To him, it’s win-win. Either he expands territory and genocides Ukraine, or her consolidates power as a wartime dictator and commits internal genocide by purging dissidents, ethnic minorities, etc. All the while further concentrating power.

Our modern Hitler.

Society isn’t failing young men hard — let’s be more specific — Republican toxic masculine rhetoric is failing young men hard. There’s a reason there is so much overlap between MAGA and Inceldom, and it revolves around the false perception of what it means to be a manly man. They stifle their own emotions, yet rage on roids, get buff, and treat women like pieces of meat and then turn around and ask, “why can’t I connect with anyone!?” Well, because drank the bullshit kool-aid of Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan and Donald Trump and jumped fully onboard with frat-bro culture.

And let me just as a relatively young white male — you have no idea. You have no idea how hard it is for women right now all the same. After all, does the reversal of Roe really impact you or me the same way? Of course it doesn’t. And another thing: All the economic woes facing men are also facing women just the same, I hope you understand.

One key factor is changing whom they idolize. Time to start idolizing the likes of Tim Walz and not Andrew fucking Tate.

Israel is a terrorist state. No different than Russia.

False. In fact, that would still be better than the handful of random swing states. Proportionality matters.

Besides, campaigns are run in the digital sphere anyway.

Is Loony Loomer another Russian asset asshat? Hmm…

Possibly Ron Paul.

Reminder that Zelenskyy basically called Trump’s bluff on his plan, encouraging him to share it now.

Is… Is there a Hamas command center under me right now?

Fair points and thanks for the discussion. I had to dig through a couple articles to actually find that it seems that it was indeed illegal for his father to give him that firearm in the state of Georgia unless he adhered to certain exceptions for hunting and what not — which it doesn’t look like that was the case. That certainly changes things.

If it peels off never-Trump Haley voting Republicans from not voting to voting Harris when they see all these old-guard Republicans endorsing Harris… Then I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend after all.

There just seems to be some incongruity with the fact that he was completely legally allowed to own a gun and without any evidence of being an accomplice to the actual crime the parent is held culpable for what his son did even after cops “paid him a visit,” which means absolutely nothing… Oh, and the son is being tried as an adult. There are just several disconnects here that I’m not comfortable with.

Like, I’m curious… If he took a steak knife that was bought by his father and left in the kitchen drawer and used that on classmates, would the father still be considered an accomplice? I seriously doubt it.

I want to be pissed off, too. But I want to both have the law actually make sense and get to the root of the fucking problem, too. Maybe we should actually look at why there is rising adolescent suicidal and homicidal ideation…? Arrest the cops for consistency sake? Create the red flag law, or you know, ban the selling or ownership of the gun in the first place that is for all intents unnecessary?

Edit: lots of down-votes but not much in way of a response. Don’t be shy, what do you take issue with?

Devil’s advocate here and please inform me if I’m missing something here, but:

• If agents visited and could do literally nothing about the kid saying these things, then walked away.

• And no actual legal restrictions were placed upon the father or son…

• … How is the father culpable for that which even police could not address?

Doesn’t this mean the law needs changed so that preventative action can occur instead of looking for a scapegoat?

That is: If this was such a red flag on hindsight, then why the fuck wasn’t it a red flag then and why aren’t the police who ultimately did nothing being arrested for homicide?

Speaking as someone who has no problem advocating for a national firearm ban along other measures, this feels like scapegoating without actually addressing the core reasons why this shit happens in the first place.

Thank you for highlighting that. I need to read closely because that’s a big deal. If margins are truly that wide I can’t imagine Harris campaign isn’t testing these further with internal polling. I wonder how that coincides with whether a permanent ceasefire is achieved. I kind of get the impression Harris is toeing the line until all hope is lost for that (which now seems all hope is?)

I’m seriously getting close to saying they should ask for forgiveness than permission.

Alternatively, the US should just give permission and publicly deny, no differently than Russia’s little green men of 2014. “Oops, how did that long-range ATACMS missile get there!?”

Pretty sick and tired of giving Putin the edge while Bibi is getting anything he wants as he absolutely annihilates civilians.

Christ you should watch some interviews with Bassem Youssef or Mehdi Hasan. Absolutely. Even Rashida Tlaib is the only member of the squad (and only Palestinian-American congresswoman) to not endorse Harris.

It’s self-defeating but my only hope is it’s a bluff…

Edit: sorry should clarify I’m mostly referring to Not Voting as opposed to voting for Trump, but that’s still a vote for Trump.

