Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

Yes, but Egypt is the obstacle to that obvious solution … for the moment.

 

I think its more that none of them want to accommodate the Jews in any way.

 

Its surprising they wouldn't assist Israel in ethnic cleansing?

 

You are aware that had Hamas not murdered 1,400 Israeli's on October 7 there wouldn't be a single Israeli soldier in Gaza and every building in the territory would be completely intact? If Hamas were to surrender and return the hostages its holding the war would end in short order. Just a guess but if a proposal for peace allowed the Hamas fighters to obtain refuge in a third country or countries Israel probably wouldn't object.

 

So what you’re saying is that it’s just another example of Arab’s hate Jews more than they care about their own. They’d rather thousands more die than give the Jews a win. Yet you also think Israel should be the bigger person and put down their weapons first?

 

If there was no Israel formed none of this would have happened either. So who cares about this shit. No one is ever going to agree on who is right, what matters is what is right. And killing a bunch of civilians in retribution isn't right, whether its Hamas or Israel. So what does this matter when you basically become the people to say are the bad guys to stop the bad things from happening? Is being attacked a pass to break international law, fulfill your ethnic cleansing fantasies and commit terrorists acts of your own?

 

Dude
You are so far off that it’s not believable. You continue to take the side of and the talking points of Hamas. You are leaving little room for doubt concerning you being antisemetic

 

I never once called for a ceasefire. Feel free to look back through my posts.

 

After America was attacked on 9-11, we had a debate about not only about the possible causes of Al Qaeda's hatred toward America but also the proper response, where/how the response should be directed, what a "proportional" strike should look like, what to do about the involvement or lack of help from our "allies" such as the Saudis, etc.

I recall arguments about whether we should even try to understand the motives of Al Qaeda or whether doing so only provided them moral aid and comfort. I recall debates about Jeremiah Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" sermon. I remember Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink were very active over the years going after Republicans and Democrats for what they perceived as unjust wars. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress who voted against the invasion of Afghanistan, but in the following years, there were also many conservatives who questioned what we were doing in Afghanistan and Iraq both on ethical and strategic grounds.

To the extent people are condemning Israel and holding it to a different standard than they would hold other countries (and I have no doubt some are doing so), that might be explained by anti-Semitism. No doubt about that. However, there has long been an anti-war faction in this country (particularly on the left but seemingly less partisan these days) that tends to be questioning and critical of the use of military power - even when America uses it. I think that's particularly applicable where there's an unconventional enemy embedded with civilians.

 

That's a really unfair framing and tends to dehumanize a people. Palestinians have a connection to the land of their forefathers (many framed deeds in the Diaspora), and distinctions in culture. My wife's family is Maronite Lebanese but they recognize a historical connection to multi-ethnic Levant peoples, especially Syrians. My late MIL served "Syrian" food every Easter. No it has not always been harmonious; no place has. And they have been conquered. But there is an identity that is erased in that formulation, as has happened with some parallels to the Kurds.

It's not just a matter of being under generic "Arab" rule somewhere in the region. They understandably don't want to be forcibly displaced and other Arab polities do not want to aid to forcible displacement/ethnic cleansing. Yes there have been other issues as well, but at its root they also have a connection to the land. Perfect justice is illusory, but simply to say that plopping them in any other Arab land is a solution prevented by the fact that they are too undesirable as a people is wrong.

 

I don’t disagree with you on that.
But statements like this
“? Is being attacked a pass to break international law, fulfill your ethnic cleansing fantasies and commit terroristsacts of your own?”
go beyond questioning and are accusing one side of war crimes while ignoring the obvious war crimes of the other… the only conclusion to such blind partisan hatred is …

 

I’ll take your word for it, and maybe I misinterpreted your meaning, but have you not been going back and forth with @gator95 about a ceasefire? Maybe I have you mixed up with another poster?

 

Nonsense. Utter garbage. You are so willing to accept a report from Breitbart about Israel, but you won’t accept garbage from Breitbart about anything else. What makes Breitbart’s reporting about Israel or Jews different for you?

 

That has been true for 75 years, but not shocking if you like at the history Of Palestinians in Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait

 

Blood libels all. Your emnity toward Jews just becomes more evident with every post. As long as you are accusing Israel of colonizing Israel, why don’t you define what you mean. First, identify the country that is the colonizer. Because by definition, a stand alone country is not a colonizer.

 

I was arguing with 95 about a cease fire and hostage exchange but I was not (nor have I ever) called for a cease fire. I was just saying no mass hostage/prisoner swaps are going to happen until there is a cease fire.

 

Its an AP article, not Breitbart reporting.

 

Looks like Iran is trying to go proxy-lite to maintain its regional resistance cred through the Houthis with efforts that I can't imagine will have more than show effect, trying to just enough to maintain cred without provoking too much of a response

 

Its like you aren't even reading the things I write

 

Some very general observations permitted under censorship laws as to the form of the ground offensive. A limited sample

1. The censorship of troop movements has been effective with Hamas, which is used to having access to Israeli open sources for real-time intelligence and has led to the group mispositioning its forces when it has made wrong guesses about where the IDF will show up next.
2. The IDF is using new armored carrier vehicles with advanced defensive capabilities and tanks to protect troops as they advance in Gaza.
3. Artillery and tanks are using a variety of smoke-style diversions to make it difficult for Hamas forces to get clear shots at IDF forces when they enter new areas.
4. D9 bulldozers are being used to clear out boobytraps, mines, and other ambush items before IDF soldiers enter various areas.
5. Air power, especially drones, is still being used extensively in conjunction with land forces to strike Hamas forces, which come out to engage land forces. This is an advantage over mere strikes from the air without land forces, which do not force Hamas forces out of their hideouts as much.