It's 5600 a month if it's a rough draft of 28,000 over 5 months, and a lousy start is still a start.
I appreciate the math, but it also brings up that genocide is not a race against time. It can be a sustained effort. The human race is still defining what genocide is.
Just remember Netanyahu openly declared no room for a Palestinian state post-war, and that Israel must seize control of everything west of the Jordan, the cat was out of the bag. Israel's goal isn't an open secret anymore. It's just open. Hamas' intentions are standard knowledge. Israel's is newer to the conversation, and it irks me that it did not seem to change a thing.
I appreciate the math, but it also brings up that genocide is not a race against time. It can be a sustained effort.
If Israel engages in the bombing of Gaza for 27 years, such that each year 84,000 Palestinians are killed, then you can legitimately charge Israel with committing Genocide. But I do not believe it will come to that.
Meanwhile, you did not answer my question: Why should Israel end the war and allow Hamas to survive, to rebuild, and to launch more October 7 massacres, as it has openly promised?
Just remember Netanyahu openly declared no room for a Palestinian state post-war, and that Israel must seize control of everything west of the Jordan, the cat was out of the bag. Israel's goal isn't an open secret anymore. It's just open.
First, even Israelis who oppose Netanyahu are united on the need to continue this war to destroy Hamas.
Second, Israeli leftists are disillusioned by the Palestinians, because many of the Israelis killed on October 7 were leftists who supported the rights of Palestinians, enjoyed employing workers from Gaza, and favored the two-state solution. Many of the surviving leftists understand that there must be no Palestinian state at this time.
Third, Netanyahu will not be in office forever. If Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, some Palestinians might begin to change their ways and take the idea of permanent peace with Israel seriously. If that happens, then Israelis can start taking the two-state solution seriously again.
It could be worse but it looks like Netanyahu's trying to break the bough. I think he has no exit strategy, so there's no other decision but to press on.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda. But there's the toll on human life to consider. By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly? Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist. If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
I'm sure many Israeli citizens, leftists included, are disillusioned because they don't want to be recruited into enabling their doom. I wonder how much Israeli citizens are kept in the dark about what happens. It's a tragedy when innocent people are made into the face of the enemy. There's no question about that, but again, we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out. Just because they're leftist Israelis doesn't mean they know what's going on either.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack. It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged, and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
I appreciate the math, but it also brings up that genocide is not a race against time. It can be a sustained effort.
If Israel engages in the bombing of Gaza for 27 years, such that each year 84,000 Palestinians are killed, then you can legitimately charge Israel with committing Genocide. But I do not believe it will come to that.
Meanwhile, you did not answer my question: Why should Israel end the war and allow Hamas to survive, to rebuild, and to launch more October 7 massacres, as it has openly promised?
Just remember Netanyahu openly declared no room for a Palestinian state post-war, and that Israel must seize control of everything west of the Jordan, the cat was out of the bag. Israel's goal isn't an open secret anymore. It's just open.
First, even Israelis who oppose Netanyahu are united on the need to continue this war to destroy Hamas.
Second, Israeli leftists are disillusioned by the Palestinians, because many of the Israelis killed on October 7 were leftists who supported the rights of Palestinians, enjoyed employing workers from Gaza, and favored the two-state solution. Many of the surviving leftists understand that there must be no Palestinian state at this time.
Third, Netanyahu will not be in office forever. If Israel succeeds in destroying Hamas, some Palestinians might begin to change their ways and take the idea of permanent peace with Israel seriously. If that happens, then Israelis can start taking the two-state solution seriously again.
It could be worse but it looks like Netanyahu's trying to break the bough. I think he has no exit strategy, so there's no other decision but to press on.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda. But there's the toll on human life to consider. By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly? Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist. If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
I'm sure many Israeli citizens, leftists included, are disillusioned because they don't want to be recruited into enabling their doom. I wonder how much Israeli citizens are kept in the dark about what happens. It's a tragedy when innocent people are made into the face of the enemy. There's no question about that, but again, we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out. Just because they're leftist Israelis doesn't mean they know what's going on either.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack. It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged, and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda.
That might not be the intent, but when wise people make decisions, they consider what will be the likely outcomes. If Israel ends the war prematurely, it will mean that Hamas survives, will be able to rebuild its strength, and will launch more October 7 attacks, as it has openly promised. Why should Israelis allow that to happen?
But there's the toll on human life to consider.
