The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

This is pretty indefensible.

I am supportive of Israel in general, but what they're doing there seems like ethnic cleansing, as a punishment?  As a precaution?  I don't really know.

There was a case to be made for retaliation.  There was a case to be made that this was two warring factions.  You could say that they were beating back the terrorist front.  But now?  More than 18 months later???  I don't think there's any reasonable way to look at literal starving to death children en masse and say that this is a military operation against another military force.  This is just starvation of a civilian population.

It's so bad.

Whatever grace I gave to Israel (even when I didn't give it to Netanyahu) is gone.  They need to stop and we need to stop their defense if they refuse.  It's the only card we have.

It's not an easy situation with the Palestinians caught in the middle. As long as Hamas is embedded with them Israel is in danger. Israel could wipe them out and remove the threat but that isn't going to go over very well. I think the hope was some other Arab nations would do something to stabilize the Gaza strip but so far it hasn't happened.

As long I can remember the crazies coming out of Gaza have been killing Israeli kids by attacking things like buses and nightclubs. This music festival was just the latest circumstance. I can't even imagine living under that kind of constant threat.

I will agree it has dragged on too long. 

But we are still in phase 1- get the hostages back.

Until every single hostage is returned that should be the only concern.  Once that is done we can discuss humanitarian aid, scaling down military operations, rebuilding etc. 

Hamas not Israel controls the timeline. 

The taking and keeping of the hostages is the only indefensible thing happening in Gaza. 

This is the statement where I wholeheartedly disagree and this is where Israel has lost the plot.

Two things can be and are true.  Hamas taking and keeping hostages is 100% unacceptable.  But those civilians aren't doing that.  Those are rich people with influence that aren't among those being punished.

Starving kids doesn't help anyone get anything back.  Also, these kids, these families in Gaza aren't Hamas.  ...they are just kids.

There was widespread parting and celebration in Gaza on Oct 7.  So while not everyone participated in the murder of my friend and her family the vast majority of the "civilians" celebrated her murder.   

Some of these people surprised by the response of Israel now regret the Oct 7 attack.  It needs to be more.  It took 2 atomic bombs for Japan to decide that Pearl Harbor wasn't a good idea  The population of Gaza has to decide that 1) Oct 7 wasn't good idea and must never happen again   2) River to Sea is never going to happen. 3) Support having a government that wants to work with Israel for peace.  Israel should not take their foot off the gas until all three items are met. It is what we demanded of Germany and Japan.   Israel having a ceasefire without a peace is useless for Israel. 

 

It's very unfortunate that you feel that way, as it makes me feel like I have to abandon that allyship in this regard.  I don't think that Israel's actions against civilians are acceptable.

I have defended the US's propping up of a Democratic ally in the region with money and weapons, but with the understanding that it was for defense...not for whatever this is.  If these actions which essentially amounts to famine is considered defense, then count me out.  Netanyahu isn't acting in good faith.  He doesn't want peace.

Stop aid to Israel entirely, if that's what it means.  I certainly didn't intend to sign up for this.  I'm sorry you lost friends, but your position doesn't seem like you; you aren't thinking clearly.

To me it doesn't seems like you are not thinking clearly. You are looking at it form a position of comfort while he is looking at it from the victims stand-point. No one is upset when the father of a female rqpe victim retaliates on the perpetrator. This is kind of how I see it.

I've told this story before but I used to work with an Muslim engineer. He and I debated many hours about the Quran, Bible and Jews. One thing was clear in that he did not see anything wrong with them attacking Isalie kids in nightclubs and public because they had no chance against Israel's military. Obviously nothing has changed in the last 30 years. It's also hard for us Americans to wrap our heads on the concept of a people who think it's more of honor to die killing Jews and gentiles than to work towards peace.

My position towards Gaza and Hamas is very consistent with my position towards Afghanistan and the Taliban twenty years ago.  Civilians suffered in that conflict too.  The difference between the two is on 9/11 the entire world rallied behind the US. For 10/7 almost immediately the focus was on protecting Gazans with almost zero regard for the dead and captured Israelis.  Nobody was posting fake AI images of starving Afgans.  (While there are food shortages, there is no famine in Gaza, hence the need for fake AI images) And while there was some criticism of how the US conducted the war in Afghanistan most of that was tactical issues not, "oh my god we can have people who cheered on 9/11 suffer as we hunt down Osama and his men.  It would be better to have Osama escape justice then harm a civilian that is chanting Death to America or its equivalent From the River to the Sea.  

