Israel Loses In Israeli Election

[Tigers!]

And in particular list the options of which you would approve.

Those that don't break the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions would be acceptable.

If I recall correctly the Geneva Convention forbades the taking of hostages. So how would/should Hamas been punished for and prevented from taking hostages in the first place?

Well ideally, the leaders responsible would be captured/arrested, and tried at The Hague.

And if Israel had sent in snatch squads to capture them and they succeeded the outcry would have been huge.

Would it? How could you possibly know that?

Based upon the response to Israel's snatching on Eichmann in 1960 then there would have been an huge outcry.

They would never had got to the Hague.

Again, how could you know that?

Once out of Israeli control they would have magically escaped or be released before hand.

Do you have next week's powerball numbers too?

Yes but I'll keep them to myself.

You are very keen for Israel to follow the Geneva Convention, as they should.

Indeed.

Where is the concern for Hamas to follow the Geneva Convention?

In EXACTLY the same place.

If Hamas does not follow the Convention what will be done about it?

The perpetrators will be tried and punished.

Do you really believe that the Hamas commanders (those who are still alive) will ever be tried for what they did?

Not if no effort is made to do so. Shooting them on sight is not morally defensible.

What absolutey must NOT happen, if we care about trying to make the world a better place, is for Israel to say "They don't play by the rules, so we won't either".

Another person's crime - even if it is a crime they got away with scot free - is never a justification for you to commit that crime.

Never claimed otherwise.

You certainly strongly implied it.

If you say so.

 

[laughing dog]

And in particular list the options of which you would approve.

Those that don't break the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions would be acceptable.

If I recall correctly the Geneva Convention forbades the taking of hostages. So how would/should Hamas been punished for and prevented from taking hostages in the first place?

Well ideally, the leaders responsible would be captured/arrested, and tried at The Hague.

And if Israel had sent in snatch squads to capture them and they succeeded the outcry would have been huge.

Would it? How could you possibly know that?

Based upon the response to Israel's snatching on Eichmann in 1960 then there would have been an huge outcry.

The anger of the Argentinian gov't of the kidnapping of one of the citizens does not an huge outcry make.

On the otherhand, capturing wanted terrorists instead of bombing the everlasting crap out of an area is a civilized response.

 

[Tigers!]

And in particular list the options of which you would approve.

Those that don't break the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions would be acceptable.

If I recall correctly the Geneva Convention forbades the taking of hostages. So how would/should Hamas been punished for and prevented from taking hostages in the first place?

Well ideally, the leaders responsible would be captured/arrested, and tried at The Hague.

And if Israel had sent in snatch squads to capture them and they succeeded the outcry would have been huge.

Would it? How could you possibly know that?

Based upon the response to Israel's snatching on Eichmann in 1960 then there would have been an huge outcry.

The anger of the Argentinian gov't of the kidnapping of one of the citizens does not an huge outcry make.

On the otherhand, capturing wanted terrorists instead of bombing the everlasting crap out of an area is a civilized response.

Do you really, really think all of those pro-Hamas protests all over the world would have accepted any Israeli capture of Hamas leaders?
(I have a nice bridge in Australia to sell you.)

 

[Elixir]

Do you really, really think all of those pro-Hamas protests all over the world

Wut? They “accept” the displacement and partial genocide of the entire population of Gaza, so what exactly is it that is over the line?. Apparently they’ll “accept” anything that can be rammed down their throat by Bibi’s men and Trump’s money.

 

[laughing dog]

And in particular list the options of which you would approve.

Those that don't break the rules set out in the Geneva Conventions would be acceptable.

If I recall correctly the Geneva Convention forbades the taking of hostages. So how would/should Hamas been punished for and prevented from taking hostages in the first place?

Well ideally, the leaders responsible would be captured/arrested, and tried at The Hague.

And if Israel had sent in snatch squads to capture them and they succeeded the outcry would have been huge.

Would it? How could you possibly know that?

