Why do they say "Fighting Continues" in Gaza?

[Basic LA]

Where are the battles being fought? I haven't seen a single one. Where is the clash of military forces? All we see are IDF air assaults on apartment bldgs & mosques. We see slaughtered civilians, crying women & children, families bombed in their homes. We see hospitals attacked and under siege. We see IDF snipers murdering journalists and others at random. We see Palestinian males lined up naked at gunpoint, kneeling in the rubble before being trucked off for interrogation. We see families starving to death while food aid is prevented from entering the Gazan open-air prison. We see Israeli troops in bombed-out apartments yucking it up over dead mothers' panties.
Is all this really "combat?" Or is it something else here that the US is paying for and sanctioning?
Meanwhile on the news, "Fighting Continues."

[Igel]

1. As of 4 days ago ...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israeli-gaza-raid-al-shifa-2nd-week-fighting-hamas-return-rcna144599

Updates I've heard indicated the fighting continued.

[Basic LA]

7. Great report. Thanks so much.

That's exactly what I mean. It's all IDF attacks on civilians & civilian infrastructure. For a proper "fight" I think someone is required to fight back.

[applegrove]

27. Or attack & kill civilians and then go home and hide under different civilians. A little

girl I saw in GAZA talked about how her family members were martyrs. So those are some well trained civilians to not think about how they are being used.... because it is Allah's plan. Saw another Gaza person, this time a woman, who talked about how the leaders of Hamas are billionaires.

I want a ceasefire but to pretend Hamas did not start this is the argument of childishness.

[Basic LA]

29. You saw a woman who said...?

Well, that's proof enough for me. And of course you know martyr is how Palestinians--even that little girl--described those killed by the IDF.
Still, no fighting is seen.

[applegrove]

30. And the rockets Hamas shoots at Israel. Sometimes they get through defences

and kill Israelis. Is that considered fighting?

[Bucky]

39. Are there still Hamas rockets getting through lately?

I know there were some barrages fired off early in the invasion -- targeting civilians of course. Mostly they were shot down. But that was months ago.

The IDF is playing whack-a-mole with the last few organized fighting units. It's a short term solution, given what a superb job they've done recruiting the next generation of Hamas fighters.

[applegrove]

41. I have not heard if the rockets from Gaza have completely

stopped. If so that is another reason for the IDF to invade. And another reason why there should be a ceasefire.

[Beastly Boy]

63. As of six days ago. Fired from a Gaza humanitarian shelter, no less

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-strikes-hamas-rocket-launching-position-used-in-earlier-attack-on-ashdod/

[EX500rider]

67. Now, now, we can only believe Hamas press releases, don't ya know! lol

[ebne90]

89. well said.

Thanks for that well-reasoned response.

[DemocraticPatriot]

33. Presumably there are still some Hamas fighters alive there who manage to get off a few shots

with small arms.... but what the IDF does there seems to make bigger news.

[Beastly Boy]

70. Four completely functional batallions in Rafah alone

The IDF says it has “dismantled” 20 of the original 24 Hamas battalions. Dismantled does not mean destroyed; its remnants are still capable of waging a lethal insurgency, evidenced by this week’s heavy fighting in the north.

But the IDF could soon turn its focus to the four “completely operational” battalions, which it says are in the southern city of Rafah, the sandy strip along the Egyptian border that is also home to some 1.4 million displaced Palestinians. Thousands of families there are huddled into tents, scrounging for food, above a network of Hamas tunnels that the IDF suspects hold not only thousands of fighters, but also its “most wanted” commanders — alongside more than 100 Israeli hostages.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/27/israel-gaza-hamas-war-fighting/

That's about 3500 well armed and trained militants. I would imagine they could manage to get off quite a few shots, even if they weren't hiding behind civilians.

[Basic LA]

93. Battalions?

The IDF is engaged in close fighting against many fierce battalions? Are the battalions equally armed with tanks & F16's, or is this that asymmetrical warfare thing?
And how come no one sees this? All we see are starving Palestinian toddlers with runny noses looking for their moms.

[EX500rider]

100. Hamas battalions are armed as light Infantry

Machine guns RPGs grenades mortars Etc

Was probably a bad idea to start a war with a much better armed adversary.

But stupid is as stupid does.

