Hamas Launches Offensive Against Southern Israel

[Marduk]

I know in eastern europe, and europe in general so I would assume Poland is the same. Kneeling for Israel is not as popular as it is among Americans. Like the popular position on the right is not giving a damn, a second place is support for Palestine and supporting Israel is 3rd place.
So he isn't that much of a fringe compared to you. He doesen't care about either side.

Your half assed assumptions are not an argument, they do suspiciously like you projecting your own views, and i see you don't have a poll.
Couldn't find a current poll for Poland, but Romania one does pop up:

Two in three Romanians believe Israel has right to attack Hamas: poll

www.euractiv.com

No if they don't live by that professed philosophical belief they are bad people. But if someone professes to believe in your code isn't it more likely they will live in a way you consider good than someone who supports an alien belief system?

I don't think that, say, the Buddhists of Japan are bad people, even though i'm not one.
OTOH with most sects of Islam, some weirdo cannibal cults and the like, it's a different matter though.

Aren't you also an internationalist so you shouldn't throw stones when you are in a glass house? You support a vague "Western culture" not Polish culture after all you are rushing to defend Israel when you are not Israeli and you are Polish. How does that align with nationalist values?

Nationalism doesn't mean isolationism, western populist bent towards it is something historically alien and outright retarded to us due to how enemies and allies and politics of it are a big part of any international happenings here. We need to make alliances all over the world to try benefit our position in short and long term.
We are also part of Western civilization, it's not like Polish culture is out of it or part of another one or something.

Why should nationalist countries be stunted diplomatically? This shit is what leftists accuse us nationalists of, and at least with them, i can understand that it's malicious, trying to say nationalists are retarded and cannot into international politics so they shouldn't be voted in to run the country, with people who seriously say we should be like that, this is fucking ridiculous, you are giving their attacks credence.

I understand Poland's interests are to be free of Russia so that means getting an alliance with a strong power preferably America or China so it makes sense to throw a bone to the friendly hegemonic imperial power. But you don't have to simp and grovel for every one of their policies. Like just meeting the 2% military defense spending in NATO will already give a leg up on support compared to other European nations. But Poland's interests aren't served by supporting every U.S. move to cause a war in the middle east or Asia.

But i don't simp and grovel for every one of their policies. I don't care for most of the policies. But as we have discussed, the "Islamic in-group" goes way beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself, and it's not our friend no matter how you spin it, and i'm vehemently unwilling to perform the mental gymnastics needed to pretend that these two are completely separate factions with separate relations with western countries.
>every U.S. move to cause a war in the middle east or Asia.
LMAO, you're a supposed right winger, stop drinking up leftist "America bad!" koolaid, it's silly, the world doesn't revolve around America, and many other places in the world are even more eager to "cause wars", as if it was ever that simple.

This is false all nations care about national borders. Since the dawn of kingdoms and empires they have cared, Islam was created after kingdoms and empires and has had quite a few of it's own. Again rival emirs and Sultans have fought over land and resources and have had alliances with Christian nations to fight others.

Yeah, they care about de facto control of lands, preferably all lands. But de jure borders to them are just a formality to be ignored whenever needed, not some weirdo isolationist limit to seeing own interests.

You saw me talking with others earlier, you can see some of it references here also.


*sigh* you look only at a surface level.
No Jews can't invade us and replace us with them. But they can send their problems to be our problems by sending the Muslims to us for example.

No, that's what leftists do, in fact they beg and bribe these problems with taxpayer's money to come to us and not anywhere else, they are the real scum here and root of such problems. Israel, no matter how much it would want, can't even send the problems to semi-lawless places like Libya without their explicit permission, nevermind to Europe.

Also it would be in the interests of western nations to have a wall to prevent migrants. It's a shame that it's in the interests of Israel to make sure there is no wall and that Europe can be a pressure release valve to take in some Migrants that way Israel does not have to defend us.

Unfortunately even if we could build a Great Wall of Europe over the screeching of leftists, it's rather hard to build a wall over the fucking Mediterranean Sea.