And while I am not a fan of Netanyahu I actually consider him a better leader than "W".  My biggest criticism of each of them is the same, W for not putting 100% in to capturing Osama and going on a side quest in Iraq, and Netanyahu's side quest with Iran.

Hoodie's position seems to be shared by the majority of the Israeli electorate.  And this is a major reason for the conditions in Gaza today: not only do the Israeli voters approve, many of them think Israel hasn't gone far enough (as Hoodie said, "it needs to be more").

Comparing Israel's response to 10/7 and the US response to 9/11 requires a bit more detail:

1) The US did not intentionally facilitate (https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/07/01/israel-limits-entry-of-baby-formula-in-gaza-as-infants-die-of-hunger_6742899_4.html#) the starvation of tens of thousands of Afghani civilians (including thousands of children) as a "necessary component of their war against the Taliban."  (Remember, a claim being made here is that Israel should be doing more than they are.)
2) Whatever sympathy Israel had after 10/7 was quickly squandered by their decisions on how to prosecute the war in Gaza (see point 1).  This is not dissimilar to how worldwide support for the US after 9/11 was squandered by our subsequent decision to invade Iraq without justification.
3) The decades-long apartheid state in Gaza and the West Bank exacerbates both of the preceding problems.  Israel faced lots of international criticism for this prior to 10/7, and - like the US in Afghanistan - could have prosecuted the Gaza War in a way that built on international sympathy; e.g. by building an international coalition as the US did for Afghanistan.  Instead, Netanyahu decided to prosecute the war in a way that maximizes the Likud Party's domestic political advantage.  Again, there are analogs here to Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
4) The relevance of whether some Palestinians were cheering after 10/7 is dubious; Jennifer Capriati requested "Bombs Over Baghdad" to be played as her warmup song (http://www.espn.com/tennis/news/2003/0325/1529498.html) before a tennis tournament, less than a week after the US invasion of Iraq.  (This is to say nothing of Trump's claim that "thousands of people in New Jersey" were cheering after 9/11.)

Baby formula is being shipped into Gaza.  What this article fails to mention is that people can't bring large quantities of powder from an unknown source because Hamas and others have repeatedly labeled explosive materials as baby formula. 

This article might as well have been written by the Onion with a headline, TSA's policy is designed as a deliberate attempt to cause mass deaths by dehydration with the liquid ban. 

The Conventions only work if both sides abide by them.  If one side uses Ambulances to smuggle weapons you can't expect the other side not to inspect the ambulances.  If one side will smuggle TNT in containers labeled baby formula you can't expect the other side not to limit the importation to trusted sources. 

To say that American doctors cannot bring baby formula into Gaza because "Hamas labels explosives as baby formula" is to intentionally facilitate the starving of children.  In this case, the reason Israel provides for their intentional starving of children is that the prospect of American doctors bringing "baby formula" into Gaza represents what Israel considers an unacceptable risk.  In contrast, starving Palestinian babies represents an acceptable risk.

As I see it, you already made your position clear: until every single hostage is returned, humanitarian aid (e.g. food) should not be a concern.  The logical consequence of such a position is that Palestinian children should and will continue to starve until Hamas returns all hostages.  So it's pretty pointless to argue that "baby formula might be dangerous explosives" while simultaneously arguing that Israel is completely within their right to starve everyone in Gaza (where "there was widespread partying and celebration after 10/7") until Hamas gives up every single hostage.

It is worth mentioning that this in no way resembles the manner in which the United States (and its allies) prosecuted the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The intentional act was done by Hamas.  By using medical supplies and baby food to smuggle weapons they knew that Israel would be forced to either allow the uninterrupted flow of weapons or Israel would have to limit baby food and medical supplies to verified sources.

No one is "forcing" Israel to remove baby formula from the luggage of American doctors.  That is a choice on Israel's part.

"Look what you made me do" is not a convincing rationale for committing war crimes.  And collective punishment of innocent civilians - a tactic you have endorsed in this thread "until every single hostage is returned" - is absolutely a war crime.

It's Genocide as punishment

There other option is to allow the free flow of weapons to people who target Israeli citizens.  You seem very concerned with the well being of Gazans and completely unconcerned with Israeli citizens well being. Israel choose is to prioritize the safety of its own citizens as would most countries do in conflicts.   Hamas chooses to target Israeli citizens while insuring as many uninvolved Gazan's are harmed as possible.  