[Beastly Boy]

101. Ok, so you can't imagine asymmetrical warfare taking place.

Or maybe you don't want to so you can keep making false equivalencies.

A battalion is a military unit. 800 to 1000 militants. The number of combattants in the unit, not its armaments or missione, determine its designation.

Israel may have tanks and F-16s in theirs, and Hamas has hostages and human shields in theirs.

Yes, it IS an asymmetrical warfare thing. Duh.

[Torchlight]

37. Check out the defintions to the word. It's an accurate usage

regardless of whether it paints the picture with the colors we want.

[brush]

2. Does seem a bit one-sided...correction, quite a bit one-sided.

planes and tanks and bombs against small arms mostly...US-supplied planes and tanks and bombs.

We need to stop the arms supplies and disentangle ourselves from this horribly one-sided, near-fish-in-a-barrel-like war.

Consorting/supplying warmongers tarnishes and lessens us.

[LeftInTX]

3. I agree it's more one sided, but Hamas fired eight rockets into Israel on Monday.

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-793600
Rockets were fired toward Ashdod for the first time since January on Monday afternoon. Eight rockets were fired in the barrage, with three intercepted by the Iron Dome. Later in the evening, rockets were fired toward Ashkelon as well.

According to the IDF, the rockets fired toward Ashdod were launched from a humanitarian zone in Deir al-Balah where civilians were staying. Air Force fighter jets struck the launcher on Monday evening, with secondary explosions seen after the strike indicating that weapons were being stored at the site.

___________

So, it isn't like Israel is in the clear. I know Gaza is in ruins, but Hamas still seems to have plenty of rockets and launchers. Go figure.

[brush]

4. Aren't the rockets mostly hit-and-miss? If they hit something it's damaging...

but they're not re ally accurate?

We just need to disentangle...especially from the warmonger Netanyahu.

[LeftInTX]

5. Israel has an iron dome interceptor. The iron dome keeps the attacks from being destructive.

[brush]

6. Yes, they're just about ineffective.

[Beastly Boy]

75. This is not sarcasm, is it?

Hamas is just about ineffectively targeting Israeli civilians in a large city. So we are all good, right?

They want to kill Israeli civilians just a little bit...

[brush]

79. Ineffective, not aimable. Whatever the description.

Clearly though, commanders of neither side seem to want to end the war.

Too bad, this could go on for anther 75 years.

[Beastly Boy]

83. It is the intent that determines culpability, not the incompetence.

Amiability could have only come into place if they weren't shooting the rockets in the general direction of an Israeli city. Being incompetent at killing civilians is a piss poor excuse for justifying a war crime.

[brush]

84. All that is probably true. But the other side seems just as content to go another 75 years of war too.

Not good.

[Beastly Boy]

86. Not a word that I disagree with. But this is all besides the absurdity expressed in the OP.

[brush]

87. It's past that even. Both sides need to just get it over with already. Nothing good is coming from it.

[Beastly Boy]

90. It would be easier done than said if one of the sides in question wouldn't pledge in writing to do

the same thing over and over again until the total annihilation of the other. Only one side fits this description, and you know who it is.

That, I am sure, is something that the other side would take as an existential threat.

[brush]

91. Both sides have to agree. Netanyahu is an actual in-the-flesh existential threat to Palestinians.

In fact, he's bombing the shit out of them.

Both sides have to do it.

[Beastly Boy]

99. Israel already agreed to not be an existential threat to Palestinians.

There is an agreement (actually a series of agreements) called the Oslo Accords that made a record of it, and it precedes Netanyahu. Wouldn't it be nice if Hamas agreed to not destroy Israel?

That would give us a hope of an agreement ever taking place.

[brush]

104. Let's deal with right now. Reps of both sides convene with Blinken, Qatar reps, UN reps, Jordan...whoever...

and hammer out a fair deal for right now. No one saying we already did that back in 19?? or whenever. No body leases the negotiating table until it's done. Put them in fucking cuffs in we have to.

Just get damn war done with hostages and prisoners released, a two-state solution too if possible...at least an memorandum of understanding on that.

[Beastly Boy]

107. I think a pledge of being annihilated in the future

would put a damper on dealing with things right now.

That's the least one would expect before entering any negotiation, let alone expecting a fair deal.

