Major attack on Israel by Hamas

[Bootstrap]

Yes. Now do the math - 100 trucks. 2,000,000+ civilians. Massive bombings. Do you think 100 trucks can even begin to satisfy the basic needs?

Why is there no aid flowing in from the Egyptian border?

Because Israel does not allow it.

[Bootstrap]

I think it's a very difficult question to answer.

But I think it starts here: What are the military and diplomatic goals? What does getting to peace look like? In the long run, I think there are only a few possibilities for a long-term peace:

1. Israel wipes Palestinians off the face of the earth or deports them to other places, terrorism ceases, and the Arab world does not respond violently. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
2. Israel tries to maintain the status quo - gradually wiping out Palestinian rights, controlling their borders, telling them what they can import and export, preventing them from having economic viability, building new settlements on what is currently Palestinian land, protecting Jews who commit atrocities against Palestinians, trying to undermine the Israeli Supreme Court to erode their basic human rights, and hoping that Palestinians will be willing to go along. This seems entirely unrealistic to me.
3. Israel demands that Palestinians appoint a negotiating partner that is committed to peaceful negotiations, not Hamas, and is willing to offer Palestinians either a viable state of their own or full citizenship in Israel. This would be very hard, but seems much more possible.

I think the military strategy should be built largely on the peace they want to build in the end.

Without a clear military objective, aligned with a diplomatic objective, it's just a lot of killing.

So back to you: Are there possibilities I missed? How would you go about working toward a long-term peace, and what military objectives are compatible with that?

What do you think the military objective should be? And the long-term diplomatic objective? How are the various things you seem to be justifying related to a clear military objective?

How many civilian deaths are justified in order to get one legitimate military target?

You gave unserious objectives.

You have given none at all. Please tell me what the serious objectives should be. I actually think that the third is the most useful objective. They won't accomplish the other two. And I think #2 is the stated objective of Netanhahu and is stated in founding documents of the governing party of Israel. #1 is indeed unserious, and so is "wiping out Hamas" if it is not defined. Which is precisely my point.

So instead of accusing me of being unserious, could you perhaps provide a more serious answer? What should the military objectives be? How should civilians and innocents be treated?

[Bootstrap]

The Likud party’s founding documents.

Likud Party: Original Party Platform

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Settlement

Settlement. both urban and rural. in all parts of the Land of Israel is the focal point of the Zionist effort to redeem the country, to maintain vital security areas and serves as a reservoir of strength and inspiration for the renewal of the pioneering spirit. The Likud government will call on the younger generation in Israel and the dispersions to settle and help every group and individual in the task of inhabiting and cultivating the wasteland, while taking care not to dispossess anyone.

Is Likud, Israel?

Likud is the ruling party in Israel. It's Netanyahu's party. But I think it's outrageous that Hamas executed innocent Israeli citizens, and I don't think most Israelis actually agree with Likud here.

Is Likud, Israel?

Is Hamas, Palestine?

Is Hamas, Gaza?

[Valerie]

Look what happened in Pakistan lately. All you have to do is ACTUALLY LISTEN to former Muslims, some involved in terrorism who have come to Christ. They want Americans to wake up!- and you will hear the TRUTH about what the Quran teaches. Why waste your time trying to come up with a suction on a Mennonite discussion forum? Learn about radical Islam ^ then you will understand.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/internati ... 210501.ece

[Bootstrap]

For starters ...

Netanyahu: No Palestinian state on my watch
PM pledges thousands of apartments in East Jerusalem, says construction will curb Bethlehem’s encroachment on capital

Israeli far-right's Ben-Gvir to be national security minister under coalition deal

Ben-Gvir, who was convicted in 2007 of racist incitement against Arabs and backing a group considered by Israel and the United States to be a terrorist organization, will have an expanded security portfolio that will include responsibility for Border Police in the occupied West Bank.

Is East Jerusalem the entire "River to the Sea"? Is having and "expanded security portfolio "the River to the Sea"? Be serious Boot.

Is that a serious response to what I said?

When Netanyahu says that there will never be a Palestinian state on his watch, and pledges to build lots of Jewish housing on Palestinian land as a way of claiming it, and appoints someone actually convicted of racist incitement and backing a terrorist group to head up Border Police in the occupied West Bank ... you don't consider that a threat to Palestinians and their desire to rule themselves?

I thought those were serious things to point out. I'd like to hear your serious response.

[HondurasKeiser]

So back to you: Are there possibilities I missed? How would you go about working toward a long-term peace, and what military objectives are compatible with that?

What do you think the military objective should be? And the long-term diplomatic objective? How are the various things you seem to be justifying related to a clear military objective?