If Israel's enemies laid down their weapons there would be peace.  If Israel laid down its weapons there would be no more Israel. 

^^^ 100% True

Hoodie, the problem with your "safety" argument is that you are also arguing that the Palestinians deserve what they are getting (because they celebrated 10/7, and also because Hamas hasn't released all the hostages).  So it's not about "safety"; it's about punishment, explicitly intended to change behavior.

It is like Trumpists arguing that Democratic leaders should be rounded up because they are facilitating a secret child sex trafficking ring... and also because their dishonest "climate change" policy is making gas unaffordable.  The first argument, if true, makes the second irrelevant.

Everyone knows you can't protect your citizens without a few war crimes here and there. And videos of IDF soldiers sniping at children. You know.. those kids would probably grow up to at the very least cheer on Hamas at one point, so it's better to kill them when they're little. Israel is doing a favor to the Palestinians even, they don't have to use so much wood for coffins. It's very altruistic if you think about it.

Two things can be true at the same time. 

1. Israel does allow baby formula into Gaza just not unverified powder that could be used as an explosive.

AND

2. *I* a private individual who does not set policy for Israel but did lose a friend on Oct 7th and has zero sympathy for those that cheered her death. 

I don't agree with how Israel has conducted the war.  The first convey of food and medical supplies that entered Gaza was in exchange for the release of hostages.  Now aid flows in unconditionally, I feel that is a mistake I would only trade aid for hostages. 

If I was in charge the deal would be either return the hostages or the entire territory starves.  But alas my position is not the position of Israel. If I was in charge by now one of two things would have happened:  the hostages would have been released or the almost entire population of Gaza would have starved to death.  I would feel perfectly comfortable with the idea that their deaths were the sole responsibility of Hamas.  But alas that is not what Israel had done so don't confuse how I would like to see the war be conducted with how it is being conducted.   My calculations for acceptable civilian casualties is significantly higher than the IDF's. 

Israel has conducted this conflict with greater concern for the enemies civilian population than is typical during a war.  I would not. 

Your position on acceptable conduct during a war is, at the very least, clearly stated.

I guess my only question is: do you believe that "war crimes" is a category that should even exist?  If your position is that the intentional starvation of children is a justifiable tactic during wartime*, why even have rules of war?

Israel's demonstrated "concern" for Palestinian civilians in Gaza has been dramatically less than the concern the US military demonstrated towards Afghani or Iraqi civilians during either of the post-9/11 wars.

*note: I recognize that you reject claims that this is what Israel is currently doing.

I do believe war crimes as a category should and do exist, but they can only be followed if both parties agree to follow them.  

It is a war crime to use ambulances to transport weapons.    It is also a war crime to fire on your enemies ambulances.  But if you enemy routinely uses ambulances to transport weapons, it is not a war crime to blow up you enemies weapon transports.  And if you can't determine which are real ambulances and which are weapon transports that is the fault of your enemy if you also destroy some actual ambulances.  

It is a war crime to label TNT as baby food.  It is also a war crime to prevent babies access to food. But if you enemy is using baby food shipments to smuggle TNT it is not a war crime to block that smuggling even if it prevents some food distribution.  

It is a war crime to put a military base under a hospital.  It is also a war crime to target a hospital.  But if you enemy puts a military bunker under a building also used as a hospital it is not a war crime to destroy military bunker regardless of the impact on the hospital.  

It is a war crime to place a missile system next to a daycare center.  It is also a war crime to target a daycare system.  But if you enemy places a missile system next to a daycare center and the daycare center is destroyed when you targeted the missile system then that is not a war crime.  

It is truly amazing how many so called "civilian targets" in Gaza had secondary explosions. 

This not a two wrongs make a right thing, it is a frustration of purpose.  Palestine terrorist blowing up an Israeli civilian bus (a war crime, that has been carried out multiple times) does NOT give Israel the right to start targeting Palestinian civilian buses.  But using civilian buses as troop transports would.

    

You just said:


If you are defining that action as "frustration of purpose" (and not "two wrongs make a right"), then you are saying that any time a civilian group is not doing what you want - in this case, forcing Hamas militants to surrender their hostages - you are then morally justified in killing all of them.  This response would not be considered a "war crime" because you consider every Palestinian civilian (including the children) to be "a party" to the war crimes Hamas is committing, thereby justifying direct action (that would otherwise be considered war crimes) against all Palestinian civilians.  Correct?