Based upon the response to Israel's snatching on Eichmann in 1960 then there would have been an huge outcry.

The anger of the Argentinian gov't of the kidnapping of one of the citizens does not an huge outcry make.

On the otherhand, capturing wanted terrorists instead of bombing the everlasting crap out of an area is a civilized response.

Do you really, really think all of those pro-Hamas protests all over the world would have accepted any Israeli capture of Hamas leaders?
(I have a nice bridge in Australia to sell you.)

There is a real difference between pro-Hamas and anti-destruction of innocents. There really weren't that many pro-Hamas protests all over the world.

 

[bilby]

Based upon the response to Israel's snatching on Eichmann in 1960

Seriously? It hasn't been 1960 for more than sixty five years.

Are you also basing your forecasts on the possibility of Soviet missiles being deployed in Cuba?

 

[Derec]

There is a real difference between pro-Hamas and anti-destruction of innocents. There really weren't that many pro-Hamas protests all over the world.

Wrong, as usual. The Gaza protests that sprung up as soon as a day after Gaza attacked Israel have featured pro-Hamas slogans.

These protesters are referring to 10/7 and other Palestinian terrorist attacks as "resistance" and are defending it. They also demand that "all Palestinian 'political' prisoners", i.e. terrorists like Abdullah Barghouti, be freed.

" Al-Qassam Brigades" is the name of the "military" (aka terror) wing of Hamas.

Just two examples.

 

[Derec]

Again, and it is worth repeating, half of whom were women and children. Sounds pretty indiscriminate to me.

~75% of Gaza population are women or minors (often misleadingly called "children"). That means that those two groups are killed at a disproportionately low rate. If the killing was indiscriminate, 75% of the dead would be women and minors.

Another point is that being <18 does not necessarily mean that this person was a non-combatant. Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists regularly recruit minor teenagers.
I have posted this before:

It's a graph I made from Gaza Health Ministry's own list of fatalities.
It shows that military age males are much more likely to get killed than others.

For females, the distribution roughly follows the population pyramid - so they are likely almost all unfortunate, random victims of urban warfare. Hamas is to blame for this too - they deliberately operate from built up and occupied areas because civilian casualties are good for propaganda purposes since the useful idiots in the West (including those who voted for Abdulrahman in Michigan) just lap it up.

 

[Derec]

I agree. While I'm not a military or national security person, I have to believe that there would be some better solution without committing genocide/ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

I don't think there was a feasible alternative to an all-out war in Gaza, and I definitely reject the "genocide" label. And while some Israeli politicians have advanced the idea of ethnically cleansing Gaza, nothing like that has been implemented. And speaking of ethnic cleansing, it is the Arab world that ethnically cleansed to become virtually "Judenrein".

Btw, Gadi Eisenkot, the likely next prime minister of Israel is the son of Moroccan Jews.
But I forgot: A dozen Arab ethnostates (plus Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran after the ayatollahs took over) ethnically cleansing Jews is fine, but the very idea of Zionism is "racism" </progressoauthoritarian>

Something that doesn't include killing 50,000 people and dislocating 2 million people.

Why not? War is hell, precisely because people, including innocent people, suffer and die. Actions have consequences, and this was not a war that Israel started. It was started by Gaza, and not just Hamas; other factions such as Islamic Jihad and PFLP also participated.

Option A: Hamas attacks and kills something like 2000 people and Israel does not retaliate
Option C: Hamas attacks so Israel kills 50,000 people, 75% women and children, and dislocates 90% of the civil population

Correction: some ~75k people. And 50% women and minors (many of whom are themselves combatants, another war crime by Hamas etc.) as opposed to 75% women and minors in the population. That means that women and minors were significantly underrepresented among fatalities. A disproportionally high number of fatalities has been military age males, say 15-45 or so.

What was a good option B? I don't know. But I'm no expert. But there has to have been other better options than genocide.