Is this nationally or do they break down to state level? Because it’s unfortunately somewhat meaningless beyond the likes of Pennsylvania.

Edit: Just national.

(Comment 2 of 2)

Empathy can be useful even to put yourself in the shoes of the wicked. I’ll be honest: If I put myself in the shoes of a desperate Gazan whose children and wife were blown up by an Israeli air strike, I wouldn’t just think, “Hamas did this!” I would say, “I thought Israel were the good guys and yet look how little they value the lives of us body shields?” At which point in my grief and blind revenge I would join the movement to seek revenge — especially if I’m of limited economic opportunity (what job is there now that Gaza is in ruins?) and of low education. The Taliban fought a war from caves against a force far exceeding Israel and ultimately won. Just as the Vietcong ultimately did. For Israel, this is their Vietnam; this is their Vietcong. Now, strategically, if you were tasked with being the David against the Goliath that is the IDF and you were severely out-gunned, it simply would not be wise strategy to sit in the open against someone who has precision-targeted air force. Knowing your enemy and knowing that Israel holds itself to a moral standard of not harming civilians, I too would probably hide among the civilians. What I would NOT expect is that my opponent who holds the moral high-ground would suddenly decide that killing as many civilians as it takes is 100% okay. Perhaps there was a miscalculation, but then I’d also just go and huddle in my tunnels as the civilians incur the majority of damage above. Does it really impact anything for terrorists who can simply recruit a new army from the surviving orphans, get new weapons from Iran and Lebanon, and have the next leader take its place no different than what happens with the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda? 20 years of failed US interventionism as a stronger fighting force no less suggests a resounding No.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Just suppose you’re wrong and Bibi is doing this solely to remain in power. Suppose he knows that this won’t eliminate terrorism but only exacerbate it but doesn’t care. Suppose he and his cronies want to annex new beachfront property and as Naomi Klein spells out in The Shock Doctrine and to paraphrase Milton Friedman that a crisis is a great opportunity for profit — consider that at least my methodology permits outsiders to immediately protect innocent civilians no matter where they are or whether they’re victims of offense or victims of a defensive maneuver. Surely you’re aware that perception is reality and that many in Russia wrongly believe just as Hamas that they are doing the right thing. That in fact they are the oppressed by NATO, by Nazis, by creeping Jewish annexation shoving them into tighter and tighter slums. After all, so goes the saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. So naturally, heinous crimes against civilians are justified everywhere under false pretenses that it is actually THEY who are on the defense and retaliating for an arbitrary act of the opposition from their perspective of reality. At least with my approach, we can cut through the bullshit of “he started, they started it; I’m justified/they’re justified” and just go straight to the quantifiable reality: “Who is actively inflicting more pain and suffering at this present moment on innocent people?” And that is, at this moment, 100% Israel. Keep in mind that when October 7th happened while I was no fan of Netanyahu’s actions and stoking the flames of day-in-day-out suffering of Palestinians, I was still in Israel’s corner and felt sorry for the civilian lives lost. Do you see how my allegiance isn’t to nationalism but rather humanism? And in maintaining such optics, you’re able to in the moment identify the key threat to innocent loss of life independent of alleged justification that is often in the eye of the beholder.

So could the crisis for innocent civilians end if Hamas surrenders? Possibly, yes. But that necessitates expecting the terrorists to do what Israel themselves as the “good guys” have been unable to do—practice reasonable restraint. You and I both don’t expect Hamas to do the “right” thing; but we do expect the “good guys” who supposedly hold themselves to a higher moral standard than that of a terrorist organization to do the right thing in valuing innocent human life. Yet actions speak louder than words and we care not what excuse a murderer has when they kill an innocent child; only that they did.

Ultimately I don’t believe you can excuse the civilian death toll incurred by Israel by exclaiming, “The murdering of innocent civilians will stop when the murdering terrorists suddenly value innocent human lives like we supposedly do!” That doesn’t make sense, again, is a race to the bottom where only the civilians will suffer.

You mention that you’d have no problem with an independent group investigating Israel for their actions, and that is exactly what is happening at the ICC. Bibi shares crimes against humanity charges alongside Sinwar and Putin. (Keep in mind that Jack Smith who worked at the ICC to prosecute war lords is now the lead prosecutor against Trump right now).

(Comment 1 of 2)

A couple logistical things: I think we’ve generally exhausted our points and are increasingly going in circles; so given the diminished bystander audience by this point I’m going to make this my last comment and oblige you with the final response if you so wish. Upvoted and thank you for the discussion.