Allow me to give a hypothetical example:

Al-Qaeda clearly and unambiguously violated the rules of war with their attack on 9/11.  The Taliban refused to hand him over.  So George W. Bush has millions of leaflets airdropped over Afghanistan that say, "Either you hand over Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda conspirators, or we will kill every single human in this country."  Bin Laden is not surrendered.
Is following through on that threat a war crime?

Okay maybe a bit too strong.  But you don't need to supply your enemies during a conflict. 

If Hamas agreed to allow Israel to distribute food directly to the population without interference, I would have agreed to such terms.  But the only way a truck was going in that Hamas was able to seize would be in exchange for hostages.   

I was a supporter of Israel and was all for their retaliation after the initial attack.  BUT Netanyahu is a war criminal and should be hung.  Israel is committing genocide against all Palestinians, killing thousands of women and children, while starving them to death.

This is exactly where I'm at.

Like, I was supportive at first.  You can defend and respond.  It's like...sure, stand up to a bully after an attack.  ....maybe even give it worse than you got to dissuade further bullying.  But this is killing a bully's entire family for 18 months.


And I absolutely care about the safety and security of Israel and for every hostage to be returned.  I just don't think this makes things safer for Israel, Gaza, or the hostages.

So what would you have them do?  Withdraw without the hostages?  With Hamas in control of Gaza? 

I think you just have to be more targeted in whatever assault you have and take responsibility for civilians.  I'm not a military expert, but from what I understand, that would be some kind of temporary occupation.


I don't want to come across like I have all the answers, but I can see with my eyes that this is wrong, so I've been listening to some experts and from what I understand, using similarities like the US war in Afghanistan, it isn't a good strategy to hit a place and then leave it in rubble, only to return and hit it again later.  You will kill a lot of people, but it's the wrong people and it's never-ending and doesn't actually help solve anything.  You have to have a sustained presence where you drive out the baddies, but then work with the locals to build back functioning, healthy control of the civilian population.  This isn't my plan, so if you "at" me with questions, I probably won't be able to answer them, but I heard some experts saying that this plan was similar to how the US push with "the surge" worked for us.

You can't starve your way out of this.


Also, I don't think that Hamas cares about the citizens of Gaza.  They are not living there amongst these people and are instead fighting an ideological war that they, themselves aren't paying the price for.  This isn't a traditional situation of two warring nations with a government representative of the good of its people.  The terrible optics actually help Hamas.  They want this.

So fundamentally you agree with the need for Israel to occupy Gaza and root out the terrorists.  But you disagreed with some tactics at least as it is portrayed in the media. 

Israel is not targeting civilian, however civilians are often in the way.  Ending US support for Israel would likely make the situation worse for the people of Gaza  If the US stopped sending Israel precision weapons, Israel would have two choices: end the operation or switch to gravity bombs and artillery.  I think we both know that Israel would choose the latter and that would increase not decrease the collateral damage. 

More food enters Gaza on a daily basis now than before Oct 7.  There are some distribution problems but that normal in a conflict zone. 

And while what is happened in Gaza today is not genocide or a famine.   But we might be one or two terrorist attacks away from it becoming one.  The original plan in 1948 was for a two state solution of peaceful coexistence.  The Jews accepted the two state solution, the Arabs did not and in 1948 attempted to kill every Jew in the middle east.  They tried again in 1956, 1967, 1973 etc.  Most in Gaza do not want a two state solution, they want genocide of the Jews.  Unless things change at some point Israel is going to conclude the only way the war will end is with the total annihilation of one side or the other and that they would rather be Cain than Abel.    Hopefully the side that currently is demanding annihilation chooses coexistence before the side that has been in favor of coexistence for 80 years switches to choosing annihilation.   

Not necessarily, but I understand it.


I mean....it's really just a simple belief that in the modern world, if you wage a war on a region, especially in cases like this where you're not fighting an army, but an idea, that you have a reasonable responsibility to mitigate civilian suffering/loss.  This not only doesn't seem to do that, but it seems intentional, being used as punishment from Netanyahu, who I think is a bad person, acting in bad faith.