[brush]

109. No excuses. Palestinian's actual existence being obliterated right now equals existential pledges of anihilation in...

in the past wouldn't you say? And both have to be part of the terms negotiated. Pls don't come with the "we can meet because of things pledged in the past." That excuse is so transparent it may as well not be uttered.

It just shows a determination to never reach peace and a two-state solution, therefore 75 effin more years of war.

No excuses, pls.

[Beastly Boy]

125. I wouldn't say that at all. Not quite the apt equivalency. Evidence does not support it.

Hamas is pledging to annihilate Israel now and in the future. Not in the past. Israel never pledged to annihilate Palestinians not in the past, not now and not in the future. Not in Gaza, not in the West bank, not in any other part of the world. And the 2 million Israeli Palestinians are proof positive of Israeli Jews willing and able to live peacefully side by side with the Palestinians.

Additionally, Israel giving two thirds of its 1967 territories for peace with Egypt is a historical fact. Israel disengaging from Gaza and evicting ALL Jewish settlers from it is a historical fact. Also a historical fact: a civil war between Hamas and Palestinian Authority immediatrely following Israel's disengagement from Gaza. No evidence that Palestinians are willing and able to live peacefully side by side with other Arab Palestinians, let alone Jewish Palestinians.

There is no equivalence of the intentions each party is bringing into the negotiations you are expecting to be conducted on equal terms.

[brush]

126. How can we get anywhere if past statements stop negotiations from happening?

Nowhere.

[Beastly Boy]

129. This doesn't stop negotiations by any means.

Rescinding a pledge to annihilate Israel is a necessary first step to conduct negotiations in good faith. Otherwise the negotiations are worthless before they begin.

[brush]

132. Be clear. Do you mean negotiations should start with all parties convened or not?

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2024, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm watching MSNBC right now and they're reporting that Israeli papers and commentators are against Netanyahu's hard line against negotiations and his poor management of Israel's relationship with the US, it's most important ally. In fact they're saying that he's actively opposing Pres. Biden in these matters, and he can not succeed.

Are you echoing Netanyahu's hard line position?

[Beastly Boy]

133. Negotiations always start with all parties. Not necessarily convened.

At least two. There is no negotiating with just one party present. But face to face negotiations is just one technique.

To be clear, I was talking about the conditions necessary for meaningful negotiations, not the methodology.

Netanyahu is one example of acting in bad faith. Hamas pledging to annihilate Israel is another. The difference is that Netanyahu's hard line is negotiable in principle, and Hamas' is not. It is written into their charter. This makes the prospects of reconciliation between the two sides virtually impossible. But even this does not preclude negotiations on matters of special urgency: for example, exchanging Israeli hostages for Palestinian prisoners. The difficulty for Israel is, it doesn't solve any security issues. It aggravates them. The prisoners Hamas demands to be released are not petty stone throwers, they are hardened terrorists, bent on the destruction of Israel. What Hamas demands is to further endanger Israel's security in exchange for impunity from the worst terrorist act against Israeli civilians in history. This is untenable.

Where Netanyahu shows bad faith is in the conduct of the military activities in Gaza. There are no discernible objectives in his strategy. Whether or not war crimes are being committed by Israel is very much debatable (Hamas is principally responsible for exposing civilians to perils of war like mortality, food insecurity and displacement, and they can end the suffering of Gazan civilians tomorrow by simply disengaging their military operations from civilian areas, which is what the conventional rules of war demand in the first place). However, Israel's conduct of the war, both militarily and diplomatically, is ineffective, and that has a lot to do with the composition of the current government and the personal interests of Netanyahu himself. It is very much an internal matter that affects Israel's stance in negotiations, and this is why so many Israelis have been protesting the policies of Netanyahu's government even before the Hamas invasion. Today, even the IDF leadership is openly critical of Netanyahu, an unprecedented turn of events in Israel's history.

In sum, Israel's approach to the omprehensive negotiations, Netanyahu's stance notwithstanding, is very much fluid and, umm, negotiable, while Hamas' is not. This is the main obstacle to the progress of the negotiations between Hamas and Israel.

[brush]

134. In other words, no negotiations, no ceasefire, nothing since the Hamas factor can't be gotten around?

Another 75 years of war?

Hamas IMO can be worked around, can even be neutralized if done with the necessary precautions to not to continue putting innocent Palestinians in harms way.

