Sort of? I think this was more of a “see, Americans agree, women are shit”.

True, your policies don’t have to make sense if you win.

That being said, this guy runs a fringe party. They have a whole 3 seats in the Diet’s lower house and none whatsoever in the upper.

It’s the same in Australia. Something about the pacific must make parties switch places.

Pfft, he’s doing an amateur job of intimidating, then. It should have been thumbscrews or something. This way seems self defeating.

Yeah, I’m actually hella curious what the context was here. Why would he want any of that?

Yeah, that’s my read too. Even if they mention it in the report, it’s “Israelis attacked” in the headline from a lot of the big sources.

Islam is slightly remixed Judaism. It’s annoying when Christians do this, and it’s annoying if Jews do this, too. Islamic civilisation was better and more progressive than the ones in Europe for a long time, even.

I really hope you stick to this line in the future, I guess. If you’re right, everything will be fine. If I’m right and you stay true to it, we’ll be on the same side shortly.

Saudi is moderate on Israel, I guess, but they’re even more brutal than Iran in most other ways. The Middle East is a rough neighborhood.

That’s a pretty strong claim, and seems to fly in the face of the fact that there’s more Arabs than Iranians out there by far. The Iranian revolution was in the mid 70’s. You know Israel had to fight for it’s existence several times before that, right? The borders everyone is telling Israel to respect are the 1967 ones, even…

So do you think if the Iranian government fell (not far fetched, as you mentioned - they’re domestically unpopular), the issue would go away? I really don’t. They’re part of it, but it seems more like opportunism to gain support and influence than anything else.

human beings with consciences

That’s never stopped us humans before. Germans are nice people, too. And Palestinians, for that matter - and yet Oct. 7 happened. Regardless of what the Torah says, we’re not special of different from the rest.

Look, it’s easy enough to make make wild assumptions, but at that point you’re on the same level with the one-state-solution people. I want my government to treat this like every other international ethnic conflict, because that’s what it is. Putting the Bosnians or Serbs individually in charge of the former Yugoslavia wouldn’t have been good, and neither will helping the Israelis do whatever they want.

Is that why Israel keeps telling Gazans and Lebanese people to move out of target areas?

I agree that propaganda is bad, but both sides make it. That’s why I like hard numbers so much.

It’s clear they want to look merciful, especially to their Western patrons. You’ll recall that the Nazis had a voluntary emigration program at first, and then blamed anyone still around for not leaving. (Israel isn’t the Nazis, but maybe Yugoslavia)

As for your numbered plan, I feel like it makes some unrealistic assumptions. Like that step 1 is possible, and that Israel won’t keep building out settlements instead of actually helping Palestine. It’s basically Likud’s publicly announced plan, which the IDF leadership itself doesn’t buy.

In practice, if they try that, insurgent activity will never stop, and the Israeli occupation will never turn into a strong Palestinian state. It’s just a matter of time then before Israelis get tired of it and contemplate something more extreme, as a minority already openly are.

Glad to hear that’s not what you’re saying - it really feels like that’s where the region is headed.

What’s the alternative to a two-state solution? One state is a pipe dream right now, and the status quo leaves Israel unsafe. Even if every single individual Hamas fighter was killed somehow, there’s a lot of Palestinians who want revenge for the destruction of their whole world, and another organisation would start.

So, that’s a no.

As long as there’s an Arab or Persian population around and angry, there’s no 100% safety. I’m sure you know that. If anything that stands in the way of Israel’s safety is a legitimate target, which is what you’re saying at this point, you’re talking about genocide.

This is the part where I mention I myself am Jewish, if never practicing, and that kind of thing is painfully ironic.

I guess the argument is that the lidar scan was for something else? And, of course, it makes a better headline.

Yeah, that changes it a bit - that definitely has more of a creep factor. I still question if it’s really the kind of thing that should land you in jail for a long time.

Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.

They’re less of a threat, that’s true, but they’re far from gone.

Okay, so you’re done then? We can have a two-state solution with the PLO in charge in Palestine, and they can rebuild and control their own non-Israeli borders? That’s what I think should happen next, as does the broader international community.

Gaza is denser than a typical Arab area (gee, I wonder why) but the construction and customs are pretty much the same. Nothing about it morally, legally or tactically justifies flattening it any more than Fallujah or Kandahar.

I did read the entire thing - it’s not long. Yes, you can unintentionally harm civilians, proportionately.

It’s not intrinsic to urban warfare to do it this way, either. Compare any of the American operations of this millennium.

Vague insofar as it’s totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That’s why there’s a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it’s recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.

I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions?

The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:

5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:

The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.

The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I’m now pretty certain there isn’t a loophole based on what you’re doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.

But have you considered that it’s working for them, now?