Open letter to those criticizing Israel

Author: WyIted

Posts

Total: 14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,446
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
This is an open letter to those criticizing Israel's response to 10/7.

You guys are mostly immature and naive idiots. War is ugly.  The realities are hidden from you and it started being hidden after the Vietnam War. The reason for this is that images from war can easily become propaganda and cause democratic nations to back down. 

Usually you have an option between two strategies to win a war when it is unevenly matched enemies. The first option is quick but nasty and this was preferred prior to the use of a lot of war photography in propaganda. The other option is slow and much prettier looking. 

The quick nasty way was preferable because it was believed it was less devastating to civilians in the long run despite the immediate hardships. However the ugliness is what made nations shift towards slow and steady invasions. 

Some of the criticism of Israel is that they are doing things quick and dirty instead of trying to engage in a war that lasts 100 years but looks less ugly. 

However I just want you idiots already trying to intellectualize a response here or use some sort of circular logic about how Hamas is the good guys and Israel bad. At least have the balls to look at the following site that documented the atrocities of October 7th. Look at every image and every video. 

If you are not a pussy, you will do it. If you have an ounce of humanity in you and you see what the fuck happened than you will realize why actions need to be taken to make sure this never ever happens again. 

If you are a female I suggest you do not click on the link at all and just shut the fuck up about politics, but if you are any sort of man and you want to take a side than you owe it to both sides to get the full story and look at every single one of these images and videos

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 356
Posts: 10,596
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Israel doesnt have the right to defend itself.

Israeli need to go back to USA, but first give back 1 trillion dollars that USA gave them.

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
Some of the criticism of Israel is that they are doing things quick and dirty instead of trying to engage in a war that lasts 100 years but looks less ugly. 
... but war is always ugly.

I would argue that the net minimum damage to utility heavily favors a shorter war when it can be controlled. There is a balance here since "shorten the war" can be used to excuse anything (see nuking two city centers when you had the sea-lanes blockaded and they had no uranium or oil).


In Gaza what is going on in exact detail is very hard for an American or European internet surfer to know, but in general what is happening is pretty clear: People are starving and being crushed by buildings because there are bunch of terrorists running around preventing the normal operation of civilization and using the normal structures of civilization as bunkers.

The balance of utility in this case is absolutely clear: End the war quickly, occupy the region. The suffering will only end when there are no more corners to hide in.

That it's gone on this long is already suboptimal. They already do drop leaflets and broadcast intentions, but what they need to be saying is that "this is our front line, if you aren't a terrorist get on our side or your life is forfeit."

Then they need to carry through and obliterate any structure that they receive fire from. It's a "preliminary investment", there is no point sending food and building apartment buildings while there are still terrorists intercepting the food and using apartment buildings as bunkers. Not winning this is not an option. Anyone who thinks it is an option is either a pacifist or a hypocrite because there is no nation and no household on Earth that wouldn't respond to rocket artillery (to say the least) with war.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@WyIted
One can criticize a giant douche, without embracing a turd sandwich.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
End the war quickly, occupy the region
One can only hope Israel actually has feasible plans to fully occupy the region and destroy every terrorist in the Middle East, despite multiple world superpowers trying and failing to do just that. Otherwise, the war won't end, and most of this will be for nothing.

Not winning this is not an option.
It might be the only option, depending on what you consider "winning." If winning means a long-term peace where terrorists no longer fire rockets at Israel, then it's probably a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Israel's only consistently successful measures to protect their people have been missile defense systems. If either side wanted to greatly reduce Israeli and Palestinian casualties in the long term, they could. It's a bit more difficult for Israel, but still doable if they have an interest in doing so (not saying they necessarily do). Pouring funding into those is probably the best they're going to get, but maybe I'm a pessimist.

there is no nation and no household on Earth that wouldn't respond to rocket artillery (to say the least) with war
There's no nation that hasn't paid a huge price for waging war either.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,446
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Barney
One can criticize a giant douche, without embracing a turd sandwich.
I would agree accept for the genocidal chants of from the river to the sea they engage in and the obviously false propaganda they help spread. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
End the war quickly, occupy the region
One can only hope Israel actually has feasible plans to fully occupy the region and destroy every terrorist in the Middle East, despite multiple world superpowers trying and failing to do just that. Otherwise, the war won't end, and most of this will be for nothing.
They don't need to destroy every terrorist in the middle east. They just need to destroy every active terrorist in Gaza, the West Bank, and anywhere else that the world seems to think doesn't count as a nation that can commit acts of war.