There is no "genocide". But the high number of deaths is to a large extent due to Hamas et al operating from civilian areas.

A missile is targeting a Hamas rocket launcher placed amidst tents in the Al Mawasi civilian area. Note that the people were warned, which is why they were able to set up cameras (two angles, this is a still from a video).

The tunnel from which Mohammed Sinwar, Yahya Sinwar's brother and successor was operating when he was eliminated. The emergency department entrance of the European hospital is also visible.

Mohammed Deif, another Hamas leader, met his end here. Note that he had a large quantity of explosives there (see the secondary explosion) amidst all the tents in Al Mawasi.

I am still for a 2 state solution. I think that Israel has the right to exist. I also think that the Palestinians have the right to have a state also. But Israel is hell bent against a two state solution.

I am also for the two state solution. But that has to be earned. Countries recognizing "Palestine" in the aftermath of 10/7 was about the worst thing that they could have done - it amounted to rewarding them for starting a war of aggrression.
Palestinian areas were given a degree of autonomy under Oslo. What followed is Arafat rejecting the peace and land swap offers that would have led to a Palestinian State. Instead, Palestinians started the "Second Intifada" where they blew up many buses, cafes and restaurants, murdering many civilians.
In 2005, Israel disengaged from Gaza, giving them even more autonomy. What did they do with it? They started shooting rockets into Israel pretty much incessantly, and all that culminated in the 10/7 attacks.

So, obviously, Palestinians are not ready for their own state. First, they need to demonstrate that they are ready to live in peace.

 

[Arctish]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over again, as though you think they somehow have more credibility now than they did a few weeks or months or years ago.

Arafat did not reject peace and land swaps. He was the one at Camp David pushing for the peace process established under the Oslo Accords to continue. You can ignore history all you like but you can't make it go away.

Also, calls for a just and fair peace in Palestine is not support for terrorists, no matter how much you loathe the idea of Christians and Muslims living there and participating in the government that rules over it.

 

[Derec]

Israel COULD have made a more targeted response, with trained army personnel,

What do you mean "COULD"? That's what Israel did. They targeted Hamas and other terrorists, and they used trained military personnel to do it. They are still doing it btw.
IDF: Gaza strikes kill 7 terrorists, including Hamas commander who held hostage
IDF, Shin Bet kill six terrorists from three separate organizations in strikes near Khan Yunis
Looks targeted to me.

found out where the hostages were, with targeted intelligence, rescued them

That is not at all easy to do. It was done in one case where four hostages were rescued from two separate, but nearby civilian apartments.
‘He was a pious man’: The Gaza neighborhood shocked to find Israeli hostages in their midst
It was still a very deadly operation, and again ALL of this is on Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

and brought the leaders to justice.

It is difficult to capture people in a warzone. But nevertheless, Deif, Sinwar Brothers et al were brought to justice in their own way.
Oh, and one high profile Hamas leader was captured alive, but that was after the ceasefire (such as it is):
Security officials said to call captured Hamas commander ‘intelligence gold mine’

Or relied on UN troops for similar actions.

LMAO! UN troops would be less than useless here. They can't even effectively operate as a peacekeeping/buffer force, so how do you hope for them to do things like rescue hostages or bring Hamas leaders to justice?

Instead they destroyed civilian homes and lives and gained nothing of their stated objectives. They did make some territory they covet uninhabitable for its current inhabitants.

Civilian structures do get destroyed during urban warfare. Much more so if the enemy is operating from civilian structures, like Hamas and its allies are.
And Israel did accomplish some of their objectives. All hostages have been released, most participants in 10/7 have been eliminated, and Hamas is significantly weakened.

 

[Derec]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over again, as though you think they somehow have more credibility now than they did a few weeks or months or years ago.

The lies are not on my end.

Arafat did not reject peace and land swaps. He was the one at Camp David pushing for the peace process established under the Oslo Accords to continue. You can ignore history all you like but you can't make it go away.