I've seen Muslims be critical towards October 7th, and many of them be angry at Israel's response yes. Tell me why are you acting like it's crazy for them? If a group you feel kinship with was invaded and kicked off their land and did not give up the fight would you criticize them?

Crazy or not, i use it as an example of how Muslim's kinship group is defined, and remains so, no matter where they migrate. That in turn is incompatible with Europe's nationality based kinship groups.
I'd contest the assertion that it's "their land", it's a historically very contested land, status of which should have been permanently settled one way or another back when British control of the land in question was dissolved. If they can't win a war, which they tried many times and failed badly again and again, they should drop the case, instead of making increasingly desperate and barbaric tries to decide the matter on battlefield yet again.

Let's give pretend this is Russia and Ukraine. Let's say Russia decides to push many Ukrainians out of Ukraine and move in Russians in that area, the Ukrainian army is completely defeated but the Ukrainian people fight on as partisans under various groups. This goes on for 70 years and in 2090 these Ukrainians attack into the Ukrainians lands Russia took and launch terrorist attacks. Is this black and white or morally grey?

At that point it would be black and white, if they have to resort to terrorism, and ISIL grade terrorism at that, this is a point where dropping the case would be preferable.
Secondly, when Israel was formed many Arab countries kicked out Jews to Israel, Israel was too nice and didn't do the same with Palestinians, so they kinda screwed over Israel already.
And last but not least, it's not like Russians have to take Moscow from Ukrainians and have nowhere to put their state on the map.

Arabs meanwhile have a shitload of states, including the Arabian Peninsula, their historical homeland, they have their places to live in, and could get additional small one if they lowered their expectations, but anyone with a clue knows the real goal of the Muslim side is to make Israel not exist, even if every single Palestinian would have to die for the sake of it, they are just a human resource for that fight, just like weapons and money.

 

[Scottty]

Hi people
I think this discussion might be more civil, and perhaps even more informative, if some of you could refrain from making it personal with the people you are disagreeing with, or posting speculations about their inner motives.
Especially when such speculations boil down to "I reject your arguments because I consider you a bad person".

 

[Abhorsen]

No, I'm just not naive enough to fall for the same fart-huffing isolationist thinking of the AnCaps or someone who worships the NAP.

You hate me because I have a moral system. It doesn't matter what that moral system is, btw, it wouldn't have justified the atrocities you want, and you would have replaced NAP with whatever that was. "Stupid AnCap, you hate mass murder of kids! What a stupid AnCap, you need to be less naive and let us kill kids." Replace AnCap with any type of decent moral system, and it sounds just as stupid. You want Israel to do evil and to be evil. But Israel is better than that.

PS:

Bacle: You're naive!
Also Bacle: Japan could totally beat Russia in a land invasion!

How many do you think aren't indoctrinated? Because I doubt very much it amounts to more than a rounding error.

A lot. They do polls of Hamas and Fatah support. It's always around 20-40%, more around 20% usually. That's a lot of people not indoctrinated.

Hi people
I think this discussion might be more civil, and perhaps even more informative, if some of you could refrain from making it personal with the people you are disagreeing with, or posting speculations about their inner motives.
Especially when such speculations boil down to "I reject your arguments because I consider you a bad person".

It's the other way round. I ultimately think that wanting to kill every man woman and child in Gaza is a monstrous act. People who are fine doing it are thus without any morality. I've pointed out why this isn't okay, but Bacle keeps wanting to kill kids, using the same argument that I've shown doesn't apply over and over (specifically "Hamas bad", which doesn't apply to christians, babies, and the majority of Palestinians who don't actually like Hamas). He's actively trying to justify killing kids on the chance that they grow up bad. Ultimately, I don't see a reason not to personally insult someone with a horrific belief system.

I don't either, but have you considered the fact that bombings can only do so much? Troops will have to be sent in eventually regardless, and there's a certain point where the only thing artillery can accomplish is making the terrain more difficult to traverse and clear.

Just seal up the tunnels? They've got expanding foam bombs for this. There are also bombs that explicitly are designed to explode bunkers. The US used them vs Saddam in the Gulf War, which got him to surrender.

 

[ATP]

This.

Because Palestine will always be our enemy regardless of whatever spiel you are buying into.