Not easy, but this is what US policy demands. Maybe Netanyahu needs to be neutralized too...that's up to Israel and dealing with Hamas is up to the greater POTB in the Palestinian community, not just the Gazan contingent.

It's maddening, seems impossible but giving up is not an option, and 75 more years of war should not be either.

[Beastly Boy]

136. I was saying YES negotiations. And the Hamas factor CAN be gotten around.

I was also saying there is no political will among Palestinians, certainly not among Hamas, or the international community, for that matter, especially in the Muslim world and the Global South, to take steps towards this goal. If that doesn't change, yes, you are right: another 75 years of the same.

As far as Netanyahu, I would leave it to the Israeli voters. His party has only 36 seats out of 120 in the Knesset. If the activists in the US and the international community feel like making a difference, the best way to do it is to pledge full support to Netanyahu's opposition within Israel rather than promote the false narrative of "Zionist regime" as being intrinsic to Israeli politics.

[brush]

137. Good analysis of the situation. We'll see what happens.

Nice talking it over with you.

[Beastly Boy]

142. I appreciate the opportunity and your coherent reasoning. It was a treat.

Enjoy!

[Basic LA]

96. What about competent at killing civilians?

Guess that's an even worse war crime.

[Beastly Boy]

103. That's a whataboutism (obviously), but yes.

Hamas is exceptionally competent at getting civilians killed. Both Gazans and Israelis. And they keep bragging about it.

[Beastly Boy]

72. Yes, Hamas is just harmlessly firing rockets into Israeli cities.

No, their intent is to hit, not miss.

But again, it is Israel's fault for having effective air defense systems to protect their civilians.

[Cha]

48. Yes the Fighting continues in the

Fucking war the Sneaky ass Lying shite for brains Hamas Butchers Started

[stopdiggin]

15. but the point being (in answering the OP) is that Hamas has NOT stopped

military actions - both cross border, and against Israeli forces within Gaza.
(AND - have continues to reject one cease fire agreement after another .. )

[brush]

18. And so does Netanyahu...both are obstacles to peace.

Netanyahu has been working against Biden's peace efforts as it seems he wants to war to continue as long as possible so he can avoid going to jail on corruption charges.

He has also taken to saying "from the river to the sea"...unbelievably...for Israel.

[TexasDem69]

54. When did Netanyahu say

“From the river to the sea”?

[brush]

71. Recently. It's not hard to find. He wants Gaza cleared. That's pretty evident.

[lapucelle]

141. "Israel-based News Outlet Incorrectly Translates Netanyahu's Words, Leading to Media Firestorm"

From the River to the Sea | Israel-based News Outlet Incorrectly Translates Netanyahu's Words, Leading to Media Firestorm

Israeli-based news channel i24, incorrectly translated the prime minister's statement 'Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River' as 'Israel must have control from the river to the sea,' leading to accusations of a deliberate provocation by Netanyahu

In a press conference last Thursday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set off a firestorm over social media and across the political world when he was asked to respond to reports that he had rejected a U.S.-backed proposal for a Palestinian state after the war ends. "For 30 years, I have been very consistent, and I'm saying something very simple," he told the reporter who asked the question. "This conflict is not about the lack of a state, a Palestinian state, but about the existence of a state, a Jewish state.

"Every area that we evacuate, we experience terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria. Therefore, I clarify that in any arrangement, in the future, with agreement, without agreement, the State of Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River."

snip==============================

After the initial i24 translations, news sites who reported on the story divided themselves into three categories. Media outlets such as Vox and The New Republic cited the i24 story and reported Netayhau's words as "From the river to the sea."

The second group, among them, Rolling Stone and Yahoo News, led with the i24's version but acknowledged the existence of an "alternative translation." The Associated Press was one of the few sites who reported the correct translation, as "Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-21/ty-article/israel-based-news-outlet-incorrectly-translates-pms-words-leading-to-media-firestorm/0000018d-2bfa-daf5-a1bf-affa764b0000

[Autumn]

57. That fucking piece of shit Netanyahu wants Trump elected. Trump will let him bomb Gaza into dust.

[Cha]

49. Of course Hamas hasn't Stopped.

Their Mission is to kill all the infidels

[EX500rider]

40. "quite a bit one-sided." yes, most attacking forces prefer that for some reason

Why is it generally not smart to start a war with your better armed neighbor

[Cha]

50. Yeah Hamas has Shite for brains. 👺

[marybourg]

55. Maybe they were counting on being able to turn around

after the attack and become the innocent victims of genocide. Seems to be working among those with short memories and a strong predilection for supporting the disadvantaged. Even if the disadvantage was self inflicted.