BS. He definitely walked away from Camp David.
Camp David 'talks not a full failure,' Palestinian negotiator says

Meanwhile, CNN has learned, the talks collapsed early Tuesday morning after Arafat rejected a U.S. proposal that included Palestinian sovereignty over parts of east Jerusalem but did not meet Arafat's bottom line.
[...]
U.S. President Bill Clinton viewed the U.S. proposal "as a fair resolution, a fair, carefully thought out agreement over who should do what, where," said a senior administration official involved in the talks. "It was an amalgam of all the various proposals, and the president said he would not even take it to (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Barak unless Arafat accepted it, because Barak had already moved more than the Palestinians."
The source said Arafat rejected the Jerusalem proposal because it did not move far enough toward his positions on holy sites, the Old City and the neighborhoods close in to the holy sites. "Sovereignty, control, all sorts of variations of the term and artful ways of saying it were being kicked around.

Two months later, Palestinians started the 2nd Intifada, the campaign of terror that saw many Israeli civilians, and even some Arabs, murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
Suicide bomber kills 14 in northern Israeli city

Also, calls for a just and fair peace in Palestine is not support for terrorists, no matter how much you loathe the idea of Christians and Muslims living there and participating in the government that rules over it.

What do you understand to be a "just and fair peace"? Destruction of Israel and "Palestine" taking over all the land?

 

[Arctish]

You keep repeating the same lies over and over again, as though you think they somehow have more credibility now than they did a few weeks or months or years ago.

The lies are not on my end.

Arafat did not reject peace and land swaps. He was the one at Camp David pushing for the peace process established under the Oslo Accords to continue. You can ignore history all you like but you can't make it go away.

BS. He definitely walked away from Camp David.

Of course he walked away from Camp David. So did Ehud Barak. So did Bill Clinton. If they hadn't left they would still be there.

You said Arafat rejected peace and land swaps. He didn't. The Oslo Accords were a path to peace and the possibility of land swaps was a part of them. Arafat accepted both.

What you're trying to do is claim Ehud Barak offered peace and land swaps in addition to what was offered under the Oslo Accords when you can't even support the claim he offered the same peace and land swaps deal. In fact, you can't even support a claim he offered anything of the sort.

And we both know why.

Camp David 'talks not a full failure,' Palestinian negotiator says

https://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.summit.04/

Meanwhile, CNN has learned, the talks collapsed early Tuesday morning after Arafat rejected a U.S. proposal that included Palestinian sovereignty over parts of east Jerusalem but did not meet Arafat's bottom line.
[...]
U.S. President Bill Clinton viewed the U.S. proposal "as a fair resolution, a fair, carefully thought out agreement over who should do what, where," said a senior administration official involved in the talks. "It was an amalgam of all the various proposals, and the president said he would not even take it to (Israeli Prime Minister Ehud) Barak unless Arafat accepted it, because Barak had already moved more than the Palestinians."
The source said Arafat rejected the Jerusalem proposal because it did not move far enough toward his positions on holy sites, the Old City and the neighborhoods close in to the holy sites. "Sovereignty, control, all sorts of variations of the term and artful ways of saying it were being kicked around.

Two months later, Palestinians started the 2nd Intifada, the campaign of terror that saw many Israeli civilians, and even some Arabs, murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
Suicide bomber kills 14 in northern Israeli city

And you know what triggered the 2nd Intifada.

For those readers who don't, here's a few hints: Unit 101, Qibya Massacre, and the Sabra and Shatila Massacres all have something in common and his parading around the Temple Mount like he owned the place is what set off the protests which turned increasingly violent as time went on.

Also, calls for a just and fair peace in Palestine is not support for terrorists, no matter how much you loathe the idea of Christians and Muslims living there and participating in the government that rules over it.

What do you understand to be a "just and fair peace"? Destruction of Israel and "Palestine" taking over all the land?

Of course not, and you damn well know it.

Don't try playing the idiot card.