If Egypt starts lobbing artillery at Israel or Greece or any other country that is a clear act of war. One would hope that counter attacks would not be condemned but regardless real nations have a lot to lose. You cut their power grid, blow their dams, mine their ports and they self-destruct.

The unique quality of the terrorists is that they don't care if civilization falls so long as they hurt who they hate. Egyptians may hate Israel but they don't hate Israel more than they love their children. Something that cannot be said for too many of the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank.



Not winning this is not an option.
It might be the only option, depending on what you consider "winning."
Let me define winning: people stop launching coordinated attacks on your population like an active volcano that goes off every 10 years.

If that isn't one of the non-negotiable reasons for governments to exist I don't know what is.


If winning means a long-term peace where terrorists no longer fire rockets at Israel, then it's probably a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
Killing everyone in Gaza would pretty much do it. The global alliance of loonies who hate Israel basically act like that's what's happening anyway.

In less civilized times that would have been done on unprovoked attack #3 (who knows what the current count is). I have done some light reading on the various crusades and in general both sides were more civil than what we have seen Israel endure. If a crusader king's army had set out to rape and murder people and mutilate murdered babies there would be zero quarter and the same is true of jihadists. If they repeatedly agreed to truces and broke them there would be no further truces. They didn't act that way because they had moral code and because they damn well knew their enemy would escalate all the way to the top.

I am stunned at how many people think Israel's restraint is anything but absolutely unprecedented in human history. It's a macroscopic example of "never been punched" syndrome. In case it isn't clear, there is so much more I would have failed to condemn from Israel than what they have apparently done (which is building by building destruction with warnings when they knew there were civilians).


Israel's only consistently successful measures to protect their people have been missile defense systems.
The United Kingdom's only successful defense against the Luftwaffe was the RAF when there was nothing else they could do, but nobody at that time was insane enough to believe that any nation could survive or should tolerate constant attack.

Counter-bombing didn't stop the attacks, it infuriated the enemy.

D-day made Britain safe again and it was the only permanent solution.


If either side wanted to greatly reduce Israeli and Palestinian casualties in the long term, they could.
The terrorists are the only ones who can end the fighting without simply shifting the casualties to civilians. When Israel winds down military presence 10/7 happens. This isn't a misunderstanding, this is hate, and it will not end so long as the people who can't let go of hate draw breath.


It's a bit more difficult for Israel, but still doable if they have an interest in doing so (not saying they necessarily do). Pouring funding into those is probably the best they're going to get, but maybe I'm a pessimist.
The idea of a perfect defense has always been fundamentally flawed and the only reason an imperfect facsimile appears feasible in the context is the vast economic and technological difference between Israel and the terrorists.

So maybe if you are decades ahead and spend a 100 times more than your enemy you can keep them from harming you without killing them, but what a ridiculous idea that a nation ought or must commit to that?

What happens when someone a little richer starts helping the terrorists? Actually that is apparently already happening with Iran.

What happened when multiple Muslim nations descended on Israel with conventional armies? Did Israel have some secret wonder-weapon that put an energy shield around the country?

No, they fought a pitched decisive battle with modern offensive weapons and when the enemy could no longer respond to being out maneuvered they were driven back. Israel can force wars to fall into that category again by annexing these pseudo-nations that it gave back in (what history has proven) to be the first of many naive acts of good faith.


there is no nation and no household on Earth that wouldn't respond to rocket artillery (to say the least) with war
There's no nation that hasn't paid a huge price for waging war either.
Yet they always pay because if you do nothing you lose everything. There may be examples where a government is so loose and pathetic that it didn't even bother to surrender but those must be counted as total failures.

At least in surrender there is one final responsible act.

Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They don't need to destroy every terrorist in the middle east. They just need to destroy every active terrorist in Gaza, the West Bank, and anywhere else that the world seems to think doesn't count as a nation that can commit acts of war.
If they succeed, I'll reevaluate my position, but I see little reason to believe that Israel is willing to invest enough resources to take over and govern the West Bank (if they don't, there will be more terrorists). Israel has been at war with terrorists for decades and suffered much worse attacks than October 7th, but they've never gone that far before.

Let me define winning: people stop launching coordinated attacks on your population like an active volcano that goes off every 10 years.

Killing everyone in Gaza would pretty much do it.
You're right, achieving this would probably require nuking Gaza (and likely Iran as well). Besides not being politically feasible and other obvious downsides, this increases the odds of powerful nations launching a large-scale attack on Israel. They do care abut their children, but the difference between them and Hamas is that they can win (especially since the US might stop funding Israel).

