It doesn’t take a military strategist to know that this wasn’t the right response. Terrorism is an ideological threat, it cannot be defeated or “rooted out” by conventional weapons until you kill every last person who finds it worthwhile to fight for the ideology. Out of all of the diverse peoples of the world, you might expect that the Jews would understand the gruesome impracticality of that goal.
So you’d have the Israel military go into Hamas territory, proceed to get ambushed, and still end up with dead civilians because terrorists don’t care about civilian casualities?
They should have gone into gaza and tried to only kill people who shot back at them yeah. I do not care if they get ambushed and die, that is far better than a newborn in Gaza getting vaporized by a JDAM along with their entire family because Israel lied about Hamas being in their house.
That’s a nice saying. It’s also a deflection from answering the question.
I don’t agree with what Israel is doing, but I also don’t see what an appropriate response would have been. Certainly not responding was not an option. And innocent civilians are going to be victims in any form of response.
I read through both of my responses again, since I couldn’t recall suggesting that the best option would be to turn the other cheek, and it turns out that I remembered correctly and actually didn’t say that. 🤔
To clarify, I haven’t been suggesting that I’ve found a solution to this problem, merely that I think that the way in which we are currently trying to solve the problem is not a solution.
If I need to solve x + 1 = 2, I can consider infinite solutions that are incorrect without needing to solve for the correct answer; 0 doesn’t work, 2 doesn’t work, etc. I can do this without having the answer to the original problem.
In this instance, we’ve been trying to solve this problem with violence and cruelty for quite some time now, and I’m simply of the mind that if it was going to work it would have done so by now.
I would have held onto the moral high ground instead of instantly bombing civilians.
I would do everything I could to rescue the hostages, instead of ignoring them and bombing them.
I would negotiate with Palestinian leadership, offering them a path towards autonomy and freedom from their open air prison in return for handing over every single Hamas terrorist that attacked on Oct 7th.
Of course there is no magic solution. Even if we find the best possible course there will still be bloodshed and deep resentment. But with the current Israeli strategy, for every Hamas terrorist that they kill, they are creating 2 more to take their place.
Negotiating with terrorists typically does not end well. Once they realize that their methods are effective to get what they want, they will keep doing the same over and over until they ask for something that you can’t give them, and then you’ll look like the bad guy.
Except that is not what the poster you’re replying to said. The poster said, ‘negotiate with Palestinians to hand over Hamas responsible for 10/7’. That’s not ‘negotiating with Hamas’.
There was an ongoing peace process between Israel and the secular PLO with the Oslo Accords and then Israel stopped the process. Israel accelerated land grabs and illegal settlements, and actually PROMOTED Hamas. The PLO organizations had either pledged to not harm civilians or given up armed struggle altogether. But Israel said NO to land for peace and so why should Palestinians choose peaceful negotiations?
It’s not complicated at all. Bombing a residential building is a terrorist act.
It doesn’t matter what you claim is hiding underneath.
How would you, enlightened Westerner, as Israel, have responded to the massacres?
It doesn’t take a military strategist to know that this wasn’t the right response. Terrorism is an ideological threat, it cannot be defeated or “rooted out” by conventional weapons until you kill every last person who finds it worthwhile to fight for the ideology. Out of all of the diverse peoples of the world, you might expect that the Jews would understand the gruesome impracticality of that goal.
So terrorists slaughter hundreds of your innocents, crossing over two border walls, and your response is what?
Not radicalize more people? Respond without wiping out 50% of the residential buildings?
So you’d have the Israel military go into Hamas territory, proceed to get ambushed, and still end up with dead civilians because terrorists don’t care about civilian casualities?
They should have gone into gaza and tried to only kill people who shot back at them yeah. I do not care if they get ambushed and die, that is far better than a newborn in Gaza getting vaporized by a JDAM along with their entire family because Israel lied about Hamas being in their house.
You don’t, but I’m pretty sure you’ll understand that they do
Are you saying Hamas didn’t attack Israel in the massacres?
…no? they did, that’s universally undisputed. even hamas would say that.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
That’s a nice saying. It’s also a deflection from answering the question.
I don’t agree with what Israel is doing, but I also don’t see what an appropriate response would have been. Certainly not responding was not an option. And innocent civilians are going to be victims in any form of response.
Removed by mod
I read through both of my responses again, since I couldn’t recall suggesting that the best option would be to turn the other cheek, and it turns out that I remembered correctly and actually didn’t say that. 🤔
To clarify, I haven’t been suggesting that I’ve found a solution to this problem, merely that I think that the way in which we are currently trying to solve the problem is not a solution.
If I need to solve x + 1 = 2, I can consider infinite solutions that are incorrect without needing to solve for the correct answer; 0 doesn’t work, 2 doesn’t work, etc. I can do this without having the answer to the original problem.
In this instance, we’ve been trying to solve this problem with violence and cruelty for quite some time now, and I’m simply of the mind that if it was going to work it would have done so by now.
Turning the other cheek means not resorting to violence, my guy.
Great question!
I would have held onto the moral high ground instead of instantly bombing civilians.
I would do everything I could to rescue the hostages, instead of ignoring them and bombing them.
I would negotiate with Palestinian leadership, offering them a path towards autonomy and freedom from their open air prison in return for handing over every single Hamas terrorist that attacked on Oct 7th.
Of course there is no magic solution. Even if we find the best possible course there will still be bloodshed and deep resentment. But with the current Israeli strategy, for every Hamas terrorist that they kill, they are creating 2 more to take their place.
Israel and the UN tried that already. Hamas said no.
Negotiating with terrorists typically does not end well. Once they realize that their methods are effective to get what they want, they will keep doing the same over and over until they ask for something that you can’t give them, and then you’ll look like the bad guy.
Except that is not what the poster you’re replying to said. The poster said, ‘negotiate with Palestinians to hand over Hamas responsible for 10/7’. That’s not ‘negotiating with Hamas’.
There was an ongoing peace process between Israel and the secular PLO with the Oslo Accords and then Israel stopped the process. Israel accelerated land grabs and illegal settlements, and actually PROMOTED Hamas. The PLO organizations had either pledged to not harm civilians or given up armed struggle altogether. But Israel said NO to land for peace and so why should Palestinians choose peaceful negotiations?
Who’s gonna hand them over? The government? Hamas are the government.
Sadly your comment could equally apply to both sides.