Indeed. Hamas has murdered thousands of Israelis, and intends to continue to do so. Should Israelis allow that, or should they destroy Hamas now?
By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
They could surrender conditionally: Israel promises to leave the two-state solution on the table.
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly?
Well, given that Hamas has openly promised to launch more October 7 massacres, destroying Hamas would be a step in the right direction.
Another elephant in the room is: What will it take, other than the obliteration of Israel, for the Palestinians to make peace with the Jewish state?
Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist.
The problem is: the Palestinians launched murderous attacks on Jews, even before they called themselves Palestinians, and even before Israel had declared independence.
If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
You ignore the fact that, in 2005, Israel did the OPPOSITE of annexing land when it unilaterally and unconditionally withdrew from Gaza, and forced out all the Jewish settlers. The result was a Hamas victory, the repeated blitzing of Israeli towns with rockets, and the October 7 massacre. Now Israel is supposed to also withdraw from the West Bank? They'd have to be insane.
we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out.
That's what usually happens in war: each side only cares about its own people, and has little or no concern about the enemy's people. That's what makes war a thing to be avoided if possible. But the Palestinians and their supporters want war.
Note that all the anti-Israel protesters are only calling for a ceasefire, not peace.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack.
Just as American bombing of Japan in WWII dwarfed the Pearl Harbor attack.
It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged
The goal is not to avenge them, but to destroy Hamas's ability to launch more such attacks.
and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
If Israel could destroy Hamas without any Palestinian civilian casualties, it would. Israelis know full well that every Palestinian civilian casualty is another propaganda victory for Hamas. Unfortunately, in a densely populated place like Gaza, such casualties are unavoidable. But being condemned for such casualties is still better than allowing Hamas to survive, rebuild, and launch more October 7 massacres.
If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
==========
This is our land. Judea and Samaria. We are the Judeans.
Arabs were livid so people tried giving them some land since 1937.
They’ve refused it every time.
So we (the Judeans) need to keep it instead.
They’ve refused it every time.
It shows how different their culture is from Israeli and Western culture. The Jewish leadership accepted the 1947 partition plan compromise, even though it was less than what they wanted, and then the new state took in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, both from post-Nazi Europe and from Arab countries.
The Arabs could have accepted any of the offers from 1947 on down, created a state, and took in the Palestinian refugees who are stuck in refugee camps in Lebanon. But that would mean peace with Israel, so they rather leave the refugees where they are. And this has been going on for 76 years!
It could be worse but it looks like Netanyahu's trying to break the bough. I think he has no exit strategy, so there's no other decision but to press on.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda. But there's the toll on human life to consider. By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly? Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist. If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
I'm sure many Israeli citizens, leftists included, are disillusioned because they don't want to be recruited into enabling their doom. I wonder how much Israeli citizens are kept in the dark about what happens. It's a tragedy when innocent people are made into the face of the enemy. There's no question about that, but again, we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out. Just because they're leftist Israelis doesn't mean they know what's going on either.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack. It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged, and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda.
That might not be the intent, but when wise people make decisions, they consider what will be the likely outcomes. If Israel ends the war prematurely, it will mean that Hamas survives, will be able to rebuild its strength, and will launch more October 7 attacks, as it has openly promised. Why should Israelis allow that to happen?
But there's the toll on human life to consider.
Indeed. Hamas has murdered thousands of Israelis, and intends to continue to do so. Should Israelis allow that, or should they destroy Hamas now?
By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
They could surrender conditionally: Israel promises to leave the two-state solution on the table.
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly?
Well, given that Hamas has openly promised to launch more October 7 massacres, destroying Hamas would be a step in the right direction.
Another elephant in the room is: What will it take, other than the obliteration of Israel, for the Palestinians to make peace with the Jewish state?
Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist.
The problem is: the Palestinians launched murderous attacks on Jews, even before they called themselves Palestinians, and even before Israel had declared independence.
If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
You ignore the fact that, in 2005, Israel did the OPPOSITE of annexing land when it unilaterally and unconditionally withdrew from Gaza, and forced out all the Jewish settlers. The result was a Hamas victory, the repeated blitzing of Israeli towns with rockets, and the October 7 massacre. Now Israel is supposed to also withdraw from the West Bank? They'd have to be insane.
we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out.
That's what usually happens in war: each side only cares about its own people, and has little or no concern about the enemy's people. That's what makes war a thing to be avoided if possible. But the Palestinians and their supporters want war.