Moreover if you don’t mind I’m changing my response style slightly to (slightly) tamp down on the increasing length of these while also trying to remain on-point without too much meander.

• A criminal cannot justify their crimes by saying, I could’ve killed more if I wanted to or even tortured them in greater numbers. Yes, Hitler could’ve used scalding hot water instead of Zyklon B and conducted MORE torture. Hitler could’ve killed double the amount of people he killed but he didn’t. Such restraint! Naturally we wouldn’t praise Hitler for committing less war crimes and instead merely focus on the fact that war crimes and murder was committed at all.

• Israel has a right to defend itself, but that does not give carte blanche to kill as many civilians as they unilaterally deem appropriate in their calculus.

• Thus executing 4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is exactly the same as releasing a bomb knowing those same number of civilians will die for the target you seek.

• Yes, the main difference IS where it is happening. Ukraine isn’t actively targeting civilian centers inside Russia; they’re playing defense on their own territory. Location matters because the Hamas soldier inside his own building isn’t an imminent threat to the civilians of Israel relative to the threat Israel poses to the innocent civilians of Gaza. Again, their bullets cannot reach Israel and ultimately neither can their rockets in any meaningfully significant quantity that wasn’t par for the course preceding October 7th for that matter. The world would not stand for Israel doing to Gaza if this was simply the same par for the course rocket attacks that have happened for decades. This proves the rockets aren’t the primary motivating factor for killing this many innocent civilians.

• If Ukraine began to kill more civilians in Russia than Russia killed in Ukraine by an order of magnitude no less, then the waters would then be muddied and my support for them would, too, wane. Does Putin share responsibility for the murder of those civilians? Absolutely. Would Ukraine as well? Definitely. In the end, they should all be prosecuted for war crimes, just as the ICC is actively doing. If you think it’s worth it, then you better be willing to pay the piper at the end and be held accountable for the “justified murders.” After all, something tells me that Bibi wouldn’t be such a proud martyr then if he was actually held accountable for the demonstrated war crimes he has committed. Something tells me if it was he who had to be on the front line in Gaza that he wouldn’t have ordered this invasion.

• The Gaza Health Ministry of elected officials actually answers primarily to the PA and Fatah first. There is no indication past or present that the distinction between civilians and Hamas targets is erroneous. Even if we take US Intelligence of Hamas strength versus the number of Hamas killed by said US intelligence, the numbers line up quite closely. In fact, most independent watchdogs suggest the civilian death toll is far higher when factoring in the number of bodies remaining under rubble, those still missing, and the disease and famine situation.

• Please don’t add words to my mouth. I said that it’s okay if there was an imminent threat, but when there is an alternative strategy that ensures civilians are protected and you can wait for, say, the “snipers” to come in to pick these targets off, then change the entire paradigm. Like I said, the scenario laid out before us is factually much closer to that of a hostage standoff and siege in a children’s school. Nobody would abide by having the police set the building on fire.

• There is no lying down and taking it; there are viable more reasonable paths out of this that everyone on the sidelines is telling Israel: Double-down on defensive, border, intelligence. Get a new leader in. Stop blocking Palestinian statehood, start wining Hearts & minds, and giving them self agency. Start working with the PA and Fatah with better faith, and stop creating more terrorists than you’re eliminating when you tear apart families with wanton collateral damage. Stop assassinating your own Prime Ministers who in good faith sought out a 2 state solution. Ultimately the rate of innocent civilian lives being murdered is higher now than ever before. I don’t take that as a win in any capacity. I also don’t think it would be acceptable anywhere else to continuously annex chunks of Palestine for Israel. After all, we don’t accept that when Russia did that in Crimea and the Donbas… Why is it acceptable for Israel to do that with Palestine? Have you ever seen a map of Israel vs. Palestine over the decades? At this point I’m almost beginning to wonder if Hamas is a convenient excuse propped up to justify territorial conquest. I wouldn’t put it past Netanyahu. Several times your excuse to justify Israeli actions is, “I mean they could’ve killed more; they could’ve annexed more more rapidly!” Of course, but it’s all a matter of how much they can get away with no different than a toddler probing the limits of their parents.

To me the following remain immutable facts:

• Quantitatively, Israel has invoked, by many factors, more suffering upon Innocent Civilians than Hamas has since both before or after October 7th. The response is thus more heinous than the attack which prompted it. This is frankly undeniable. Even if you disagree with the official numbers, surely you agree that the civilian death toll is well beyond the ~1200 of October 7th. The debt in blood has been repaid many times in all actuality.

