closed Thread

[silky52]

Today I learned of something Israel Genocide Force uses called the "Hannibal Directive"
It's not publicly admitted.
Simply put, the directive permits the destruction of anything deemed to be retreating from Israel towards Gaza, without regard to hostages. "Kill anything that moves".
This was first mentioned back in October when Israeli attack helicopters "mistakenly" took out Israeli rave attendees who sought shelter in the general direction of Gaza when panic prompted a mass evacuation.
There is a link to this here, it purports to be an English translation of a Hebrew language newspaper, and I don't speak Hebrew, so take it with a grain of salt.

A variation of "Kill 'em all and let G-d sort 'em out" that Americans used in the Nam.

These are serious accusations. I have asked 'my sources' to confirm. ISRAEL DOES NOT AND DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE!!

 

[Lazaran]

Poland is your example? Seriously, some of the most anti-semitic people on earth!

All I am saying is that anti-semitism has reared its ugly head again, it was only dormant, and that is what this is all about. It's about killing Jews!! Full stop. I know that's perfectly acceptable for most people, but I don't have to like it or condone it. Many people are anti-semitic whether they realise it or not. Anti-semitism is alive and well, and really is abounding in the US. Plus in Europe, and IMHO it was never dead. So, okay guys let's go ahead and kill all the Jews.

Many solutions have been offered to the Arabs, but as stated above that is not their agenda. They simply want to kill all Israelis, as demonstrated on October 7th, or anyone associated with the Jews, and Israelis. Point for your information,which I'm sure you all know, since you all seem to know so much here, is that over 40 foreign workers, non-Jews were working on our farms and kibbutzim on our southern border on October 7th. They were either murdered or taken hostage. So yes we are forced to try and obliterate Hamas-ISIS.

There are so many examples of what HI is doing in Israel on the West Bank, through the Palestinian Authority, and I know you guys don't believe it. So, I won't bother to list them here, but I know nothing, only you guys know everything.

I invite you all to get on a plane and come and see!

You really can relax a bit with your histrionics:

There are easily as many (way more) Americans who see Hamas, etc, as the primary obstacle to peace, and the primary catalysts of the conflict and unrest that has led to the suffering of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

And Hamas isn’t done suffering the consequences of their crimes against humanity.

Also:

The Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, etc, are being put on notice as well, that there will be a steep price to pay for acts of barbaric aggression.

 

[silky52]

You really can relax a bit with your histrionics:

There are easily as many (way more) Americans who see Hamas, etc, as the primary obstacle to peace, and the primary catalysts of the conflict and unrest that has led to the suffering of the Israelis and the Palestinians.

And Hamas isn’t done suffering the consequences of their crimes against humanity.

Also:

The Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, etc, are being put on notice as well, that there will be a steep price to pay for acts of barbaric aggression.

My histrionics????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Charming!

Most Americans don't even know where Israel and Gaza is.

I hope you are right about consequences, it doesn't look like that from here!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Poland is your example? Seriously, some of the most anti-semitic people on earth!

I didn't mention Jewish people I mentioned Hitler and Stalin, and how the Polish people view either today.

All I am saying is that anti-semitism has reared its ugly head again, it was only dormant, and that is what this is all about. It's about killing Jews!! Full stop. I know that's perfectly acceptable for most people, but I don't have to like it or condone it. Many people are anti-semitic whether they realise it or not. Anti-semitism is alive and well, and really is abounding in the US. Plus in Europe, and IMHO it was never dead. So, okay guys let's go ahead and kill all the Jews.

I'm not talking about antisemitism, you are.

Many solutions have been offered to the Arabs, but as stated above that is not their agenda. They simply want to kill all Israelis, as demonstrated on October 7th, or anyone associated with the Jews, and Israelis. Point for your information,which I'm sure you all know, since you all seem to know so much here, is that over 40 foreign workers, non-Jews were working on our farms and kibbutzim on our southern border on October 7th. They were either murdered or taken hostage. So yes we are forced to try and obliterate Hamas-ISIS.

No the Arabs got fucked, that is the history, from that history, this "modern anger" has evolved. Like I said you're in it, so your emotional. I'm not in it, and to me the current path won't work for either parties. There is no way either side will eradicate the other. It will be perpetual war. It is way past who is right or wrong. That "claim" by either side lost credibility decades ago.