[brush]

73. Point taken. This better-armed neighbor seems to have opted for annihilation though.

Warmongers will warmonger...anything to stay out of jail for his own corruption.

[EX500rider]

81. If that was actually their aim the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands by now

[brush]

82. Do you really think Netanyahu would hesitate at all if it weren't for US and world sanctions?

[sarisataka]

8. Is there no Hamas?

No one is shooting at the IDF?

[Basic LA]

10. I haven't seen it. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

But we're flooded with graphic images daily and I haven't seen any battles or combat or any exchange of fire that in any other conflict we would call "fighting." Maybe it's just not being shown for some reason.
But since we're funneling billions upon billions upon billions of dollars for Israel's fight, where's the fight?

[sarisataka]

12. If you care to search far enoug

You can find the reports of near daily rocket attacks. These attempts to kill Israeli civilians are not deemed newsworthy.

Careful read of statements by MSF about Israeli operations in hospitals often mention "heavy fighting". We know the IDF is there and it begs the question 'whom are they fighting inside the hospital'?

Hamas fights asymmetrically. They are not going to field large formations and engage the IDF head to head. They may be willing to die for their cause but they are not stupid.

If you want to see pitched battles like in the movies you will forever be disappointed. Strike and fade into the civilian population is their tried and true tactic. They believe they can spend innocent blood until world opinion demands Israel stop. To this point they have been correct.

[DemocraticPatriot]

34. Any media trying to record battles in Gaza would be very likely to be shot or shelled,

by one side or the other....

[Mountainguy]

65. You'll find whatever you are looking for.

So if you're seeing a bunch of one sided stuff, that's probably why.

[EX500rider]

24. I guess the almost 300 dead IDF soldiers killed themselves?

[Richard D]

9. That is all you see. . .

. . . a lot more is happening there, including over 10K missiles shot from Gaza into Israel (the ones that don't land in Gaza and blow things up there!).

Not to mention the repeated promises from Hamas to replicate Oct 7 events ad infinitum until all Jews are dead and they have "from the river to the sea".

[Basic LA]

20. That IS all we see, right?

Why is that? Makes it seem like all this death & destruction of Gaza is just mass revenge for Oct 7.

[Richard D]

23. Or . . .

. . . it is a fight for survival and for the return of the hostages.

[Basic LA]

32. For the immediate return of hostages, yes!

But for survival? Against what, raggedy-ass motor scooters & kites? Hamas can't take down the nuclear-armed world power of Israel. Hamas? Please. We have bigger street gangs in L.A.
Again, hostage release, yes! Immediately!

[Richard D]

35. So many ignore . . .

. . . that the war could be over today with the return of the hostages and Hamas surrendering.

[Basic LA]

36. Surrender? Their suicide is secondary.

First priority is hostage release, I would think.
And that's another odd thing. Experienced hostage negotiators--and there are many excellent ones--will tell you that successful hostage negotiations require a skillful blend of sweeteners & threats, mostly the former.
Nowhere have I heard of hostage negotiations that begin with blowing up the entire surrounding county and killing everyone who happens to live nearby and flattening every building in the region. This is new. Unless hostage release is not really the point.

[EX500rider]

42. The surrender or eradication of hamas is the main objective so it does not happen again

[Basic LA]

43. Sacrifice the hostages then?

I would've put them at Priority One.

[EX500rider]

44. Why, so it can happen all over again every decade?

They will get the hostages back if they can but hamas out of power is priority one

[Basic LA]

46. You know that does seem to be the case.

Now that you mention it. Scorched earth policy. Yeah, I guess that is the aim.

[EX500rider]

47. I don't know about "scorched earth" but definitely to make this a painful enough lesson....

......on what happens when you slaughter Israeli citizens and take some hostage.
That is one of the points of warfare, FAFO
I am guessing when this is all over what's left of hamas will not be very popular in Gaza

[Basic LA]

51. They'll still beat Israel's popularity, I'd wager.

But who knows. You could be on to the real strategy. Blow the legs off Palestinian toddlers and tell Hamas, see what you made me do?