1.Support of communism till soviet fell,support of leftists now.Voting for Democrats in USA.Spitting on priests in Holy Land.
Attacking christians in Holy Land.
Of course,not all jews - but those who rule in Izrael are responsible for supporting Putin,and attacking christians there.

2.What "our"? Palestine was never christian enemy.Certainly not Poland.
I do not care about their fight with jews,becouse jews,at least those ruling in Izrael,are christians enemies and want us dead.

 

[DarthOne]

Personally I think we need to deal with the Muslim fanatics and leftoids throughout Europe and America. And keep more of the third world from migrating in via ‘treaties’ and non-government organizations. I would have no issue with going Captain Nemo on them.

 

[evilchumlee]

But you're not assigning the lion's share of the blame on them; you're insisting that Israel is responsible for killing civilians that, thanks to Hamas (who's civilian supporters in Gaza number quite a bit more than you seem to think they do), they must kill in order to ensure the safety of their own civilians. It's a depressing state of affairs, I'll grant you that, but there are no good options here; only least worst ones, and Israel has spent decades giving the Palestinians every chance to avoid war, only to have their efforts thrown back in their faces every single time.

I wouldn't say Israel has given them every chance... the two-state solution is a non-starter for Israel. That would go a long way.

It wouldn't completely solve the problem. Nothing will, short of the total extermination of muslim extremism.

I think the REAL source of the misunderstanding is that I felt that it should go without saying that Hamas and the rest of the islamic extremists are absolutely, 100% the worst. They need to be purged from the planet. Don't even feel the need to say it. Should just be universally accepted truth.

I'm not arguing it needs to be done. I'm arguing how it's being done.

Also, I wasn't necessarily accusing you of being an antisemite; just that you're uncritically buying into the antisemitic narrative that the Jews Israel are responsible for things they're not actually responsible for.

Getting such a serious label thrown at you like antisemite is going to produce a defensive posture, and it's just so... predictable and tends to be a lazy argument thrown out when discussing Israel. The word gets thrown around far too casually for basically any criticism of Israel at all.

More broadly, the general -ist or -phobe argument is a far too common tactic too with certain people. It's the foolproof way to shut down a conversation... "oh you're daring to make any criticsm at all of x group"... "well, you're xist or xphobic".

Fact is, Israel *IS* 100% responsible for how it is choosing to go about this. They aren't be "forced" to do anything. I think it's much more constructive to address the criticsm's directly rather than just throw out "well, sounds awful antisemitic". If this is really what Israel absolutely, objectively NEEDS to do and there is literally no other way... ok? It is what it is. I remain unconvinced that these tactics are completely necessary, at least on the scale they are happening at.

Hamas is absolutely using human shields and utilizing civilian infrastructure. I don't think that gives Israel... or to avoid accusations of double standards... "I don't think that gives [insert any nation]" carte blanche to just siege and bomb whatever might possibly be being used by the enemy, civilian casualties be damned. Rather, given a situation with a such a shitty enemy, it really sucks but it requires more precision.

I've noted before, sure I am holding Israel to a higher standard... than islamic extremist terrorist organizations. That's a compliment, not antisemitism. Israel.. IS better than them, in ever conceivable way. That being said... yes, i'm also going to hold Israel to not resorting to terrorist tactics and sink to their level. They're better than that.

Israel lost 1,400 people? That's an absolutely devastating tragedy. The way it happened was disgusting and unforgivable. Israel has every right to defend themselves and seek retribution for those responsible. 100%.

Gaza is at what... 10,000? With no signs anything will relent. At what point does the ongoing loss of life begin to outweigh the initial loss of life? 15,000? 20,000? 40,000? 100,000? 200,000? What is the point of unacceptable?

 

[Abhorsen]

I wouldn't say Israel has given them every chance... the two-state solution is a non-starter for Israel. That would go a long way.

Israel offered a two state solution, during the Camp David Accords. It's the one state solution that's a non-starter. Most of Israel believes in a 2 state solution.