It's very possible that the US removing assistance will cause Israel to lash out.  In that case, at least we won't be aiding in it.  That's a little bit of "look what you made me do" that Spider was talking about.  I don't think it's appropriate for Israel to indiscriminately continue to cause the starvation death of civilian children.  I don't think that position is so far out there.  The bargaining chip that the US has is to withhold assistance if they do not comply, so I think it appropriate to use that chip.

Not lash out, but Israel uses precision munitions to minimize collateral damage.  (the opposite of what they are falsely accused of) take away the precision munitions and they will still destroy the intended target (a lot more other stuff as well)

They are NOT starving the population.  The images of "starving children" are a mixture of children with birth defects, AI and pictures taken in Yemen. Yes, I have seen the video, mom not only doesn't look malnourished she looks like she is overweight.  The child has a genetic disease. 

I am not saying there aren't times people miss a meal or two, but there is no famine or starvation.  If there was you wouldn't see a single starving child non-starving adults. Most photos out of Gaza show people that are not malnourished. 

Israel has one of the most sophisticated intelligence operations in the world.  Their screening is far more thorough than our TSA, yet somehow they don't need to confiscate every container of baby formula that flies in to Tel Aviv.

The destruction, suffering, and needless killing that is going on in Gaza is precisely because the Israeli voters wish it to be so.  Like you have repeatedly stated in this thread, they see Palestinian civilians as collaborators who deserve whatever suffering is inflicted on them. (but they're also insisting that there isn't any real suffering actually happening in Gaza?  which is weird)

I believe this mindset is a specific result of Netanyahu's political strategy.  Like Trump, Netanyahu has faced serious criminal charges and needed to win elections to stay out of prison.  10/7 gave him the perfect excuse to gin up hatred against Palestinians among the Israeli electorate.  It is the equivalent of Bush hypothetically choosing to demonize all Muslims after 9/11, because doing so would have helped Republicans get more votes.  Netanyahu is incredibly corrupt, and he has cynically used 10/7 as an excuse to demagogue Gaza in order to consolidate his own political power base.

As I said at the beginning, the biggest problem is that Hoodie's (original?) position is closer to that of the mainstream centrist Israeli voter than anyone else in this thread: if every single Palestinian child has to starve to death before Hamas releases the last hostage, then so be it.

Not at all relevant. 

It wasn't confiscated at an airport.  It was a checkpoint entering a war zone.  Not the same set up for screening.

While a parent with a baby is unlikely to have baby formula questioned by TSA, someone without a baby is going to raise red flags. 

Israel doesn't just assess the item but the person who is carrying it.  A person or group that is a risk of collaborating with Hamas is going to have anything that is conceivably a weapon confiscated unlike someone who is not a risk for smuggling.   

 

on a scale of 1 (trump level lie about something petty) to 10 (confirmed with complete certainty)
i believe your opinion here about a 3.

Is it possible that people with a vested interest exaggerate, yes
Is it possible that that pro israel media minimize atrocities, also yes.

In my view, more likely than not, there are war crimes being committed against the population of gaza.

You don't need to take my word on it, just apply a little bit of critical thinking: 

If there is a picture of mom who is fat holding a child claiming Israel is starving her child ask why is she so well fed?

If there is widespread famine in Gaza why do all the pictures and videos out of Gaza that aren't specifically targeted to convince you of starvation show people who don't look malnourished?

And yes, there are war crimes being committed against the people of Gaza, the vast majority of them by Hamas.  Stealing food shipments to create artificial shortages, stealing fuel from hospital generators, firing on Israeli troops from behind civilians etc.
 

That's the point: when this American doctor (without a baby) landed at the airport with a suitcase full of baby formula, Israel's world-class screening cleared him to take it into the country.  But then when he tries to bring it into Gaza, suddenly he is a potential Hamas agent smuggling fake formula. What's he going to do, blow up buildings in Gaza that have already been bombed into rubble?

The Israeli government wants Palestinians to starve to punish them because they deserve it, as you have succinctly explained.

'

No, he did not fly to Israel he flew to Jordan.  Where we would most certainly have had opportunities to meet with Hamas agents after existing the plane.

Add in whatever pre-screening Israel did on this individual probably discovered he was hostile towards Israel. 

I don't know for certain but I suspect a person who had multiple humanitarian missions to Yemen, Sudan and Ukraine and whose social media presence indicates that they blame Hamas to a greater extent than Israel for the humanitarian issues in Gaza would raise less suspicion than someone who only cares about Gaza and the West Bank and who is hostile towards Israel. 