How many civilian deaths are justified in order to get one legitimate military target?

You gave unserious objectives.

You have given none at all. Please tell me what the serious objectives should be. I actually think that the third is the most useful objective. They won't accomplish the other two. And I think #2 is the stated objective of Netanhahu and is stated in founding documents of the governing party of Israel. #1 is indeed unserious, and so is "wiping out Hamas" if it is not defined. Which is precisely my point.

So instead of accusing me of being unserious, could you perhaps provide a more serious answer? What should the military objectives be? How should civilians and innocents be treated?

I don't need to give objectives because I am not fighting the war and I would never fight in a war. I am simply pointing out that your insistence that Israel have a long-term path to peace before they attempt to take out a group of people that massacred families in their beds and put a child in an oven is ludicrous and unserious.

Related to point 3 - Israel has insisted that Hamas unconditionally surrender and release all hostages, at which point the conflict would end. Is that a tenable path forward? It seems that way to me. That seems the only serious response to the evil that Hamas inflicted and will continue to inflict if left in power.

[HondurasKeiser]

For starters ...

Netanyahu: No Palestinian state on my watch
PM pledges thousands of apartments in East Jerusalem, says construction will curb Bethlehem’s encroachment on capital

Israeli far-right's Ben-Gvir to be national security minister under coalition deal

Is East Jerusalem the entire "River to the Sea"? Is having and "expanded security portfolio "the River to the Sea"? Be serious Boot.

Is that a serious response to what I said?

When Netanyahu says that there will never be a Palestinian state on his watch, and pledges to build lots of Jewish housing on Palestinian land as a way of claiming it, and appoints someone actually convicted of racist incitement and backing a terrorist group to head up Border Police in the occupied West Bank ... you don't consider that a threat to Palestinians and their desire to rule themselves?

I thought those were serious things to point out. I'd like to hear your serious response.

He insists there will never be a Palestinian state because of who currently controls Palestine. Were that to change he might be more amenable.

Nevertheless, that's not the same as chanting a slogan that has genocidal implications.

[HondurasKeiser]

Likud Party: Original Party Platform

Is Likud, Israel?

Likud is the ruling party in Israel. It's Netanyahu's party. But I think it's outrageous that Hamas executed innocent Israeli citizens, and I don't think most Israelis actually agree with Likud here.

Is Likud, Israel?

Is Hamas, Palestine?

Is Hamas, Gaza?

Hamas is in complete control of Gaza. Their policy aims are thus operant in and able to be acted on at will. As we saw 3 weeks ago

Likud, prior to the Emergency Unity Government had 32 seats in the Knesset, and in a majority coalition with other parties. They do not control Israel and cannot enact their goals at-will. (see the attempts at judicial reform by way of example).

[Bootstrap]

I don't need to give objectives because I am not fighting the war and I would never fight in a war. I am simply pointing out that your insistence that Israel have a long-term path to peace before they attempt to take out a group of people that massacred families in their beds and put a child in an oven is ludicrous and unserious.

Related to point 3 - Israel has insisted that Hamas unconditionally surrender and release all hostages, at which point the conflict would end. Is that a tenable path forward? It seems that way to me. That seems the only serious response to the evil that Hamas inflicted and will continue to inflict if left in power.

You do need to give objectives when you justify killing innocents. And the vast majority of people who are being killed did not do the things you mention. Either civilians are legitimate targets or not. Now that they are at war, do you consider Israeli citizens legitimate targets for Hamas? When America is at war, are American citizens legitimate targets for whoever we are fighting?

You would never fight in a war, but you do justify killing innocents? Why? Even many people who do fight wars are objecting to this.

[HondurasKeiser]

I don't need to give objectives because I am not fighting the war and I would never fight in a war. I am simply pointing out that your insistence that Israel have a long-term path to peace before they attempt to take out a group of people that massacred families in their beds and put a child in an oven is ludicrous and unserious.

Related to point 3 - Israel has insisted that Hamas unconditionally surrender and release all hostages, at which point the conflict would end. Is that a tenable path forward? It seems that way to me. That seems the only serious response to the evil that Hamas inflicted and will continue to inflict if left in power.

You do need to give objectives when you justify killing innocents. And the vast majority of people who are being killed did not do the things you mention. Either civilians are legitimate targets or not. Now that they are at war, do you consider Israeli citizens legitimate targets for Hamas? When America is at war, are American citizens legitimate targets for whoever we are fighting?

You would never fight in a war, but you do justify killing innocents? Why? Even many people who do fight wars are objecting to this.

Have civilians been targeted? Caught in the crossfire yes...which is tragic...but also what happens during war. Hamas targeted civilians. Israel targets Hamas.