There are so many examples of what HI is doing in Israel on the West Bank, through the Palestinian Authority, and I know you guys don't believe it. So, I won't bother to list them here, but I know nothing, only you guys know everything.

I don't care what the PA is doing, what I care about is the people getting killed. I don't distinguish between an Israel and a Palestinian.

I invite you all to get on a plane and come and see!

See what? People getting killed, one side cheering it on, the other waiting for revenge. A cycle that just repeats itself.

 

[Lazaran]

And right on cue, the Houthis are getting some consequences.

U.S. and U.K. strikes on Houthi rebel’s military assets:

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/us-uk-strike-yemen-to-retaliate-houthi-attacks/

From the article:

"These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history," Mr. Biden said, adding he will "not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary."



Thank you President Biden.

 

[zipman]

We have an early leader in the January "Let's rationalize teh genocide" contest!

You seem to be positing that if only Hamas would come out and fight mano-a-mano against the Israeli Genocide Force, this whole business could be wrapped up nice and quickly.

war isn't like that, sadly. Gazan fertilizer/sugar/C4 rockets are no match for the finest laser guided bombs gifted to the Israelis by indulgent big brother America. So we have guerilla war basically. Soooo unfair!

So let's address your concerns. Let's see....yes, the allies did attack strategic populated areas in WW2. (Churchill famously firebombed Dresden). By most accounts, the allies took care to concentrate their efforts against military units, not civilians populace.

Given the densely populated nature of Gaza due to geographic concerns, this isn't very easy in Gaza. Rather than make any effort to distinguish between combatant and civilian, the Israel Genocide Force seems to shrug their collective shoulders, kill anything that moves, and rely upon their crack propaganda team to make excuses for the more wretched excesses of their behavior. This is why we see footage of razed hospitals, day care center and refugee camps.

Perhaps my analogy that Israelis are no better than Nazis is a bit overblown....after some thought, they seem to be more akin to the Russian Red Army outside of Berlin in 1945. Content to reduce the enemy to rubble, block by block. After the fighting is done, I wonder if the Israeli Genocide Force will mass rape the surviving female populace before returning to a hero's welcome in Israel?

The biggest casualty in my opinion is that Israel has permanently forfeited the "perpetual victim" status it has taken such great care to cultivate since 1945 or so.

No, mass rape is the tactic of your beloved Hamas.

Good to know your antisemitism is still going strong after all these years.

 

[zipman]

What a surprise! UNRWA celebrating the 10/7 attacks.

 

[policywank]

As Ive already said - they aren't doing enough. They need to be publicly more targeted in their attacks and leadership needs to publicly express that more is being done.

Of course I'm a pundit. That doesn't make me wrong. At the moment, public sentiment is pretty harshly shifting and support for Israel is becoming less tenable.

No, being a pundit doesn't make you wrong. But it does make you a person working with limited and frequently biased information such that it would be absurd to assert that you are definitively correct.

I don't claim to be correct. I am expressing opinions and making my own observations. But when it comes to the bombing of Gaza for instances I am not saying that everything being done is justified or that they shouldn't alter their approach. I am saying that I don't have enough information to pass judgement and I don't think any of us has all the information and expertise and perspective to do so.

Should that stop any of us from asking what is going on with that bombing? No it shouldn't. We should ask. But seeing unpleasant things doesn't mean there is a better alternative.

Likewise public sentiment has nothing to do with with what is the best approach to the situation. History is filled with examples of people who's merit lay in the fact that they resisted public opinion.

 

[ll74]

No, being a pundit doesn't make you wrong. But it does make you a person working with limited and frequently biased information such that it would be absurd to assert that you are definitively correct.

That's not what a pundit is.

I don't claim to be correct. I am expressing opinions and making my own observations. But when it comes to the bombing of Gaza for instances I am not saying that everything being done is justified or that they shouldn't alter their approach. I am saying that I don't have enough information to pass judgement and I don't think any of us has all the information and expertise and perspective to do so.

We have clear information that large yield dumb bombs are being used in densely populated areas, when other weapons and methods are.available.

You can ignore that because you believe Israel should not make additional effort to try alternative approaches if you wish.