Fair enough; I thought the doctor in question flew into Israel first, but apparently these medical missions are required to travel from Jordan through Israel, as Israel has also prohibited medical mission entry from Egypt into Gaza since May of last year (here's a link (https://archive.ph/DoP78) that bypasses the paywall to the full article from earlier).

However, the restrictions are not limited to "suspicious baby formula":

Baby formula is not the only item viewed with suspicion at the Allenby Bridge. British orthopedic surgeon Graeme Groom, whose speciality is, along with anesthesiology, one of the most sought in Gaza, said he was "not allowed to bring anything with him" for the first time in May, upon his fourth mission to Gaza in 20 months of war. No scalpel, no staples, no circular external fixators used to stabilize fractures and thereby "reduce the risk of infection and, therefore, amputation."

Would you have the same skepticism about a person who criticized the Bush Administration and it's invasion of Iraq trying to enter the United States in 2006?

Yes, I would be skeptical of people known to be hostile to the USA from traveling here.  Be even more skeptical of why they wanted to travel to Iraq in 2006.  Majority of folks heading to Iraq that were hostile to the USA were members of ISIS. 

So anyone who criticized the invasion of Iraq is defined as "hostile to the USA"?  If that's the standard, by 2008 the majority of Americans were hostile to the USA.

In that case, how do you feel about people who are hostile to the current US administration?  By this logic, if our TSA starts combing through social media and shaking down international travelers at airports who have criticized Trump, that's just fine.  Sorry, you can't bring your cellphone into this country because terrorists use cellphones.

As I stated earlier, I am suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to an active war zone.

You are effectively saying that you find the very idea of humanitarian aid to Palestinians to be suspect.
This is, at least, consistent with the notion that they deserve whatever suffering they may be experiencing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14969297/Majority-aid-packages-Gaza-not-reaching-targets.html
Revealed: Most aid sent to Gaza is intercepted by Hamas or desperate civilians before it reaches its target

Figures show that of the 29,885 aid pallets collected for delivery in Gaza between mid-May and last weekend, 25,703 were taken en route.

I am not sure what point we are supposed to take from "Food taken by starving people before it reaches intended destination."

Spider let me see if I can help you out with this, here are the facts as we know them:

1) Approximately one and half times as much food as was consumed by Gazans before Oct 7 is entering  Gaza is entering daily.

2) Despite this there are pockets of hunger inside Gaza.

3) Hamas and other militants are seizing the vast majority of the food before it reaches the intended population.

4) Hamas and its stogies absolutely LOVE to claim a famine to paint Israel as evil and the everyone in Gaza including those who committed the atrocities of Oct 7th as poor innocent victims.  

So now lets move from the facts to the analysis:

Hamas is purposefully stealing the food to starve the people of Gaza so they can falsely accuse Israel of genocide.  

The fact you put more emphasis on "desperate people" than Hamas stealing the food is kind of revealing ... especially considering you don't know how much of that is by civilians. They sure as heck aren't pushing Hamas out of the way to get it.

The "destination" was determined in order to allow the food to be distributed to ALL desperate people but apparently that isn't good enough for you as long as Hamas gets their fair share.

Actually Hamas's fair share is zero.  A military stealing food intended for civilians is a war crime.  While Israel has some responsibility to feed the civilians in areas that it has operational control it isn't suppose to be feeding Hamas (until they become POWs)

I agree. Anyone who has any sympathy for Hamas is evil as all they do is cause destruction and terror.

Hamas is the reason for their suffering no matter how much you try and blame Israel it doesn't make it true. Israel didn't kidnap and kill the Palestinian and Hamas kids and now refuse to release many of them. It was hamas and unfortunately they are causing a lot of collateral damage.

The time-honored excuse for atrocities of all kinds: "Look what you made me do"

It is simple.  The people of Gaza are suffering because that is what Hamas wants. Hamas wants the people of Gaza to suffer and to exaggerate that suffering.

Hamas and it allies have for 80 years been targeting Israeli children and then hiding imosques, schools and hospitals. "You can't touch us, their are civilians around."  Placing Israel in a dilemma: either allow the terrorist to escape and re-attack or harm civilians.  Too often Israel let the terrorist escape justice only to have more Israelis civilians killed than the number of civilians that would have been killed by eliminating the terrorists.   Hamas puts Israel in a lose-lose situation:  either cause Gazans to suffer or allow Hamas to kill more Israelis.   After Oct 7th the weighting of the relative options has shifted.

