i dont disagree with this answer, my issue is with people who simultaneously say both "i agree Hamas must be destroyed" AND "no bombing, no invasion, no civilian casualties". those are contradictory, and the only reason they condemn and agree Hamas must be destroyed is the social consequences of saying "just leave hamas be so that no one else dies".



im calling for a stop of bombing and every single course of action taking to eliminate any and all civilian death, but ok lmao. just say u want hamas left alone, we both know thats what u want.



i dont disagree, but stalling the invasion WELL beyond the 24 hour window, resuming water/electric, and allowing aid to enter are all good signs israel is slow playing this. still the only good outcome will be from multi party international occupation efforts and economic investment. hopefully with a resumption of the Abraham accords.

ITT: "if you don't have a detailed military and intelligence plan that describes exactly how the IDF could eliminate hamas without any civilian casualties, you're not allowed to say that the indiscriminate bombing of residential areas, the cutting of water and electricity to literally everyone, the mass dislocation of hundreds of thousands of destitute vulnerable people, are NOT 'targeted' measures to defeat hamas, but actions that predictably lead to an already staggering death toll amongst civilians."

it's the whole "you're not allowed to have an opinion if you don't live there - unless you happen to agree with me" angle of trying to silence criticism of OBVIOUS cruelty against civilians.

how about this: if you actually consider yourself the "non-terrorist, civilised" side, then YOU explain how your actions are not just the apparent retaliatory terror attacks they seem to be, but actually specifically designed actions to mostly eliminate terrorist. which measures did you undertake to actually prevent civilian casualties and suffering? because it sure as hell does NOT look like it's working, and you created a pile of innocent bodies that easily dwarfs that of the "worst attack on jewish people since the holocaust"...

it's funny how the mossad was able to hunt down resourceful nazi war criminals decades after they disappeared to locations all over the world, how they were able to assassinate the alleged planners of the munich '72 terror attacks, how they can eliminate high ranking generals within hostile countries, without making much of a fuss - yet in order to eliminate some malnourished radicals right on their doorstep, in a small area of land whose borders israel controls directly, they simply can't do better than slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians in order to achieve their alleged goal?
how little common sense, how little intellectual honesty, and how little regard for innocent lives do you have to have in order to buy into that stupid narrative and try to silence criticism of such cruelty?

___________________________________________________________________



don't play dumb. i'm talking about him deliberately propping up hamas in order to prevent more moderate voices from leading gaza. his disgusting calculation of accepting the odd attack in order to maintain support for the illegal occupation and apartheid policies. if you're actually an israeli, you know exactly what i'm talking about.

oh, and nice dodge regarding all the israeli terrorists, guess you're just fine with them for some mysterious reason...

it's really funny how almost every single one of you turned out to be extremist radicals yourselves, one openly calling for the genocide of the lebanese, you wishing death to people who disagree with you online... literally just the other side of the coin of hamas terrorists...

This post was edited by fender on Oct 19 2023 08:28am

I see that US has just vetoed Security Council resolution on humanitarian aid springing the trap laid out for them as desribed in that FT article.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142507

Just because something demands a response doesn't mean any response is inherently good and not responding is itself a response. Responding also doesn't just mean "blood for blood" and if it did they are far past that now anyway.

Do the scale and quantity of airstrikes matter? 6000+ last time I checked, do they get to drop one on every member of Hamas? Hell, at this rate they should be done soon unless we count the thousands of Hamas militants this will likely create.

I don't see how Israel's response is on the do nothing end, apart from nuking it how much stronger could the response be? As you said the intended goal is the complete destruction of Hamas which means many more casualties, which ultimately means many more militants. Unless they wipe out Gaza completely what this all amounts to is a more radicalized population both in Gaza and in the surrounding Arab countries.

just accept the existence of the israeli state and stop killing jews

and maybe dont dig up water pipes to launch missiles at the people that you depend on for water

Don’t disagree at all.

I’ve set a few times in here that Israel is showing good faith with recently curbing strikes and not hastily rushing a ground invasion, with the exception of cutting resources. Whether or not it’s because social media and the whole world is watching is besides the point. However, Israel is not able to get this done alone if the actual goal is long term stability.

I think the whole world falling increasingly apart during the hospital bombing in a fog of war situation is just a tragedy.

Some people here are warmongers however I think something the majority of us agree on is we all want to avoid a conflict larger than just gaza. You need cool heads and mediators for this to occur. I have denounced American global interventions a lot in my adult life but I think America is absolutely needed here if peace is the goal. I think varying countries, primarily super powers, have too many internal politics in play that is directly inhibiting global peace efforts.

This post was edited by Bazi on Oct 19 2023 08:28am

Mate, they are hitting specific buildings. The response could be much harsher without even getting anywhere near nukes. They could roll in 100 HIMARS launchers or their MLRS version and park them parallel to the Gaza strip and simply unload for days and you'd get the scenic city view we've come to see in parts of the Donbass where literally all you have left is walls of what used to be buildings.

Point is, they can make Gaza city a parking lot, and they haven't. That'd honestly be the easiest but most destructive way for Israelis to do this. Level the place leave large swaths of it in rubble and not allow to rebuild then put DMZ around it. Problem solved. Maybe this was the plan if they could get all the civilians to leave, instead it doesn't matter if it's 24 hours or 24 days, many won't leave and Israel will probably have to go boots on the ground.

The greatest irony to me is that for peace to ensue Gaza must become an open air prison in truth, not just name. it needs to be locked down from border to sea with full time observation. full occupation is the only way, im just ready for the far lefties to call that too a line too far crossed.

You are, as per usual, supporting the establishment position while trying to maintain some semblance of a moral high ground via extremely light criticism of the obvious atrocities taking place.

If we both know that why would I say it?
Lol typical American war rhetoric, if you aren't with us you love terrorism durrrrrr

"stop all bombing now, surgical or otherwise" = extremely light criticism of the obvious atrocities taking place

kek, ur lost. u get so into a mode of responding to NPCs that you can't distinguish any nuance.

just another thread of you being a contratian nay sayer with zero substance.