I would instead define winning as "minimizing deaths of Israeli citizens" and then go with missile defense, which has most effectively managed to achieve that. It's likely this would eventually cause support for the other side to dry up, since there are no dead children to use in propaganda, and the missiles are just getting destroyed.

Counter-bombing didn't stop the attacks, it infuriated the enemy
Israel is counter-bombing right now, that's where most of the criticism against them is coming from. The Iron Dome is completely different.

D-day made Britain safe again and it was the only permanent solution.
So Israel should draft and sacrifice a huge portion of its own population? That would be the equivalent of D-day.

The idea of a perfect defense has always been fundamentally flawed and the only reason an imperfect facsimile appears feasible in the context is the vast economic and technological difference between Israel and the terrorists.
That may be the case; nonetheless Israel does have a huge economic and technological advantage. Technology today is not the same as during WW2, nor are Hamas and the Nazis structured the same. Hamas is easier to defend against but too spread out to completely destroy. And even if they were completely eliminated, there's no guarantee we wouldn't see an equivalent terrorist group rise up.

So maybe if you are decades ahead and spend a 100 times more than your enemy you can keep them from harming you without killing them, but what a ridiculous idea that a nation ought or must commit to that?
Israel is already spending a huge amount, and missile defense is a tiny fraction of its budget. Even if the civilian deaths in Israel aren't Israel's responsibility, they are Israel's problem. Also, keeping the enemy from harming civilians and killing the enemy are two different things. Missile defense has historically prevented civilian deaths; shooting missiles at the terrorists hasn't.

When Israel winds down military presence 10/7 happens.
Military presence is fine. Shooting rockets into civilian populations in an attempt to destroy Hamas is exactly what didn't stop the attacks and infuriated the enemy when both Israel and Britain tried it. Also note that the "winding down" was only relative to the long-term ongoing conflict. Israel has had many opportunities to decide how to respond before.

What happens when someone a little richer starts helping the terrorists? Actually that is apparently already happening with Iran.
So we get a bloodless Cold War instead of a bloodbath. It's a spending competition no matter what. A D-day invasion costs Israeli dollars and lives. Not to mention that aggressive measures give more countries reason to oppose Israel, hence increasing funding for the other side. You can throw lives at the problem or money at the problem, and only one of those makes the world go round. Spending becomes tit-for-tat, though. If Iran spends money on missiles and all of them get shot down, why would they keep spending money on missiles?

multiple Muslim nations descended on Israel with conventional armies
This is way more likely to happen if Israel continues shooting missiles that result in civilian casualties. Hamas barely won more seats than Fatah in 2006, and it was widely known that Hamas was a terrorist organization. In other words, there would be no October 7th if just 10% more of the population in Palestine has opposed Hamas in 2006. Civilian deaths, aggressive measures, and building settlements definitely influence that.

Israel can force wars to fall into that category again by annexing these pseudo-nations 
Hence requiring another D-day, which would cost many Israeli lives and possibly even escalate the conflict. Israel has a few enemies they can outspend, plus as many additional enemies as they make.

Yet they always pay because if you do nothing you lose everything.
Missile defense isn't nothing; in fact, I'd say it's a modern miracle. It's the first case I can think of where a government could reliably protect many of its citizens without the uncertainty of war.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
What would you do if you were charged with corruption as prime minister of Israel? 
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,446
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Reece101
It depends on a few things. I can see 3 possible scenarios. 2 where I am guilty and one where I am innocent. If I am innocent of corruption than I would defend my innocence . If I am guilty I would have to decide the impacts of me resigning or not. If I thought resigning would significantly harm the country than i wouldn't do it. 

I would hope that I would be honest about my corruption and seek repentance though. 

I also think it matters what type of corruption it was. Was it giving a person a job they were under qualified for? Like a DEI hire or a relative? Than it may just require repentance and promising to be completely blind to anything other than merit in the future. If it's something more serious like having political enemies arrested on charges that would not normally be brought or if it was making money off the office or accepting bribes than I can't see many scenarios where you should do anything other than resign and apologize.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
They don't need to destroy every terrorist in the middle east. They just need to destroy every active terrorist in Gaza, the West Bank, and anywhere else that the world seems to think doesn't count as a nation that can commit acts of war.
If they succeed, I'll reevaluate my position
If they don't, that neither means they didn't have a right to try nor does it mean any other particular strategy would have succeeded given the same investment of resources and/or sacrifice of civility.


