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

So, basically, your argument is that you can take the most extreme version of what anybody said about you, which you would seemingly dispute, and turn it against anybody you feel like whether it is correct or not? All because of your resentment?

 

Whataboutism at its finest.
You really need to look up the definition of anti-semite.
There are a great number of Jews who do not support Israel's policy regarding Gaza. Are these Jews anti-semites too?

 

I said nothing of what you typed. I pointed out that the precedent had been set and calling him an antisemite, regardless of its accuracy, aligns with that precedent. Didn’t say I agreed or disagreed. An no. Not resentful in the least bit. Might be a bit of projection on your part.

 

Got it. So whataboutism is not en vogue anymore. It’s difficult to get right. Seems the rules are so fluid to be used and discarded at users leisure on this board. Guess it depends on who is making the argument.

 

Was that who they were targeting, or were those people collateral damage to the actual target, like I said?

 

IDF targeted each van in that convoy one-by-one.
This is a fact.

 

You said that it "makes complete sense." Seems like agreement to me.

 

The initial reporting suggested that they mistook a bag for a gun and targeted the convoy.

 

Where were you when the cutesy little slogan about ten people sitting at a table and one is a nazi was being bantered about towards the right on this very board? Lemme guess, lolsing away? What about when DAs were labeled Soros DAs and that was called antisemitic? Until you police your own, why should the right police itself? If one has the same policy goals as anti-semites, you're gonna be called an anti-semite.

 

yes. I agree that the logic behind the precedent aligns with the precedent set by others that the poster was labeled an antisemite.

 

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this about Charlottesville or something?

Global Jewish conspiracies by rich, shadowy Jewish people are a pretty old antisemitic trope. What is the evidence that suggests that all reform DAs are closely enough tied to him to refer to individuals as him?

What policy goal is that?

 

is it possible that Hamas has already established the willingness to commandeer aid trucks and use them To transport fighters and weapons? Or …. IDF purposely targeted aid workers knowing it strengthens Hamas and doesn’t help them one bit. My bet is on option 1

 

So you agreed. Thanks.

 

I don't think they purposefully targeted aid workers. Nor do I think those aid workers were really Hamas. I think they didn't take appropriate care to avoid bombing aid workers.

 

Yeah man. If that gives you a win and feel good.

 

Again 80-90% of all deaths in urban combat are Civilian. For a multitude of reasons. By every measurable stat the IDF has way outperformed and civilian deaths are at a substantially lower rate. Have your opinion. That’s what the boards are for. I’ll disagree in a Civil manner

 

Ah. That sounds like a mistake then. And mistakes happen in war, sometimes terrible ones. In fact, I'm not aware of a war where noncombatants were not killed by mistake. That's one of the things that makes war terrible, and why we should all avoid it if we can. Perhaps, on October 7th -- when Hamas launched its campaign of pillage, rape, and murder -- Hamas told itself. "Don't worry, boys. Israel won't make any mistakes. All of their munitions will kill only us." If so, that was pretty foolish. If not, perhaps we should be asking ourselves what Hamas' strategy was, and maybe not assisting its strategy.

 

It looked that way to me, too. I suspect that Israel had bad intelligence. And I’m not using that as an excuse. And it means nothing to the innocents who lost their life, trying todo some good. We is tragic, awful, and inhumane. I wishIsrael (or nay other country) was not in a War. But it is, and tragedy of epic proportions occur, and it is never excusable or acceptable.

 

Yes, it likely was a mistake. However, it is not true that they were collateral damage. They were targeted.

I'd suggest that Hamas' goal was to get a massive Israeli campaign against Gaza with large scale civilian deaths. This advances a number of Hamas' strategies: namely, it allows them to raise extensive money that will go to the leadership and isolates Israel from the world, which, largely doesn't like large scale civilian death, especially without a clear and achievable goal. In addition, they got to achieve a PR and operational win against Israel on 10/7 for people who align ideologically with Hamas and a source of future recruits via the mass civilian deaths in Gaza (family members, especially young ones, looking for revenge).

Not sure Israel could avoid Hamas' goals after 10/7. But let's not pretend that all of this (including the planned Rafah offensive) doesn't advance Hamas' goals. Think of it like this: would Hamas' leadership overseas prefer to lead a terrorist organization against an unpopular occupier or have to try to provide basic needs within Gaza?

 

We are going to have to disagree on semantics. The aid workers were not targeted; Israel had no military advantage in killing aid workers, the opposite in fact. They were collateral, that is to say not an intended effect of the attack. If you would argue otherwise, I would want to know exactly what the effect Israel was hoping to achieve by deliberately killing these aid workers.

It does indeed if Israel again stops short of forcing Hamas to surrender. Since we have never seen what that would look like for peace in the region -- and we have seen what happens when Israel shows forbearance and Hamas claims victory -- why don't we go ahead and let this play out until surrender this time.