[TexasDem69]

62. Waging war on Hamas isn't mass revenge

Do you think the U.S. overreacted after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

[Beastly Boy]

78. Where is the sarcasm smilie?

Where are the battles being fought? I haven't seen a single one. Where is the clash of military forces? All we see are IDF air assaults on apartment bldgs & mosques.

You are mocking the OP, aren't you?

[brooklynite]

11. "Israel-Hamas War Day 152 Israeli Soldier Killed, 13 Wounded in Gaza Fighting"

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-06/ty-article-live/idf-hits-hezbollah-launch-sites-used-to-fire-rockets-anti-tank-missiles-at-kiryat-shmona/0000018e-1170-db19-abae-7dfa03270000

Presumably someone is shooting back.

[Basic LA]

14. A tragic number.

Not to compare, but 32,623 Palestinians have been killed and 75,623 wounded, mostly women and children.
Again, I guess the actual "fighting" is just being ignored or something

[EX500rider]

25. Assuming you totally trust Hamas to issue anything truthful

If the US was invaded and LA was a battleground for months, it would be months after it was over before the US had any idea of the number of civilian casualties.

I guess hamas must be super efficient with 1,000's combing the battlegrounds as bombs fall and bullets fly to issue daily numbers....or not.

[stopdiggin]

13. Hamas themselves announced mortors and conventional arms attacks

directed against IDF - within the past several days.
You have perhaps been a victim of very selective reporting on the conflict. (and that's a lot of what we're getting)

[Basic LA]

16. Now that could be the case, certainly.

But with all the wall-to-wall coverage, not a single pitched battle shown? Odd, that.

[stopdiggin]

19. that is simply not the case

Israel is losing troops every day. And the fighting has been sustained and pronounced (as HAS been reported) around the hospitals recently - where Hamas has made an effort (against international law and war crimes) to re-entrench themselves.

This information is available.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Basic LA]

21. Lots of filming around those "terrorist" hospitals.

But no images of "fighting" that I've seen. Just one-sided overwhelming destruction and civilian deaths. Wounded babies screaming in bombed-out, bloody corridors. Again, fighting must exist somewhere. I believe you. But we don't see it.

[stopdiggin]

22. and as other posts have suggested

I think maybe your looking for a Clint Eastwood production. Hard to have the cameras ready for ambush and sniper action.

[EX500rider]

26. You can see it if you want to

The IDF has a Youtube channel with combat footage

Like:

&rco=1

[TheKentuckian]

110. Because the propaganda campaign you are being flooded with

doesn't benefit from it so they don't show it.

Why would they? They aren't showing you how swell the hostages are being treated either.

Your complaint is that Israel isn't providing you with sufficient war porn?

[Basic LA]

114. That's a cynical reading.

I don't see Israel fighting anyone but women and children and others who can't fight back. Doctors, journalists. This isn't fighting. This is slaughter. I don't know anyone seeing any different.

[Ping Tung]

17. In war, truth is the first casualty. Aeschylus 5th Century BC

[AloeVera]

28. Great post.

I vote for "something else".

[malaise]

31. You nailed it

Rec

[JI7]

38. Why don't they show the hostages ?

[Basic LA]

45. Hamas? I wonder.

You'd think they would, at least as bargaining chips. I hope they're still alive.

[Cha]

53. My guess.. they don't give a Shite about

Helping Palestinians.

[RandySF]

52. If Hamas cared so much.......

they would release the hostages and turned themselves in. But they don’t, so they won’t.

[Basic LA]

56. See posts 35 & 36, s'll vous plait

These long threads get complicated.

[RandySF]

59. It's not complicated.

Civilizations vastly outnumber these terrorists and could bring them to justice if they chose to.

[lapucelle]

58. This is the second time within 24 hours that the term "dead mothers' panties"

has come up. Is there a link?

[Aussie105]

60. Two minor and trivial points:

1.
When someone mentions Palestinian 'martyrs' they really just mean 'victims'. And nothing else.

The Western mindset is conditioned to jump straight from 'martyr' to 'suicide bomber radical Islamic nutter'.

(The worst type of propaganda is the type you don't see and absorb without question. America and the Western world is swimming in it.)