I see little reason to believe that Israel is willing to invest enough resources to take over and govern the West Bank (if they don't, there will be more terrorists).
Yes you are certainly correct that if they do not there will be more terrorists. They will simply slip out into barely governed territory (the deserts of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc...), wait for things to calm down, come back in, and launch more attacks.

It is the territory itself that is the problem. It's like the high-seas were 16th to 19th centuries, a place where privateers can just attack people and the country that built the ship shrugs. The solution then was to patrol the seas and deny them any port, and that is the solution here. Occupation is absolute necessity.


Counter-bombing didn't stop the attacks, it infuriated the enemy
Israel is counter-bombing right now, that's where most of the criticism against them is coming from.
Criticism is coming from irrational hatred combined with naive and blind support of any Muslim agenda. Every other country does the same or worse for far lesser offenses. The United States built tomahawk missile has long been obsolete weapon in fighting major conventional enemies and exist and is used solely as a means of precisely bombing people who piss off the deep state.

Where are the critics there? Oh right they're warmongers so long as their side is the one doing the bombing, or to be more accurate they're war mongers when the puppet press tells them bad guys are being bombed.


D-day made Britain safe again and it was the only permanent solution.
So Israel should draft and sacrifice a huge portion of its own population? That would be the equivalent of D-day.
If necessary, but it isn't necessary.


Hamas is easier to defend against but too spread out to completely destroy.
The liars say that Gaza is 'an open air prison' because Israel tries to keep advanced weapons out of the hands of Hamas by monitoring the borders. That lie is used to justify raping people.

That is not a solution.


And even if they were completely eliminated, there's no guarantee we wouldn't see an equivalent terrorist group rise up.
If that terrorist group doesn't have the international legal magic of the psuedonations to launch unprovoked and unavenged attacks from they can sit and stew.

Stopping terrorists from sneaking in to commit terrorist attacks is a problem that all nations especially Israel already have to deal with. The reason children are starving in Gaza is because that is not the only thing Israel has to deal with. They have to deal with terrorists launching artillery from heavily populated urban centers.


So maybe if you are decades ahead and spend a 100 times more than your enemy you can keep them from harming you without killing them, but what a ridiculous idea that a nation ought or must commit to that?
Israel is already spending a huge amount, and missile defense is a tiny fraction of its budget.
It will never be cheaper to intercept a missile than it is to build a missile. You either need a missile with superior maneuverability, sensors, and guidance or you need a very accurate very powerful laser weapon that will cost more than tens of thousands of missiles and once you invest in all that they will simply switch to another very cheap form of attack. Such as digging tunnels and planting mines. Such as the 10/7 invasion.

What if they switch from rocket artillery to gun artillery? Now make it a high velocity gun at a shallow angle. Then neither interceptor missiles nor laser weapons will be enough.

If they haven't invested a huge amount into anti-missile systems that only means they understand war better than you appear to. It would be a wasted investment soon enough and if the enemy can force you to keep wasting a 100 times more eventually you will run out of resources.

Again: The idea of a perfect defense has always been fundamentally flawed and the only reason an imperfect facsimile appears feasible in the context is the vast economic and technological difference between Israel and the terrorists.


What happens when someone a little richer starts helping the terrorists? Actually that is apparently already happening with Iran.
So we get a bloodless Cold War instead of a bloodbath.
What is bloodless about constant attacks on Israel, many of which succeeded at killing people and would succeed more without the rapid counterattacks?

It would be a bloodless cold war between Israel and Iran IF Israel occupies the attack vectors so that Iran can't attack without giving Israel the right to strike at their homeland infrastructure.

What is making it a very bloody spending war is that Iran can have their weapons and blood money used without watching their civilization crumble.


Not to mention that aggressive measures give more countries reason to oppose Israel,
Appeasing the insane is impossible so there is no reason to factor in hopeless attempts to do so.


You can throw lives at the problem or money at the problem, and only one of those makes the world go round.
You can waste both if you refuse to win the war or use a failing strategy.


Spending becomes tit-for-tat, though. If Iran spends money on missiles and all of them get shot down, why would they keep spending money on missiles?
If their missiles cost $1000 and the Israelis have to spend $100,000 for every missile shot down they would keep building those missiles because Israel will run out of money first.

That translates to loss of quality of life BTW.