Should that stop any of us from asking what is going on with that bombing? No it shouldn't. We should ask. But seeing unpleasant things doesn't mean there is a better alternative.

The US literally provides better and more accurate weaponry to Israel.

Likewise public sentiment has nothing to do with with what is the best approach to the situation. History is filled with examples of people who's merit lay in the fact that they resisted public opinion.

No, it has to do with whether Israelis support what their government is doing or not and that, I turn, results in whether they will allow them to continue. Wars are fought in more places than just the battlefield.

That is the reason propaganda is used by participants in wars.

 

[policywank]

Then you know the Palestinians were promised one thing, and given another.

Terrorism stems from dissatisfaction or authoritarianism. Remove the cause the terrorism ends.

Where did I ever say to do that? I am pointing out this cycle needs to end. US and western policy needs to change, drastically.

Yep,but not by the west.

See my second answer,it's the same here.

No Hamas doesn't need to be eliminated, any more than the Israels. What needs to happen is the supporters of both need to be removed, the heads of both tried for crimes against Humanity. Then and only then can they move towards a negotiated peace.

You misunderstand Hamas. They are part of the consistent group of Palestinians who since 1947 have called for the destruction of Israel. They are not a government in waiting. They do not want peace. They want Israel eliminated and as many jews as possible killed - that isn't hyperbole, it is their words.

While nobody is blameless the premise that terrorism grew out of the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli's is bullshit. From day 1 of the existence of Israel powerful factions within the Palestinian population (first the PLO and later Hamas) called for the destruction of Israel. It was never the case that they were fighting for their own state or to live in peace side by side. There have been numerous attempts at a two state solution all of which the Palestinians have rejected. To the extent that Israel has oppressed them it has been for their own preservation. As I have said before it is grossly naive to see one man holding another man down and concluding on what is happening while disregarding the fact that the latter man is screaming "let me up so I can kill you and your family."

No terrorism isn't simply a response to dissatisfaction unless you count not being able to impose your will on others as a source of dissatisfaction.

 

[policywank]

That's not what a pundit is.


We have clear information that large yield dumb bombs are being used in densely populated areas, when other weapons and methods are.available.

You can ignore that because you believe Israel should not make additional effort to try alternative approaches if you wish.


The US literally provides better and more accurate weaponry to Israel.


No, it has to do with whether Israelis support what their government is doing or not and that, I turn, results in whether they will allow them to continue. Wars are fought in more places than just the battlefield.

That is the reason propaganda is used by participants in wars.

I don't mean public opinion is irrelevant to the dynamics of war. I mean it is not a good gauge of whether those conducting the war are on the right track. We all know that war is terrible so we have a natural and rational bias towards avoiding it at all costs. If both sides see it that way that is ideal. But when one side sees it that way and behaves in a naive fashion they can be readily victimized. As has been said many times over the year if Hamas lays down their weapons they get peace, if Israel lays down their weapons they get murdered - they may be a bit simplistic and optimistic but it contains merit.

There is nothing wrong with being a pundit and offering up an opinion. But it is far healthier for all involved and society in general when we leave open the possibility of being wrong or that there are other valid points of view. I know that there are more precision guided bombs. But I don't know how many they have, how many they can get or the very specific merits of each in any given circumstances. And the fact that America can provide them. Give me a fucking break - just ask Zelensky how prudent it is to rely upon America to continue stepping up in spite of their own political turmoil. If I was Israel right now and I had a limited supply of precision guided bombs I would be rationing them knowing full well that some Congressman with an axe to grind that has nothing to do with us might cease supplying them.

We have seen multiple (unfortunate) wars around the world wherein America tried to be as surgical as possible given their technological advantage. And they did in fact make great strides, but those efforts were still filled with rough, barbaric and often unintended outcomes. As near as I can tell pretty much every qualified military person who has ever been in a war will tell you that once the shooting starts everything changes and the people sitting in their armchairs criticizing don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

 

[ll74]

I don't mean public opinion is irrelevant to the dynamics of war. I mean it is not a good gauge of whether those conducting the war are on the right track. We all know that war is terrible so we have a natural and rational bias towards avoiding it at all costs. If both sides see it that way that is ideal. But when one side sees it that way and behaves in a naive fashion they can be readily victimized. As has been said many times over the year if Hamas lays down their weapons they get peace, if Israel lays down their weapons they get murdered - they may be a bit simplistic and optimistic but it contains merit.

