? ...

It isn't a matter of might makes right.

I choose the side that is defending itself. I choose the side that isn't trying to engage in genocide.

You missed the point. We are NOT talking about the current War -- There are no easy solutions there.
We ARE talking about the abusive behavior over the decades which have led to Palestinian resentment.
in particular we are talking about the confiscation by religious extremists of West Bank land justified only by "God gave this land to me."

YOU are on record as supporting this confiscation on some legalistic grounds that it's a no-man's land. (Cite?)
BUT, what prevents Palestinians from grabbing that land back if neither side can claim it legally?
The answer to that is implicit in your claim: Might makes Right.

To grab it the Palestinians would have to declare statehood.

Wrong.

That's something they will not do because that either leaves them with defining land that's not part of Palestine or it leaves it totally obvious that they want a one state with them in control.

And yet again you manage to miss the whole point!

I'm tired of trying to explain this to you. As an exercise to expand your mind, re-read what I wrote, paying special attention to the question I reddened, pretend I'm not an imbecile, and get back when YOU think you can explain MY point.

A far-fetched Dream? Surely so, ...

What are you smoking?!

What Arab nation would touch that with a 10' pole?? To even appear to act against Islamist violence would cause major internal trouble.

Is English your first language? I say, AGREEING with you, that a certain peace-keeping is "Surely a far-fetched Dream." You ask me what I'm smoking.

I'm saying that no Arab nation would actually do it even if you could get Israel and Hamas to agree.

Non-responsive. I want to know why you asked me what I'm smoking. When you address this, kindly address MY ACTUAL WORDS, not what you wish I'd wrote or what you THOUGHT I meant when you devoted all of three seconds to reading my post before pounding the Reply button.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We do not agree that Hamas has the support of a majority of Gazans, that they approve of terrorism, or that they approve of Hamas digging tunnels under their apartment blocks, schools, streets, etc.

And what's your answer to that poll showing 57% of the population says 10/7 was the right choice.

It’s been explained numerous times. How many times must you see that a respondent in retrospect might look at 10/7 as revenge for the IDF’s response. It would mit an uncommon emotional response even if it is irrational.

It wouldn’t take too many of those to put that pointless poll number below 50%.

In other words, you have no answer and are trying to handwave away unpleasant reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway, I think you may have missed the forest by focusing on the trees. Self defense is politically correct. A disproportionate response that needlessly kills tens of thousands of civilians is not.

Israel's response to the terror attack in October looks grossly disproportionate.

And you continue to think that proportionate is relevant. Proportionate in self defense means you use the least force you have available consistent with stopping the threat. There is no requirement that the amount of harm you inflict is not in excess of what they are trying to inflict on you. If a football team is trying to kill you you're legally fine in killing every member of said team even though that's 11:1.

Furthermore, no matter how lopsided an encounter so long as a deadly threat exists and they do not surrender you can continue to attack. Even if Hamas were to not fire another round the deadly threat exists to the hostages. Thus Israel is justified in shooting as Hamas so long as they have any hostages. They are already the world leaders on minimizing collateral damage, they are doing nothing wrong in that regard.

Aaand once again Loren takes “hamas” and uses it to be exactly equal to “every citizen of Gaza including infants.”

And once again you don't recognize the unpleasant reality of war: that you act to minimize civilian casualties but that hitting human shields is not a violation of Geneva.

Let’s fix this abominable claim:

If a football team is trying to kill you, even though they can’t actually succeed, you're legally fine in killing every member of said team, including the cheerleaders, the water-boy, the fans and the visiting fans. even though that's 100:1.

This is why, in Loren’s mind, Law Enforcement in America is taught to kill all hostages, including children, if necessary, to kill the hostage-taker.

You just HAVE TO. Tghere’s no other way.

And, once again, the idea that Jews are expendable. Just because they can't kill all the Jews it's not a deadly threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what incident are you referring to?

I recall some claims of strikes on aid, some of which is clearly faked. I do not recall any convoy being hit car by car.

It was reported in a major news event last month that seriously damaged the already tense relationship between the US and Israeli governments. It was not "clearly faked". I can't believe that you had trouble recalling it. Netanyahu said he was sorry about it.

Chef Jose Andres says Israel targeted his aid workers 'systematically, car by car'​

Well, they are no longer including the image that clearly revealed their deception. Even those images, though--that hole in the roof isn't as obviously wrong as the view from the other side but it's still pretty difficult for anything not heading straight down.