Or Iran could make better missiles, and maybe a $10,000 missile can still get through a $100,000/missile defense screen from time to time. Still winning economically but now also killing people.

The allied bombing campaign over nazi germany would never have defeated germany alone but it forced, at least politically, a huge investment of resources in air defense. It was not wasted money even if it didn't work as well as some would have hoped.


multiple Muslim nations descended on Israel with conventional armies
This is way more likely to happen if Israel continues shooting missiles that result in civilian casualties.
Then rip off the bandaid. You don't need to drop bombs when you occupy the region.


Hamas barely won more seats than Fatah in 2006, and it was widely known that Hamas was a terrorist organization. In other words, there would be no October 7th if just 10% more of the population in Palestine has opposed Hamas in 2006.
Do you think that the general population supports Hamas more now than they did?

Logically one would say that Hamas started a war (via very immoral means) and that war cost much suffering so that was the wrong choice, but humans aren't exactly rational; especially around war.

Humans get angry, want revenge; but voting for Hamas is voting to genocide Israel so if they are going to attack you anyway there is no avoiding making them angry. You have to go all the way. Win the war. Wars are won when there is nothing but despair in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy is everyone who voted for Hamas.


It's the first case I can think of where a government could reliably protect many of its citizens without the uncertainty of war.
With respect to you as a person, that is a delusional statement.

People launching warhead tipped missiles at your country IS by definition WAR.

I don't know what kind of twisted propaganda has led you to a thought process where you thought random artillery strikes was a state of peace, lacking the uncertainty of war, but it's a frightening thing to see a person believe.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Worst case scenario, they should try both. Pour funding into missile defense until it stops all the attacks it can, and if it works, then hold off on throwing away more lives in an invasion. In lieu of that, the options here are occupation (which definitely costs a lot of Israeli lives) or defense, which has already saved a lot of Israeli lives. I won't pretend to know the future, but I'd err on the side of what has worked before.

If they don't, that neither means they didn't have a right to try
This may apply if Israel occupies and attempts to rule Gaza (which will require a lot of soldiers). Counterbombing is not enough to occupy and rule. So in lieu f nukes (which Israel has made clear it won't use), Israel's best attempt at occupation will be a bloody land invasion.

It will never be cheaper to intercept a missile than it is to build a missile.
Intercepting a missile stops the missile. Attacking another Israel outspends and overpowers Hamas already, so the question is whether Iran will up their spending if Israel allocates more to missile defense. In which case, if Iran is willing to spend more, why haven't they already? If the goal is to minimize Israeli casualties, should Israel avoid reallocating its funds in a more efficient way solely to avoid escalation? Aggressive measures are more escalatory than defensive measures anyway.

If they haven't invested a huge amount into anti-missile systems that only means they understand war better than you appear to.
They might, or their primary incentive may not be to prevent Israeli deaths. And as you said, humans aren't exactly rational. Killing a lot of enemy soldiers plays well politically even if it costs a lot of lives.

Appeasing the insane is impossible
Hamas and some of their supporters are insane, but not everyone supporting them necessarily is. Dead children are a pretty good selling point if you want to radicalize people.

It would be a bloodless cold war between Israel and Iran IF Israel occupies the attack vectors so that Iran can't attack without giving Israel the right to strike at their homeland infrastructure.
Has Israel been concerned with the "right" to attack up to this point? Seems like they've been making their own rules regardless of what the UN has to say about it.

You don't need to drop bombs when you occupy the region.
So given either of our plans, Israel doesn't need to keep dropping bombs. And a D-day invasion scenario is much easier said than done. "Just do an invasion" is a much riskier plan than missile defense. 

humans aren't exactly rational; especially around war.
Right; they're emotional and more likely to want a war with Israel if Israel kills other people in their country. "Israel is committing genocide" is a widely held opinion in Palestine. Some percentage of the country is irrationally genocidal, but even if just half of the support for war against Israel is based in part on Israel's counterattacks, Hamas losing support from that half would flip the majority of the population against them.

Wars are won when there is nothing but despair in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy is everyone who voted for Hamas
You're assuming that Hamas' supporters are afraid of death, which they aren't really. It makes them mad, not scared. The Cold War was won without striking fear into the hearts of the enemy, and proxy wars are another example. Even then, it doesn't matter how the enemy feels if you counter all of their attacks.

You have to go all the way.
If you're not afraid of escalation, then sure. Nuke Iran and Palestine. But there are consequences for aggressive measures, the further you go the more reason you give undecided factions to retaliate. 