If public pressure does not align with your war efforts, it is not good.

There is nothing wrong with being a pundit and offering up an opinion. But it is far healthier for all involved and society in general when we leave open the possibility of being wrong or that there are other valid points of view. I know that there are more precision guided bombs. But I don't know how many they have, how many they can get or the very specific merits of each in any given circumstances. And the fact that America can provide them. Give me a fucking break - just ask Zelensky how prudent it is to rely upon America to continue stepping up in spite of their own political turmoil. If I was Israel right now and I had a limited supply of precision guided bombs I would be rationing them knowing full well that some Congressman with an axe to grind that has nothing to do with us might cease supplying them.

There is no case where large civilian casualties is better than smaller civilian casualties.

We have seen multiple (unfortunate) wars around the world wherein America tried to be as surgical as possible given their technological advantage. And they did in fact make great strides, but those efforts were still filled with rough, barbaric and often unintended outcomes. As near as I can tell pretty much every qualified military person who has ever been in a war will tell you that once the shooting starts everything changes and the people sitting in their armchairs criticizing don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

Yes, there has been cases where civilians have been unnecessarily killed. And we should pressure leadership to do better in those cases.

 

[policywank]

The challenge with so much of this topic is that there are (at least) two competing narratives that each side takes as fact. The specific legal machinations are a matter of record, but so much else is a matter f perspective and which propaganda machine one has been listening to.

The whole issue of refugees is subject to two competing narratives. According to the Palestinian narrative hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their homes by the IDF. According to the Israelis they wanted to live in peace after the nation was founded. It was the neighbouring countries who told those Palestinians to leave so that they would be out of the way while their militaries crushed the Israelis. That didn't work out. They got their asses kicked - not because of some nefarious plot but because they were simply outfought. Then, no the Israeli didn't welcome back the Palestinians who acted so that their neighbours could go ahead with their planned genocide.

Those are two very different narratives.

 

[policywank]

If public pressure does not align with your war efforts, it is not good.


There is no case where large civilian casualties is better than smaller civilian casualties.


Yes, there has been cases where civilians have been unnecessarily killed. And we should pressure leadership to do better in those cases.

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong. The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

 

[ll74]

The challenge with so much of this topic is that there are (at least) two competing narratives that each side takes as fact. The specific legal machinations are a matter of record, but so much else is a matter f perspective and which propaganda machine one has been listening to.

The whole issue of refugees is subject to two competing narratives. According to the Palestinian narrative hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their homes by the IDF. According to the Israelis they wanted to live in peace after the nation was founded. It was the neighbouring countries who told those Palestinians to leave so that they would be out of the way while their militaries crushed the Israelis. That didn't work out. They got their asses kicked - not because of some nefarious plot but because they were simply outfought. Then, no the Israeli didn't welcome back the Palestinians who acted so that their neighbours could go ahead with their planned genocide.

Those are two very different narratives.

Palestinians are rightfully concerned that they won't be able to return home once hostilities allow.

That being said, the whole "return to the land" narrative is not really a good one. When a war is lost or won, the land typically goes to the victor. The original landowners don't have a right of return if they're on the wrong side of that equation. Borders shift, countries.evolve over time.....short statement is "shit happens"

There are Palestinians who still believe they have a right to their ancestors homes in Israel even though they've never lived there.

 

[ll74]

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong.

What does the term "wrong" mean?

The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Yes, war doesn't require public buy in. But it benefits from it and suffers without it.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

Beating people into submission is an approach...yes.

 

[ll74]

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong. The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

I'll just ask you a simple question

If an objective can be met using one of two methods,
one being a complete and utter bombardment with mass civilian casualties
and the other being a targeted, strategic strike with minimal civilians casualties.

Should the latter be the appropriate or right approach?

And again, the idea here is that there is no difference in the objective being met.

 

[policywank]

Palestinians are rightfully concerned that they won't be able to return home once hostilities allow.