Gaza is at what... 10,000? With no signs anything will relent. At what point does the ongoing loss of life begin to outweigh the initial loss of life? 15,000? 20,000? 40,000? 100,000? 200,000? What is the point of unacceptable?

The answer is not found by totaling the number. It has nothing to do with outweighing the initial loss of life, like there are scales of some sort. It's about if every individual step is okay (i.e. used to attack Hamas fighters, not just civilians).

War sucks. There will be a hundred k dead, is my bet. The question of whether it is worth it isn't based on the initial attack so much as stopping future attacks and enabling a long term peace.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

True, but beating on those weaker than you doesen't make anyone with actual integrity think higher of you.

That's certainly true on an individual level, but not really accurate on the stage of states.

In the case of Israel, they've 'allowed' a foreign invader to cross their border and slaughter Israelis.

They'll be though MUCH less of if they allow this to go unanswered in a very decisive manner.

On the October 7th, Hamas played the opening move in an international equivalent of FAFO.

 

[DarthOne]

So remember how everyone doubted me for showing that report about how Isreal wants to ship its Palestinian troubles over to the west?

Well, now we have an ex-leader of Mossad saying as much on tv!

Same goes for an ex-Israeli Minister of Culture who is all for nuking Gaza, wants the Gaza Strip to be taken over and repopulated exclusively with Israelis* and shipping any Palestinians to Ireland or the like. (While his comments have been disavowed by the Israeli government, I suspect that’s more to do with him making them look bad with the nuking comment).

Meanwhile, surrounding Middle Eastern countries have no desire to take in Palestine refugees on any sort of long term basis.

As the man points out, funny how whatever happens in the Middle East- the Syrian War, the Fall of Afghanistan and now this- it’s always mostly Western countries and western citizens who end up suffering via destabilization brought on by hostile migrants.


* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

 

[DarthOne]

So remember how everyone doubted me for showing that report about how Isreal wants to ship its Palestinian troubles over to the west?

Well, now we have an ex-leader of Mossad saying as much on tv!

Same goes for an ex-Israeli Minister of Culture who is all for nuking Gaza, wants the Gaza Strip to be taken over and repopulated exclusively with Israelis* and shipping any Palestinians to Ireland or the like. (While his comments have been disavowed by the Israeli government, I suspect that's more to do with him making them look bad with the nuking comment).

Meanwhile, surrounding Middle Eastern countries have no desire to take in Palestine refugees on any sort of long term basis.

As the man points out, funny how whatever happens in the Middle East- the Syrian War, the Fall of Afghanistan and now this- it's always mostly Western countries and western citizens who end up suffering via destabilization brought on by hostile migrants.


* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

 

[ATP]

So remember how everyone doubted me for showing that report about how Isreal wants to ship its Palestinian troubles over to the west?

Well, now we have an ex-leader of Mossad saying as much on tv!

Same goes for an ex-Israeli Minister of Culture who is all for nuking Gaza, wants the Gaza Strip to be taken over and repopulated exclusively with Israelis* and shipping any Palestinians to Ireland or the like. (While his comments have been disavowed by the Israeli government, I suspect that’s more to do with him making them look bad with the nuking comment).

Meanwhile, surrounding Middle Eastern countries have no desire to take in Palestine refugees on any sort of long term basis.

As the man points out, funny how whatever happens in the Middle East- the Syrian War, the Fall of Afghanistan and now this- it’s always mostly Western countries and western citizens who end up suffering via destabilization brought on by hostile migrants.


* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

So,USA are now paing for land grab and sending more muslims to Europe.
Well,after WW2 they gave us to Sralin for nothing,so it still could be worst.

I hope,that nobody now would say that Izrael is our friend,and we should support them.

 

[ATP]

So remember how everyone doubted me for showing that report about how Isreal wants to ship its Palestinian troubles over to the west?

Well, now we have an ex-leader of Mossad saying as much on tv!

Same goes for an ex-Israeli Minister of Culture who is all for nuking Gaza, wants the Gaza Strip to be taken over and repopulated exclusively with Israelis* and shipping any Palestinians to Ireland or the like. (While his comments have been disavowed by the Israeli government, I suspect that's more to do with him making them look bad with the nuking comment).