2.
I'm vague on what the 'D' in IDF stands for.

Could be 'Destruction'? Surely not 'Defense'? That is too much of a stretch.

[EX500rider]

64. The one who mainly mentions Palestinian 'martyrs' would be hamas

[Basic LA]

69. Welcome to the fray.

Thanks for bolstering my semantic explanation of the word to someone down in this thread.
As for point 2, Demolition would work.

[Beastly Boy]

61. Don't tell me you've never heard of asymmetrical warfare.

Someone keeps shooting at and killing IDF soldiers. Someone is still holding and raping hostages. Someone is still using firearms in hospitals, mosques, and schools. Someone is using civilians as human shields. Someone still refuses to negotiate for cease fire in good faith.

And yes, someone that calls themselves Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which makes up Hamas' armed wing, has an estimated 30,000–40,000 fighters. (https://www.axios.com/2023/10/21/palestine-hamas-military-power). And they are too cowardly to engage in, as you call it, "clash of military forces", and leave their civilians out of it.

And someone appears to be inexplicably oblivious of any and all of it.

That's why fighting continues. And it is really combat, your choice of using quote marks notwithstanding.

[Basic LA]

76. Asymmetrical warfare.

Such a softer term than genocide. Are those Gazan kids guerrilla fighters, especially those babies in the incubators?
Rhetorical question.
Back to the point, where is all this fighting against the mighty Hamas? Where is this clash of titans? It must all be happening offscreen.
Cue the ad hominem snark.

[Beastly Boy]

85. So you have no idea of what asymmentrical warfare is.

Nor do you have any idea what genocide is. This, BTW is not snark, it is a statement of fact.

Are those terrorists all Gazan kids and babies in the incubators? Pretty impressive for all the babies shooting at IDF out of their incubators!

Now that IS snark.

[Basic LA]

88. Asymmetrical

Having parts that are not equal or symmetrical.
Like a world-class nuclear power military fighting some ragtag terrorists.
Though in some military usages, there's an aspect of guerrilla fighters involved.
Genocide, an unfortunate term, implies an effort to erase a people, in whole or in part, and is a process, not an end.

[Beastly Boy]

98. Beating a dead horse.

You had already established your ignorance of what asymmetrical warfare or genocide mean. I got the message the first time around.

Your notion of "asymmetrical" has as much in common with "asymmetrical warfare" as "conventional" does with "conventional warfare". Nothing. And "asymmetrical warfare" implies much more than "guerilla fighting". But still, even your, shall we say slightly off the wall, remark should have given you a concise answer to why you don't see a "clash of military forces" that you, for some inexplicable reason, expect to see as if you are talking about conventional warfare.

And "genocide" doesn't imply anything. It defines. It defines a specific war crime, and this definition is available for all to see if only one wants to see it. And since I don't expect you to ever look it up, I don't expect you to actually understand this definition. What this implies is that you intend to continue throwing the term around without any regard to its meaning.

[Basic LA]

102. You bet'cha.

An asymmetrical imbalance of power, with the big nuclear nation starving little children and slaughtering unarmed civilians is an ongoing genocide.

[Beastly Boy]

105. Rince and repeat.

You have no intention to even look the terms up. I am sorry, but I can't force you to be rational about the subjects you are raising.

I've had enough fiction for one day. You are on your own now. Enjoy the company.

[Aussie105]

66. Urban warfare is a dirty business.

HAMAS made the same mistake in their original attack as Donald Trump's 'hang Mike Pence' storm troopers and those that planned and executed the 911 attacks.

They assumed their enemy would crumble economically and socially from their attack.
Weaken their enemy's morale, so they'd be easy to 'deal with' afterwards.

It never works.

Seems few people learn from history.

[TexasDem69]

68. From a Guardian article

“The armed wings of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant groups said in a statement they had ‘bombed, with a barrage of mortar shells, gatherings of Israeli soldiers in the vicinity of the al-Shifa complex’ in a joint operation.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/28/us-rearranging-cancelled-washington-talks-after-netanyahu-climbdown

Sounds like fighting continues, no?

[NickB79]

74. The implied meaning of this post is to say Israel is basically shooting Palestinians for sport

And reveling in doing so.

Which is strangely close, IMO, to the old "blood libel" slurs that have been thrown at Jews for centuries, where they were accused of murdering innocents for Jewish rituals.