That being said, the whole "return to the land" narrative is not really a good one. When a war is lost or won, the land typically goes to the victor. The original landowners don't have a right of return if they're on the wrong side of that equation. Borders shift, countries.evolve over time.....short statement is "shit happens"

There are Palestinians who still believe they have a right to their ancestors homes in Israel even though they've never lived there.

My point wasn't to weigh in on the question of right of return. My point was to use that topic as a means of illustrating how two vastly different narratives about the same series of events lead to two opposing views where each side is utterly convinced of their own correctness. Meanwhile many people whop weigh in on either side have not done their diligence to fully understand the circumstances. They pick the side that appeals to them then find ample evidence to support that point of view and leave it at that without considering the evidence that refutes that point of view.

These dynamics are human nature with many causes but few more than this particular conflict.

 

[ll74]

My point wasn't to weigh in on the question of right of return. My point was to use that topic as a means of illustrating how two vastly different narratives about the same series of events lead to two opposing views where each side is utterly convinced of their own correctness. Meanwhile many people whop weigh in on either side have not done their diligence to fully understand the circumstances. They pick the side that appeals to them then find ample evidence to support that point of view and leave it at that without considering the evidence that refutes that point of view.

This conflict has staunch supporters in each camp. I personally can see both perspectives and don't disagree fully on either side. I mentioned the right of return because it is one narrative being floated to support Palestinians and I think it's misguided.

These dynamics are human nature with many causes but few more than this particular conflict.

 

[policywank]

What does the term "wrong" mean?


Yes, war doesn't require public buy in. But it benefits from it and suffers without it.


Beating people into submission is an approach...yes.

Churchill stood virtually alone in believing that Hitler was an aggressor who could not be appeased. The general population and parliament opposed him. He was right and they were wrong by any reasonable measure. They ultimately changed their minds but only after the humiliation of Chamberlain, the loss of more sovereign territory and the further build up of the Nazi war machine. Furthermore arguably the Nazi's could have been defeated with far less damage on both sides if the majority of people had not indulged in the delusion that they could be appeased.

Of course that is one of the more simplistic examples. Usually they are a lot more complex and we don't have the luxury of knowing how the alternative might have worked out. But the point isn't a cataloguing of who was right and who was wrong. It is the clear and obvious point that just because the majority of people believe something or prefer one course of action doesn't mean that is the best or right course of action. Popular opinion and the support of the electorate is obviously a big factor in all of these things - especially in democratic countries where the people get a say - but that doesn't mean that the popular course of action is the best or right course of action.

You clearly understand that I am not making the case that beating people into submission is the best or preferred course of action. I am making the case that sometimes it is the only viable choice. And it is the responsibility of leaders to know when that is or isn't the case based upon an honest loo at the cold, hard facts.

 

[ll74]

Churchill stood virtually alone in believing that Hitler was an aggressor who could not be appeased. The general population and parliament opposed him. He was right and they were wrong by any reasonable measure. They ultimately changed their minds but only after the humiliation of Chamberlain, the loss of more sovereign territory and the further build up of the Nazi war machine. Furthermore arguably the Nazi's could have been defeated with far less damage on both sides if the majority of people had not indulged in the delusion that they could be appeased.

I doubt he was completely right in his assertions. Nobody ever is.

Of course that is one of the more simplistic examples. Usually they are a lot more complex and we don't have the luxury of knowing how the alternative might have worked out. But the point isn't a cataloguing of who was right and who was wrong. It is the clear and obvious point that just because the majority of people believe something or prefer one course of action doesn't mean that is the best or right course of action. Popular opinion and the support of the electorate is obviously a big factor in all of these things - especially in democratic countries where the people get a say - but that doesn't mean that the popular course of action is the best or right course of action.

It doesn't have to be the best course of action.

You clearly understand that I am not making the case that beating people into submission is the best or preferred course of action. I am making the case that sometimes it is the only viable choice. And it is the responsibility of leaders to know when that is or isn't the case based upon an honest loo at the cold, hard facts.

It never is the only viable choice. There are always other choices. And not all of those are the best choices either. Hindsight is 20/20. As Austin said recently,

"In this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat,"

 

[policywank]

I'll just ask you a simple question

If an objective can be met using one of two methods,
one being a complete and utter bombardment with mass civilian casualties
and the other being a targeted, strategic strike with minimal civilians casualties.