People launching warhead tipped missiles at your country IS by definition WAR
I'd argue it's not really war if only one side is attacking (the point is that waging war comes with risks), but let's say it is. If none of their attacks are successful, that's probably the best deal Israel is going to get.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,158
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Savant
If the goal is to minimize Israeli casualties, should Israel avoid reallocating its funds in a more efficient way solely to avoid escalation? Aggressive measures are more escalatory than defensive measures anyway.
When someone is waging war on your nation, the net minimization of causalities is always to win that war... unless you're willing to surrender and Israel is not.

Thus winning the war is the umbrella category under which spending can be efficient. Anything that does not win the war cannot be the most efficient use.


Hamas and some of their supporters are insane, but not everyone supporting them necessarily is.
Debatable. When people accuse me of being a rapist I say "no I am not".

When you accuse Hamas supporters of supporting rapists they say "you left them no choice" (paraphrasing).

They may transition to sanity in other areas of their life but whatever mode of thinking they are in when they answer that way, it is insane.


Has Israel been concerned with the "right" to attack up to this point? Seems like they've been making their own rules regardless of what the UN has to say about it.
lol, it almost sounded like you were implying that the right to defend yourself is a privilege granted at the whims of the UN. Funny.

It could be argued that Israel already has the right to attack Iran. I am not saying international opinion is meaningless, I am saying the Israel haters wouldn't have a leg to stand on nor would the internal nutjobs in Israel who can't seem to learn from sixty years of recent history.


You don't need to drop bombs when you occupy the region.
So given either of our plans, Israel doesn't need to keep dropping bombs.
Israel does not occupy the land they are dropping bombs on.


And a D-day invasion scenario is much easier said than done. "Just do an invasion" is a much riskier plan than missile defense. 
D day was a meticulously planned attack informed by years of war. I doubt the Israeli military just started thinking up options five minutes ago. They are invading, but they don't occupy it all.

All I am saying is that the death will continue if they fail to push all the way to the recognized national borders of someone with something to lose e.g. Eygpt. It will also all be for nothing if they withdraw.


but even if just half of the support for war against Israel is based in part on Israel's counterattacks, Hamas losing support from that half would flip the majority of the population against them.
lol, turn the other cheek on a national scale. What could go wrong? Oh wait 10/7, after turn the cheek number #500.

Shall we put together a list of acts of war that Israel did not kill anyone innocent over? It's a long list.


Wars are won when there is nothing but despair in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy is everyone who voted for Hamas
You're assuming that Hamas' supporters are afraid of death, which they aren't really. It makes them mad, not scared.
I am not assuming anything. There are always some who are willing to die as opposed to merely risk death in war, those people die in war and that is one of the reasons you need to fight when attacked because there are people who will simply not stop until they're dead and if their own people aren't going to stop them you have to.


The Cold War was won without striking fear into the hearts of the enemy
The cold war is an imagined victory. The fallacies at the foundation of the communist worldview destroyed the soviet union.


and proxy wars are another example.
Another example of what?


Even then, it doesn't matter how the enemy feels if you counter all of their attacks.
and it wouldn't be a problem if Israel terraformed Mars and transported their entire nation there continental crust and all... but why talk about impossible solutions?

The idea that you can defend anything against a well planned attack much less let your enemy sit unmolested indefinitely while they import whatever they need to execute any new plan they or anyone in the world can come up with, and that somehow you're going to be able to always be able to counter them to the point of losing no property or lives?

You suggest an unending dance where one side always has to be smarter, always has to spend more, but only needs to make a mistake once to lose.


"Israel is committing genocide" is a widely held opinion in Palestine.
and elsewhere, as was "Jan 6 was an insurrection".

What are they going to escalate their rhetoric to, "No it's actually a genocide now"


the point is that waging war comes with risks
Being slaughtered comes with 'risks' too.


that's probably the best deal Israel is going to get.
Life isn't fair, history isn't fair, people are not being fair in their judgements of Israel. I haven't made comments about just how unfair those judgements might be, I have related my judgement.

I don't know who Israel is "making a deal with" in this sentence, but they can get a much better deal with me and there is no chance of a deal with Hamas.

Wars don't need to end in a deal, that's where the phrase "unconditional surrender" comes from.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Eh, maybe history will vindicate one of us. I do hope Israel's destruction of Hamas succeeds at least if they attempt it (it's not like anyone can stop them from trying). At this point it seems like we're repeating ourselves, so I'll leave the discussion as-is.