• There is only one way you can justify these mass, willful murders (which, it is murder): That they will prevent an even greater number of civilian casualties from happening in the future both in Gaza and Israel… And ultimately, the evidence for that is extremely shaky and to me does not meet the standard for justifying murder. Like I said: There are several viable strategies Israel can protect itself that would make it all but impossible for Hamas to commit another October 7th attack let alone the dozens of the equivalent Israel has now committed in Gaza.

• Reaction to an alleged first-strike does not give Carte Blanche to commit as many war crimes as one desires.

• Restraint of a murderer for not killing 10 innocent people does not excuse their killing of 5.

• Restraint of stealing only half of the land instead of all the land is no excuse.

• Israel both had and continues to have better options that ensures the protection of Israeli civilians while not requiring to kill 30,000 civilians and counting. The USA, speaking from experience, agrees.

• The instability wrought by Israel in destroying civilian infrastructure from schools to mosques to residential housing, food & water, all the while killing women and children is exactly what one does to plant the seeds of radicalization for decades to come – NOT eliminate it. Especially when the likes of Lebanon and Iran tend to be the sources of all their needs. After all, moles will simply begin digging tunnels anew.

• The greater you try to play whack-a-mole with Tunnels “50 meters” down, the less it makes sense to target the civilians who largely reside above. After all, Israel isn’t simply using bunker busters to reach these tunnels; and these manholes and entrances are everywhere that it’s quite literally impossible to target them all without actually dropping a nuke on Gaza. Moreover, if it was that easy for Hamas to do (a) they would’ve done it for their October 7th attack, and (b) if it’s that easy to do, then it’s equally that easy for the much wealthier and capable nation of Israel to dig equally-deep tunnels to stand guard and listen. A small price to pay for the safety of Israeli civilians, after all.

I just want to note that under the ghetto conditions Israel has boxed Palestine in, that too, is no way to live. This creeping territorial annexation as the innocent civilians get pummeled by the “good guys” in far greater numbers than what Hamas is capable of doing to Israel speaks to the dire conditions they too live in. Make no mistake that, “Let the Palestinians die” applies just as much if we let things be par for the course… Hence why radicalization is so prominent in the first place. After all, as I said: Radicalization and terrorism simply does not manifest out of thin air. Wealthy countries with good education and solid civilian infrastructure and room to breathe and self agency do not have radicalization problems. Including Muslim nations.

Your justification for the deaths that have occurred could just as easily be used as justification to drop a nuke. So for whatever reason, there is a red line for you here — and perhaps it’s because it evokes an imagery that is incompatible with your conscience. But perhaps like journalists were shown footage of October 7th that you should start viewing footage of the aftermath of IDF strikes and lifeless bodies in Gaza. I’ve also seen enough testimony from countless independent humanitarian aid workers and especially physicians engaged in the Hippocratic Oath who speak to the horrors they’ve seen. I wonder, have you? Would you be able to pull the trigger?

(Comment 2 of 2)

1. Just as to whether the scale of the Israeli response was unjustified — No.

2. Yes. There is a shared responsibility between the hostage taker and the person willing to shoot the hostage(s) alongside the hostage-taker. To me it speaks more of the “good guy,” who is so willing to level the hostages than it even does the terrorist for whom we already know lacks moral values. To me it (a) makes zero logical sense in stifling radicalization in the long-term, and (b) it undermines a fundamental western philosophy that actually underscores our entire judicial philosophy: That “it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned.” It’s the same reason the US negotiated with Russia to free innocent people in exchange for giving them back scum. The value of our innocent people is greater than their scum. Naturally, I would respect Israel more if they actually cared about civilians of all types a little bit more as opposed to justifying what is, on paper, far worse than the original attack.

3. I’m not sure a ratio, but I’ll say up to but not exceeding 1,200 total or whatever the official toll of October 7th was. As Robert McNamara once said, “Proportionality should be a guideline to war.”

4. Ideally, none.

5. There is no real government of Gaza; and there is no national identity. There is a gang and that gang like a pimp offers protection to the Goliath next door who is equally no friend but rather a right-wing nationalist state with an obvious interest in creeping territorial annexation that can be tracked going back decades. Both sides of shown an unwillingness to compromise ultimately, which again dates back to the assassination of Israel’s former prime minister. My direct answer: Studying how radicalization occurs; why some humans radicalize and others do not. The answer isn’t all that difficult in my view.