Should the latter be the appropriate or right approach?

And again, the idea here is that there is no difference in the objective being met.

Yes of course - all other things being equal the latter approach is preferable. But all other things are rarely equal and neither you or I are in a position to say with certainty that both approaches will lead to equivalent objectives.

A few things to consider:

• Have you taken into account the Hamas propensity to intentionally put innocent civilians between it and the bombs. We know that the Israelis have taken extensive steps to warn Palestinians of when a strike will occur so that they have time to evacuate. And in many cases it is Hamas who keeps them from evacuating. If Hamas won't let them out of the building how will a precision guided bomb remedy the inevitable outcome.
• What is Israel's supply of precision guided bombs and how many more can the U.S. provide and how many can they be trusted to provide, notwithstanding gridlock in Congress?
• What is the cost of precision guided bombs versus dumb bombs? I know people hate to consider economics but if Israel can't afford enough precision guided bombs to get the job done should they leave themselves fatally vulnerable for the next attack from goodness knows which enemy?
• How many Palestinian deaths have been caused by dumb bombs versus people not heeding the warning to evacuate or not being able to - either because Hamas stooped them or because they had nowhere left to evacuate?

I am not saying that they shouldn't be using precision guided bombs more. maybe they should. I am saying neither of us has the perfect answer to the questions above let alone the numerous otters strategic consideration at play to be able to say with certainty that is a viable or effective strategy.

 

[policywank]

I doubt he was completely right in his assertions. Nobody ever is.


It doesn't have to be the best course of action.


It never is the only viable choice. There are always other choices. And not all of those are the best choices either. Hindsight is 20/20. As Austin said recently,

No he wasn't completely right. But you are avoiding the point being made which is that just because most people disagreed with him didn't make him wrong. In hindsight he was at least mostly right. And the western world owes him a debt of gratitude for not being led by majority opinion.

Sure there are always choices, but sometimes all of them are worse. And sometimes mass casualties is a feature of the least bad choice.

Should we choose a sub-optimal path because it is popular. In general that sounds silly but in some cases it might be the right way to go. But not likely if you are dealing with a genocidal murderous foe living on or within your borders. Israel doesn't have the luxury of failure. It isn't in a position to indulge in naiveté lose all of its land and somehow come back. More than any other combatant than I can think of it cannot afford any failures on the battlefield so it has to approach every battle as a matter of life and death which cannot be lost and which provides no room for a soft touch.

 

[ll74]

Yes of course - all other things being equal the latter approach is preferable. But all other things are rarely equal and neither you or I are in a position to say with certainty that both approaches will lead to equivalent objectives.

The we agree.

A few things to consider:

• Have you taken into account the Hamas propensity to intentionally put innocent civilians between it and the bombs. We know that the Israelis have taken extensive steps to warn Palestinians of when a strike will occur so that they have time to evacuate. And in many cases it is Hamas who keeps them from evacuating. If Hamas won't let them out of the building how will a precision guided bomb remedy the inevitable outcome.

Irrelevant to whether more consideration should be placed on civilian casualties.

• What is Israel's supply of precision guided bombs and how many more can the U.S. provide and how many can they be trusted to provide, notwithstanding gridlock in Congress?

They have some that aren't being used and are using dumb bombs instead.

• What is the cost of precision guided bombs versus dumb bombs? I know people hate to consider economics but if Israel can't afford enough precision guided bombs to get the job done should they leave themselves fatally vulnerable for the next attack from goodness knows which enemy?

What is the cost of war?

• How many Palestinian deaths have been caused by dumb bombs versus people not heeding the warning to evacuate or not being able to - either because Hamas stooped them or because they had nowhere left to evacuate?

Blaming the victims is always a fun approach.

I am not saying that they shouldn't be using precision guided bombs more. maybe they should. I am saying neither of us has the perfect answer to the questions above let alone the numerous otters strategic consideration at play to be able to say with certainty that is a viable or effective strategy.

You are saying that Israel is right to do what it seems necessary and without question.

I am saying that we should be pressuring them to do better
....always.

 

[Rightguide]

Collective Punishment is Nazi Solution!

"From the river to the sea" is the Palestinian articulation of Hitler's final solution it has been repeated by Democrats as well.