Meanwhile, surrounding Middle Eastern countries have no desire to take in Palestine refugees on any sort of long term basis.

As the man points out, funny how whatever happens in the Middle East- the Syrian War, the Fall of Afghanistan and now this- it's always mostly Western countries and western citizens who end up suffering via destabilization brought on by hostile migrants.


* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

They are our enemies,then.

 

[LordsFire]

So remember how everyone doubted me for showing that report about how Isreal wants to ship its Palestinian troubles over to the west?

Well, now we have an ex-leader of Mossad saying as much on tv!

Same goes for an ex-Israeli Minister of Culture who is all for nuking Gaza, wants the Gaza Strip to be taken over and repopulated exclusively with Israelis* and shipping any Palestinians to Ireland or the like. (While his comments have been disavowed by the Israeli government, I suspect that's more to do with him making them look bad with the nuking comment).

Meanwhile, surrounding Middle Eastern countries have no desire to take in Palestine refugees on any sort of long term basis.

As the man points out, funny how whatever happens in the Middle East- the Syrian War, the Fall of Afghanistan and now this- it's always mostly Western countries and western citizens who end up suffering via destabilization brought on by hostile migrants.


* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

Gee, it's almost like:

1. Israel doesn't want to have a nest of vipers under its doorstep anymore.

2. The leftist governments have actively solicited and encouraged migrants from MENA for a decade or more now, and fought tooth and nail to keep even the worst of actors from being sent away.

There's no conspiracy to this. It's literally just the obvious consequences of people's actions.

 

[Husky_Khan]

* Something something Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum!

Engaging in Manifest Destiny in Gaza is probably the most shit tier version of Lebensraum ever made. But if you gotta make a Nazi comparison, Lebensraum is a pretty recognizable word I guess.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Holy shit... how many threads on this forum are talking about the same fucking thing at the same fucking time?

 

[evilchumlee]

The answer is not found by totaling the number
The question of whether it is worth it isn't based on the initial attack so much as stopping future attacks and enabling a long term peace.

I hear you on this. But I can't help but take total number of deaths into the equation. These are human lives being lost... it feels to wrong to me to be outraged over 1,400 Israeli deaths, while being completely dismissive of exponentially more Palestinian deaths.

Yes, the ultimate answer is "when is it enough" is when "future attacks are stopped, long term peace established". My question is... how is this actually advancing that goal? Israel might be able to kill the current crop of Hamas... while terrorizing a populace rife for the radicalization. The people in Gaza who didn't hate Israel before... most likely do now.

I try to put myself into the situation. I'm from the US, in NJ. Let's just say, I don't know... the US decided to launch some huge attack on China out of the blue. I would 100% not support that. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to live my life. China responds by levelling New Jersey somehow (I understand this is an unlikely hypothetical), killing my family and destroying my home.

I was initially against attacking China. I had nothing do with it. After they destroyed everything I know and love? Whelp, my only purpose in life now is to kill as many Chinese as possible, by any means necessary.

Israel, in trying to "creating last peace" by the wholesale slaughter of civilians is probably doing exactly the opposite. I REALLY fear that only will it not defeat Hamas without literal ethnic cleansing, but it will have the exact opposite effect of creating peace when the surrounding Arab nations decided enough is enough and get involved.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I hear you on this. But I can't help but take total number of deaths into the equation. These are human lives being lost... it feels to wrong to me to be outraged over 1,400 Israeli deaths, while being completely dismissive of exponentially more Palestinian deaths.

Yes, the ultimate answer is "when is it enough" is when "future attacks are stopped, long term peace established". My question is... how is this actually advancing that goal? Israel might be able to kill the current crop of Hamas... while terrorizing a populace rife for the radicalization. The people in Gaza who didn't hate Israel before... most likely do now.

I try to put myself into the situation. I'm from the US, in NJ. Let's just say, I don't know... the US decided to launch some huge attack on China out of the blue. I would 100% not support that. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to live my life. China responds by levelling New Jersey somehow (I understand this is an unlikely hypothetical), killing my family and destroying my home.