Note that all the anti-Israel protesters are only calling for a ceasefire, not peace.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack.
Just as American bombing of Japan in WWII dwarfed the Pearl Harbor attack.
It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged
The goal is not to avenge them, but to destroy Hamas's ability to launch more such attacks.
and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
If Israel could destroy Hamas without any Palestinian civilian casualties, it would. Israelis know full well that every Palestinian civilian casualty is another propaganda victory for Hamas. Unfortunately, in a densely populated place like Gaza, such casualties are unavoidable. But being condemned for such casualties is still better than allowing Hamas to survive, rebuild, and launch more October 7 massacres.
I missed when this response came through.
The question of the toll on human life is too circular. Would you trust an enemy that killed 28,000 + of your people? We agree it's rational to distrust an enemy that would kill 1200, but how about 28,000? If Hamas had killed 28,000 Israelis on October 7, or if it were Israeli towns and cities that were being bombed with 28,000 + dead, 60,000+ wounded, and the treat of looming loss of statehood, I can't imagine how fast America and others would have boots on the ground. Not carriers in the water, but boots on the ground; it would probably be the war to end all wars.
Israel isn't leaving the two-state solution on the table. It was arguably a conciliatory phantom solution, depending on who you ask to weigh in on its viability, but even that seems to be off the table, and the conditions upon which it was on the table precipitated this mess.
I've no idea of the purpose of those links. I clicked on one and thought wait a minute, this says this happened in 1838. Upon closer inspection they all predate the state of Israel, and the existence of Hamas. What was the point of that? Hamas was elected 2 years after the Gaza withdrawal in 2005; not a victory for Hamas.
Is Israel aware that every civilian casualty is a propaganda victory for Hamas? Because that's dehumanization too; being a calculated risk makes it even worse. If someone plied you with some hogwash about Hamas aiming for the least amount of casualties on October 7, what would you say? Would you believe it? I wouldn't. It doesn't add up, nor does Israel's alleged attempts to do the same. Not when the lives of civilians are a sunk cost.
Yes, just as the American bombing in Japan dwarfed Pearl Harbor.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you feel nuking two cities to avenge a military outpost was justified too; scorched Earth, like I said. It would explain why you cite it as though it's the precedent necessary to justify overreaction in the present. Then again, there was what, 4 years between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima + Nagasaki? The disproportionate death count is where the comparison ends.
What was the question, why should Israel end the war and allow them to survive and launch more attacks? I don't think it would be the intent to enable them to launch more attacks; that would not be the agenda.
That might not be the intent, but when wise people make decisions, they consider what will be the likely outcomes. If Israel ends the war prematurely, it will mean that Hamas survives, will be able to rebuild its strength, and will launch more October 7 attacks, as it has openly promised. Why should Israelis allow that to happen?
But there's the toll on human life to consider.
Indeed. Hamas has murdered thousands of Israelis, and intends to continue to do so. Should Israelis allow that, or should they destroy Hamas now?
By the same token you can and should ask why should the Palestinians surrender then the erasure of their sovereignty over the land west of the Jordan is an open promise now?
They could surrender conditionally: Israel promises to leave the two-state solution on the table.
The elephant in the room is just what is required for Israel to feel safe, exactly?
Well, given that Hamas has openly promised to launch more October 7 massacres, destroying Hamas would be a step in the right direction.
Another elephant in the room is: What will it take, other than the obliteration of Israel, for the Palestinians to make peace with the Jewish state?
Like I said, Hamas did not always exist, and there's a lot of history in the region that can't be pinned on a Hamas that didn't yet exist.
The problem is: the Palestinians launched murderous attacks on Jews, even before they called themselves Palestinians, and even before Israel had declared independence.
If Israel needs to annex land that belongs to someone else to feel safe, how long before the next land? Or the next, and the next.
You ignore the fact that, in 2005, Israel did the OPPOSITE of annexing land when it unilaterally and unconditionally withdrew from Gaza, and forced out all the Jewish settlers. The result was a Hamas victory, the repeated blitzing of Israeli towns with rockets, and the October 7 massacre. Now Israel is supposed to also withdraw from the West Bank? They'd have to be insane.
we're trapped in this cycle of considering the rational angers and fears of Israelis without due consideration for the Palestinians who're caught in the middle and seeing themselves wiped out.