But the core problem isn't that when faced with the choice of risking Gazan lives vs risking Israeli lives the balance has shifted towards keeping Israel safe, but why they are in the dilemma in the first place.  And that reason is Hamas and how it operates.

Anybody with the least bit of humanity would be demanding that all the hostages be immediately and unconditionally released along with the unconditional surrender of all those responsible for the terror attacks.


Hamas places Israel in the dilemma of either Gazan children suffering or Israeli children suffering.  And when Israel chooses to protect its own children from Hamas you accuse Israel of atrocities.   

The question shouldn't be why am I defending Israel's actions but why are you defending Hamas's tactics.   

Dave's criticisms is in good faith, but yours is starting to sound like the rhetoric of those who don't really care about the Gazan children, but whose real goal is to insure that when this conflict is over Hamas is capable of renewing its terror attacks on Israel.

Hoodie, only one of us is insisting that civilians (including children) morally deserve whatever suffering they are enduring.

Not once have you heard me state that Israeli civilians deserve what Hamas has done due to their support for Israel's apartheid state.
Not once have you heard me parrot bullshit Hamas propaganda that actually no civilians in Israel have been killed.
Yet here you are, uncritically repeating Netanyahu's propaganda without question, insisting that people in Gaza aren't starving because there are still some fat Palestinians while simultaneously blaming Hamas for the starvation of Gaza.

I have not said that children or civilians* morally deserve it.  *In this context civilians excludes anyone who aids or assists Hamas and the other terrorists.

I know you have implied the second one, but I can't I recall you overtly stating that.   

I will concede that you have never falsely claimed no Israeli civilians have died  But then again I don't recall Hamas making that claim either.  At one point they were bragging about how many civilians they killed.

But you have repeatedly endorsed Hamas's tactics such as firing rockets from next to a daycare center and then whining Israel is destroying daycare centers when Israel blows up the rocket launcher to protect its own civilian infrastructure. 

Ahem...

You said this as a direct response to Dave's concerns about the impact of this war on families and children.

Of course, you did not quote such a claim from me, because it never happened.

Your quotes in this thread (e.g. Israel's response "needs to be more," "If I was in charge the deal would be either return the hostages or the entire territory starves," "If there is a picture of mom who is fat holding a child claiming Israel is starving her child ask why is she so well fed?") have been outright monstrous.  And when I've asked you about the US taking a similar eliminationist approach in the post-9/11 War on Terror, you've simply ignored it.

If I recall correctly that was in response to a claim that most Gazan didn't support the brutal Oct 7 terror attacks.  And while I don't celebrate the death or suffering those who celebrated the murder of my friend and her family I don't weep for them either. 

It's borderline dishonest for you to play this "If I recall correctly" game when you can just click on the link to the post (or simply scroll up):


Your response to that post was to point out that "the vast majority" of these victims were celebrating 10/7, in an effort to morally justify their suffering.

Not worth nothing but IDF soldiers testified in the Knesset that they were ordered to stop their Gaza patrols on 10/7, so maybe some rage is for Netanyahu who allowed this to happen to save his ass.

Regardless the response hasn’t been anywhere near proportional and the stated goal of Israel is the very definition of ethnic cleansing if not genocide.

What's the proportionate response if you have 50 family members still kidnapped and being raped and tortured as well as another 400 who were just outright killed? To try and set limits on someone who has been defending themselves for many, many years against actual genocide seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

Hamas and the Iranian government openly admit that destroying Israel and the US infidels are their ultimate goals and nothing less will stop them.  I'm not sure how anyone could expect anyone to accept being attacked unmerciless by people who openly want their genocide. There are a ton of rich Arab countries around there who could clean up Gaza but refuse to do it so Israel really has no other choice.

Googled that yesterday after you posted it.  Couldn't find any news source i have ever heard of reporting it and the first mention of it (date wise) was an unlinked reddit post so I question if it is  accurate. 

But even if it was 100% accurate it doesn't change the fact that Hamas launched the attack.  Reminds me of the conspiracy theories that Bush knew about 9/11 and let it happen or FDR knew about Pearl in advance.  Even if FDR knew about Pearl and failed to issue a warning, the Japs still attacked our ships.  If Bush had advanced warning of the hijackings does that make the SEAL killing of Bin Ladin unjustified?

The stated goal of Israel is to eliminate Hamas and get the hostages back.