I was initially against attacking China. I had nothing do with it. After they destroyed everything I know and love? Whelp, my only purpose in life now is to kill as many Chinese as possible, by any means necessary.

Israel, in trying to "creating last peace" by the wholesale slaughter of civilians is probably doing exactly the opposite. I REALLY fear that only will it not defeat Hamas without literal ethnic cleansing, but it will have the exact opposite effect of creating peace when the surrounding Arab nations decided enough is enough and get involved.

I highlighted the main problem with your thinking here.

Israel is NOT conducting the whole-sale slaughter of civilians. The death totals would be much MUCH higher if they were. This is pretty restrained aggression within an urban environment.

The reason I bring this up is that your comparison to a nuke being used and what Israel is doing are two VERY different things.

I've seen a LOT of people talking about how what Israel is doing is Bad, but I've not heard a single person actually provide an example of what Israel should do instead.

 

[evilchumlee]

I highlighted the main problem with your thinking here.

Israel is NOT conducting the whole-sale slaughter of civilians. The death totals would be much MUCH higher if they were. This is pretty restrained aggression within an urban environment.

I apologize if that was interpreted as me saying Israel is indiscriminately targeting civilians. They aren't.

The actions of Israel are causing massive amounts of civilian causalities. They aren't trying to do it. But it is happening.

My counter question is... what is the goal here? What is the end game? When does Israel declare "Mission Accomplished"? What does the siege end?

 

[Abhorsen]

I hear you on this. But I can't help but take total number of deaths into the equation. These are human lives being lost... it feels to wrong to me to be outraged over 1,400 Israeli deaths, while being completely dismissive of exponentially more Palestinian deaths.

We shouldn't be dismissive, but what matters is why they died. The 1,400 dead are morally outrageous because of how they died, and how it showed utter evil. Each act must be looked at individually, basically, to find out if it is morally just.

We shouldn't dismiss Palestinian deaths. They suck. But the ones who die by collateral to actual military targets are not 'morally awful deaths' any more than the war itself is.

Yes, the ultimate answer is "when is it enough" is when "future attacks are stopped, long term peace established". My question is... how is this actually advancing that goal? Israel might be able to kill the current crop of Hamas... while terrorizing a populace rife for the radicalization. The people in Gaza who didn't hate Israel before... most likely do now.

I try to put myself into the situation. I'm from the US, in NJ. Let's just say, I don't know... the US decided to launch some huge attack on China out of the blue. I would 100% not support that. I have nothing to do with it. I'm just trying to live my life. China responds by levelling New Jersey somehow (I understand this is an unlikely hypothetical), killing my family and destroying my home.

Here, you are mixing moral justifications with a practical reason. These are separate, so need to be addressed separately. Above is the moral talk. As for practicality? Israel destroying Hamas' trained soldiers and wrecking their ability to fire more rockets, and killing a great number of them, will have a militarily great impact for Israel's security.

More, a lot of the people there likely also blame Hamas. Your analogy fails to recognize what taking human shields does: it causes a huge amount of resentment at Hamas itself. Most of the palestinians there also hate Hamas, and view this as the inevitable cost of Hamas' action.

If the NJ government started forcing people to stay in houses at gunpoint to deter Chinese Bombs, then you'd also hate NJ.

Israel, in trying to "creating last peace" by the wholesale slaughter of civilians is probably doing exactly the opposite. I REALLY fear that only will it not defeat Hamas without literal ethnic cleansing, but it will have the exact opposite effect of creating peace when the surrounding Arab nations decided enough is enough and get involved.

If they were doing wholesale slaughter of civilians, you'd have a point. But despite what some disgusting morally empty people want, Israel is better than that.

My counter question is... what is the goal here? What is the end game? When does Israel declare "Mission Accomplished"? What does the siege end?

Hamas dead, presumably. Probably also a destruction of the existing tunnels. My personal solution to Hamas as a long term problem is to let Fatah take control over Gaza, and give them the a bunch of small arms. They hate Hamas, so will stamp out any more of Hamas.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

My counter question is... what is the goal here? What is the end game? When does Israel declare "Mission Accomplished"? What does the siege end?

From what I've heard out of Israel, when Hamas is extinct.