That's what usually happens in war: each side only cares about its own people, and has little or no concern about the enemy's people. That's what makes war a thing to be avoided if possible. But the Palestinians and their supporters want war.
Note that all the anti-Israel protesters are only calling for a ceasefire, not peace.
If Hamas' attack set peace talks back, just imagine how much further they've been set back due to the response. The response has dwarfed the initial attack.
Just as American bombing of Japan in WWII dwarfed the Pearl Harbor attack.
It's sad, really, because the victims in the October 7 attacks aren't being avenged
The goal is not to avenge them, but to destroy Hamas's ability to launch more such attacks.
and killing 23 + times more people in response isn't justice. It's scorched Earth.
If Israel could destroy Hamas without any Palestinian civilian casualties, it would. Israelis know full well that every Palestinian civilian casualty is another propaganda victory for Hamas. Unfortunately, in a densely populated place like Gaza, such casualties are unavoidable. But being condemned for such casualties is still better than allowing Hamas to survive, rebuild, and launch more October 7 massacres.
I missed when this response came through.
The question of the toll on human life is too circular. Would you trust an enemy that killed 28,000 + of your people? We agree it's rational to distrust an enemy that would kill 1200, but how about 28,000? If Hamas had killed 28,000 Israelis on October 7, or if it were Israeli towns and cities that were being bombed with 28,000 + dead, 60,000+ wounded, and the treat of looming loss of statehood, I can't imagine how fast America and others would have boots on the ground. Not carriers in the water, but boots on the ground; it would probably be the war to end all wars.
Israel isn't leaving the two-state solution on the table. It was arguably a conciliatory phantom solution, depending on who you ask to weigh in on its viability, but even that seems to be off the table, and the conditions upon which it was on the table precipitated this mess.
I've no idea of the purpose of those links. I clicked on one and thought wait a minute, this says this happened in 1838. Upon closer inspection they all predate the state of Israel, and the existence of Hamas. What was the point of that? Hamas was elected 2 years after the Gaza withdrawal in 2005; not a victory for Hamas.
Is Israel aware that every civilian casualty is a propaganda victory for Hamas? Because that's dehumanization too; being a calculated risk makes it even worse. If someone plied you with some hogwash about Hamas aiming for the least amount of casualties on October 7, what would you say? Would you believe it? I wouldn't. It doesn't add up, nor does Israel's alleged attempts to do the same. Not when the lives of civilians are a sunk cost.
Yes, just as the American bombing in Japan dwarfed Pearl Harbor.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you feel nuking two cities to avenge a military outpost was justified too; scorched Earth, like I said. It would explain why you cite it as though it's the precedent necessary to justify overreaction in the present. Then again, there was what, 4 years between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima + Nagasaki? The disproportionate death count is where the comparison ends.
Would you trust an enemy that killed 28,000 + of your people? We agree it's rational to distrust an enemy that would kill 1200, but how about 28,000?
Germany and Japan are our allies, even though we killed hundreds of thousands of their civilians.
I've no idea of the purpose of those links. I clicked on one and thought wait a minute, this says this happened in 1838. Upon closer inspection they all predate the state of Israel, and the existence of Hamas. What was the point of that?
You seemed to be blaming Israel for Hamas's existence. I am showing that murderous hatred of Jews among the Arabs of Palestine predates Hamas, predates the Palestinians calling themselves Palestinians, and predates Israel's independence. The ones from the 1830s show that it even predates Zionism.
Is Israel aware that every civilian casualty is a propaganda victory for Hamas?
Of course it is. Israel is under enormous pressure to end the war and agree to a "ceasefire". I hope it is able to withstand the pressure. Hamas must be destroyed.
If someone plied you with some hogwash about Hamas aiming for the least amount of casualties on October 7, what would you say? Would you believe it? I wouldn't.
Hamas has openly stated that its goal is to murder as many Jews as possible. On October 7, it killed every Jew it could get its hands on (except for the ones taken hostage, of course).
It doesn't add up, nor does Israel's alleged attempts to do the same.
Israel's objective is to destroy Hamas, not to kill every Palestinian civilian it can.
I could be wrong, but it seems like you feel nuking two cities to avenge a military outpost was justified too; scorched Earth, like I said.
The purpose was not to avenge Pearl Harbor, but to convince the Japanese to surrender as quickly as possible. And it worked. If the bombs had not been dropped, the war would have gone on for another year or two, and millions of people, both American and Japanese, would have been killed in the fighting.
