it's also not really genocide in the traditional sense, as of the last time i looked at the situation in detail. there is a conflict between two asymmetrically poised armies going on, and the palestinian militia-army is notorious for hiding military sites and outposts within the civilian population. there is some reasonableness hidden far away in the israeli position, but some historical digging shows that the means that the winning political faction took to "secure" that reasonableness were likely founded on a corrupt bargain, paranoiac cold warriors terrified of the world's only jewish state eventually losing its jewish character to post-war European secularism.

right wing israeli jews really want to keep jews from race-mixing and losing their jewishness, which is an admirable enough goal if pursued only with soft power. perhaps if they focused more on valorizing jewish culture and less on terrorizing their own population (by and large already heavily race-mixed themselves; "true jews" are a small gene pool and practically all Levantines are from a polyglot racial admixture) into compliance, they'd have more success? i always hear, from jews, about how jews are the most moral population in the world; they bore us the torah, etc but there is a remarkable one-sidedness regarding criticism of israel in the jewish community. as i understand it, it's a very sensitive matter and the worldwide jewish community is concerned that the nations don't get a real look into intra-jewish factionalism. extremely myopic strategy ime. and gaza is worthless land anyway, it's really not clear what animates it all, other than impenetrable desert people ethnic bloodfeuding

the best course of action imo is a total ceasefire enforced by the US, the return of any remaining hostages and their bodies, and an inquiry from Knesset politicians outside of the ruling coalition into the culpability of the Israeli executive and his immediate staff.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755826&forum_id=2...id.#49138996)

i am sympathetic to this line in theory but there are too many conditions regarding Mossad-Hamas ties (leading back to their stroke-of-luck founding after the Oslo accords disbanded the PLO) and the possibility of some bad faith israeli reporting on the nature of the 10/7 attack to see it as a sole justification. there was no attempt to minimize casualties; the attack patterns on the lot connected to the festival showed obvious blue-on-blue helicopter fire on civilian positions and this rings true with the "strategy of tension" thinking that the israeli right uses to frighten the population into political sympathies and compliance. i'm not going to go so far as to say that "10/7 was a false flag" or that "Mossad has a great deal of control over present-day Hamas" but the signs are there for anyone who wants to look into these possibilities. as with 9/11 here in the States, there's some evidence of foreknowledge of the operation and this hasn't really been followed up on satisfactorily in either American or Israeli media. unless some very scrupulous people involved want to speak up about it, the trail of evidence has probably gone cold.

besides, hamas leadership has already made more than a couple tit-for-tat prisoner exchange offers and afaik israeli leadership has denied them. i would hazard a guess that the casus belli that they provide is too valuable to remove at this point in the conflict's timeline.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755826&forum_id=2...id.#49139015)

i called it as such right after too but there was too much going on to really make sense of it all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5755826&forum_id=2...id.#49139037)