[Basic LA]

77. Not what anyone implied (or imagined).

Is that what you're inferring?

[NickB79]

143. Of course it is

Your implication is that there aren't many, if any, Hamas fighters battling the IDF. Which can only mean the IDF is intentionally shooting at innocent, unarmed Palestinians instead, because who else would they be shooting at?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

80. They're coming out of the woods for Easter

[BlueTsunami2018]

92. Because the fighting hasn't ceased.

That’s a bit basic but it’s also the reason. 🤷🏾?♂️

[Basic LA]

94. Civilian suffering hasn't ceased

And we see plenty of that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

[Patton French]

95. Maybe because the fighting is continuing?

[Basic LA]

97. What fighting? Where is it?

Geeze, I wrote the whole post explaining that question.

[EX500rider]

106. You did see I posted a video link of actual fighting

In it you will see actual Hamas members firing actual guns at the IDF, some of it at point blank range.

[Basic LA]

108. You know, apologies...

...but that link popped up with so many cookie warnings that I bailed. But thank you for what is missing in all the news.

[EX500rider]

111. All that pops up is an age restriction

[Basic LA]

112. Oh? I got a lot clip links here.

Hate to ask, but do you remember the post nbr? ( This all got unwieldy. )

[EX500rider]

113. You have to click on the "watch on YouTube" to watch it

As you have to acknowledge the "Content may contain violent or graphic imagery" warning

The 1st part shows some longer range urban combat but has has several very close gun battles also further in

[Basic LA]

116. Thanks for your trouble.

But it wants me to sign in. Sign in? Tell you what, I believe you. But that's not what the general public is seeing. The war of perception has gone the other way.
Thanks, really.

[EX500rider]

118. There is footage taken by hamas also:

And of course you have to sign in to watch age restricted content

hamas footage:

[Basic LA]

121. I'm not signing in.

But I totally take your word for it and reiterate that regular viewers of this assault are not seeing fighting, only Israel inflicting carnage & famine on unarmed civilians. That's what the worldwide protests are all about. Israel has lost the perception that it is fighting anyone but women & children.

[EX500rider]

123. Do you even have to sign in to watch that last clip, it is imbedded in my post

[Basic LA]

131. You're right, I did finally watch this.

But my perception is only slightly altered. This looks more like a last-ditch defense pitched against the mechanized force of uniformed combatants, and not the massive U.S sponsored slaughter of unarmed, targeted civilians that the world is seeing every minute. Killing children is not self defense. It's not a fight. It's revenge

[EX500rider]

135. That's how Hamas fights

As non-uniformed small groups who do hit and runs.

And you have no idea how many children have died since Hamas counts all 16, 17 and 18 year olds Hamas soldiers who get killed while firing rockets at Israeli cities or RPGs and machine guns at IDF troops as "children"

[Basic LA]

138. I understand a little better now.

Thanks.

[shrike3]

115. Because it is?

[Basic LA]

117. What fighting?

The bombing of hospitals and starving of children. That's fighting?

[shrike3]

120. Bombing of Dresden was part of WW2, was it not?

Aerial bombardment is part of this war, I'm afraid.

[EX500rider]

122. No, the fighting I posted actual video links to that you won't watch because it upsets your narrative I guess?

[Basic LA]

124. Yeah that must be it. You win.

But I still haven't seen any fighting on the news. Ever. Just unarmed civilians suffering.

[EX500rider]

127. If you're arguing the news is biased against Israel I agree

[betsuni]

119. Must be the rule of: If I Don't Know About Something It Is Not Happening.

[TomDaisy]

128. I see a slaughter of innocent civilians.

[Basic LA]

130. Right?

That's all I see. No battles, no regimented Hamas infantry battalions. Just unarmed, homeless, starving little families weeping in the rubble. No water. No food. No electricity. No hope. And no chance against the collosus of US/Israeli state-of-the-art weaponry raining down on their heads.
Fighting? For shame.

[Autumn]

139. Because saying that the "Slaughter Continues" in Gaza really shows how bad the situation is.

[Basic LA]

140. Oh man, that's the best yet !

You brought it back around. Thanks! I wish they would use your term and keep it real.

[NickB79]

144. I see you're trying to excuse MORTARS stored in MATERNITY WARDS now

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218825454#post7