6. I’m not sure I buy the premise; there were countless times where IDF has murdered and yes, even raped in between truces; established blockades and invoked clear provocations in their own right.

7. To make this analogy work, you need to move these people across the border and into the streets of Israel. For that to happen, they need to get through a heavily-defended border, and yes, if that’s going to happen, then sure. But I’ll tell you what’s really happening: You’re leaving your home and deciding to wander into an adjacent city of people holed up in their own homes with babies on them and deciding, “Okay we’ll just blow you up where you are even though you are not clear and present danger to the civilians of OUR city — nor ever would be if we actually took adequate measures to secure the bridge to our city properly.And in fact, we don’t even fully know for sure IF there is a target in this area but we’re just going to level it on a lead anyway.” Quite a bit different, no? I’m going to also take a wild guess and say that Hamas isn’t going so far as to do that and is simply hiding wherever they possibly can because Gaza isn’t even that big, and that if they were strapping babies to themselves then they probably would face quite a bit of backlash even from those whom they try to oppress.

8. Russia basically is doing this with their mobilization and obvious attempts to purge ethnic minorities and other undesireables inside Russia. Unfortunately Ukraine has no choice given the the threat. But again, notice the difference in that Ukraine is legitimately playing defense.

I’ll conclude with a reiteration of my original point: that in being Pro-Civilian, I cannot in good conscience believe that Israel is making a concerted effort to reduce civilian casualties; nor can I see how this will ever prevent further radicalization in the future without invoking genocide itself. The amount of civilian murders by Israel in their calculations to kill Hamas is on a scale that Hamas could not achieve for 50 or even 100 years. And within that time frame, I’m certain we could’ve figured out a better solution.

(Comment 1 of 2)

It’s critical we work through this because I see no discernible difference between:

• Accepting that executing 3-4 civilians for every 1 Hamas target is okay (which is the ongoing trend).

• And leveling a building knowing civilians are inside to eliminate an alleged Hamas target. (again at a 3-4:1 ratio).

Fundamentally zero difference. If you’re justifying the latter but not the former, then I highly encourage you to truly reflect on this for a little longer, for this is the heart of what I see is your cognitive dissonance. (a) In both instances, there is a willingness to execute civilians — whether that’s pulling the trigger behind their heads, or releasing the payload of a large bomb from above them. Either way, the calculus was made that their lives are worth trading. The only thing that changes is how visceral and close the action is. The calculation was always there (and further below I’ll respond to your other point with a source to provide evidence of this).

When Israel begins targeting civilians simply for the sake of killing civilians. Like Hamas does.

So to be clear: You’re okay with plausible deniability behind them claiming they’re NOT going out of their way to kill civilians, but are rather being so reckless that they are killing civilians in great droves either way? That is, if the number of civilian deaths incurred remained the same, but instead of them going, “oops we dropped a JDAM sorry we tried!” they went, “yeah we’re going to kill as many as we feel like” — the former is perfectly A-Okay to you, but the latter is not… Even though the amount of actual innocent human suffering remains identical? It’s merely whether the murderer tried is how you distinguish good from evil?

This is a false dilemma. You can’t put a precise number on how many civilians should be allowed to die vs. how many Hamas fighters need to die, when it isn’t even clear how many of them are civilians and how many are Hamas fighters.

Per AP and Reuters in corroboration with the UN and WHO — historically, the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers have been quite reliable. But why can’t you put a precise number?

Another confounding factor is the fact that Hamas is actively using its civilian population as a human shield. If they’re allowed to continue doing this, then they’ll just be able to kill every Jew with impunity by strapping babies to themselves, walking through Jerusalem, and shooting anyone they see. Quite

Will they? We’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Pretty sure you’re putting the cart before the horse, considering, you know that would necessitate them to find a way over the border and iron dome that I originally provided as the easy solution to this problem. At this rate, it seems far more likely that Israel is going to commit genocide on Palestinians than the other way around, don’t you think? All the while claiming to be the good guys.

Obviously Every measure should be taken to minimize civilian casualties, which Israel has been doing by warning people before the bombs fall and giving them a chance to evacuate.

Is every measure being taken? Because it doesn’t seem that way. After all as I’ve pointed out they’ve killed Humanitarian aid convoys, bombed refugee camps, killed their own hostages no less. In fact, it’s the worst conflict in history for humanitarian aid workers and that’s largely due to Israel. Forget the contradictory information for where the civilians are supposed to go, the miscommunication breakdown and the unfeasible logistics of moving people who are on the brink of famine and under disease to move from one side to another — all the while humanitarian aid is restricted in the first place.

I mean much of the world is beginning to turn against Israel. At its core, Bibi is a far right wing nationalist little different than the neoconservative far-right nationalist Bush administration who invaded Iraq and little different than the far-right nationalist government of Putin. Ultimately, this is an exploitable crisis for (what went ignored in your post) Bibi to escape active criminal charges as he maintains immunity in his position of power. You seem intelligent but I’m astonished that you cannot see this.

At this point, a nuke is uncalled for.

I mean why not? Since you seem to believe that ends justify the means and that you’re unwilling to commit to a ratio of civilians to Hamas target deaths, why not just be done with it? Evidently there IS some point in your mind that you seem to begin to question the morality and I wonder why bombing mosques and apartment buildings and so forth with an alleged (albeit rarely proven) Hamas target inside, all the while people like the father who loses his wife and 3-day-old newborn twins as he’s registering their births must suffer — is okay. But after all, like you said using your logic, isn’t nuking Gaza simply an extension of the same logic you’re already using for their blatantly indiscriminate use of large bombs in densely-populated areas with obvious civilian casualties worse than any recent conflict, including what Putin is doing in Ukraine? After all, can’t your conscience be assuaged by your own logic in saying, “Hey, the nuke was necessary; after all, Israel wasn’t going out of their way to target civilians; rather Gaza was simply a collective human shield for Hamas that we simply could not ignore!” Herein lies another instance of what I view as cognitive dissonance in your defense of Israel’s alleged war crimes (as per the ICC who also has charges against Sinwar and Putin for the record).

As far as I know, the Israeli military is not just going “Hey, let’s kill a bunch of civilians today, it’ll be great.”

Yeah… About that. Here IDF whistle-blowers (multiple) report specific targeting of civilian infrastructure and ignoring collateral damage asessments.

But if the Israeli government allows Hamas to kill Israeli civilians with no retaliation whatsoever, then they’re going to do just that, until there are no more Jews left to complain about the genocidal government next door.

When have Jews or Israel been under any sort of threat like that that isn’t profoundly exacerbated by the actions of Netanyahu as of recent? What I mean is that now you’ve only fueled the fire of Lebanon and Iran and created the next generation of pawns to do their bidding. You’ve only sowed the seeds of resentment; and congratulations, you destroyed civilian infrastructure… That does nothing in terms of permitting Hamas to regroup. It just ensures that civilians are radicalized in greater numbers. Remember, we Americans tried this in Afghanistan and Iraq only to let Taliban take over and ISIS to come out of Al Qaeda. You should learn from the mistakes of Americans that this is utterly failed strategy, not to mention your extremely low value for the alleged human shields that Hamas is using (though in fairness, Bibi has shown he doesn’t even care about the Israeli hostages all that much either).

But if Hamas holds the children in one hand and spraying bullets from a rifle in the other, then it is ultimately Hamas’s fault if the children get hit with return fire.

That’s quite not happening when they’re bombing these densely-populated buildings, though. Hamas bullets cannot reach Israel from Gaza; their rockets can be shot down as they routinely are. This is falsely analogous.

Nobody said anything about, “Let jews die.” I simply said, "1) Listen to your intelligence reports 2) Secure your 25-mile border, and 3) Double your Iron Dome defense system. 4) Ditch the far-right war criminal leader and put someone competent who knows how to actually negotiate in good fait. Doing this, another October 7th is quite likely impossible.

Hamas didn’t attack by tunnels. There are also incredibly easy methods of detecting underground tunnel networks via sonar systems that are already employed around the world. I’m giving you real, functional solutions to problems that don’t even exist yet. Israel is resourceful; they could certainly do this.

That was a bad snap decision made out in the field, not by Bibi.

Who put those soldiers on the front-line in a situation where that was a risk of that occurring? Who sent those IDF soldiers to attempt a high risk operation where it was obviously a risk that Hamas would execute hostages? Who chose to do that instead of agree to the ceasefire brokered by other middle east nations and the US? The buck stops with Bibi as leader, and I frankly find it wild that you’re trying to deflect responsibility.

No ceasefire with Hamas has ever been permanent.

This one could’ve been. We’ll never know.

Places with no radicalization are places who have agency, prosperity, and space to breath and prosper in the manner of their choosing. Gaza under routine territorial annexation, sieges has never had this. Israel hasn’t even been able to support a 2 state solution, after all.