Hamas attacks southern Israel

[mishkin]

Who would Israel kill the general coordinating and ordering attacks on Israel by Hezbollah, PMU, PIJ, etc? I can think of a couple reasons.

I will say it in other words, what was the need to bomb the Iranian embassy? why Israel decided to expand the conflict by attacking Iran directly?

We talked about it a few weeks ago, perhaps nothing that happened was planned but Israel's strategy from the beginning has been to flee forward with brute force and make the most of the situation.

[sumskilz]

In the local news right now (rtve), an analyst: "Israel attacking the Iranian embassy to provoke a military response from Iran and be the victims again and make people talk about Iran and not Gaza". I'm not convinced that's true, but it's plausible. Any justification on Israel's part to attack iranian soil and escalate the conflict in that way?

According to Iran International:

An ultra-conservative political group in Iran said slain IRGC commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi was involved in the planning and execution of Hamas’s deadly October 7 attack against Israel.

It is the clearest admission of Iran’s involvement in the atrocities which saw 1,200 mostly civilians murdered and over 250 taken hostage, since terror group Hamas invaded Israel on October 7.

Zahedi, along with his deputy and five other IRGC forces, were killed Monday in an Israeli airstrike against Iran's consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces (also known by its Persian acronym SHANA) hailed Zahedi’s “strategic role in forming and strengthening the resistance front as well as in planning and executing the Al-Aqsa Storm.”

“Axis of resistance” or “resistance front” are the terms coined and employed by the Iranian authorities to refer to Tehran’s proxies in the region, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi and Yemeni Houthis.

Iran has time and again denied its involvement in the incident, saying Hamas and other Tehran-backed armed groups in the region make their own decisions and act independently.

However, the Iranian regime swiftly praised the October 7 attack and orchestrated street celebrations, with large banners hung within hours. Some view this as a potential indication that Tehran had prior knowledge of the operation, a claim reported by the WSJ.

SHANA praised Zahedi’s “great honors” in his “silent efforts” against Israel. “The supporters of Tel Aviv should know that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s harsh and regrettable response to this bloody crime is on its way and will affect the future equations of the region, God willing,” added the statement.

SHANA is headed by former Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, a figure close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The coalition’s secretary is Parviz Sorouri, the former IRGC commander.

According to the New York Times:

General Zahedi was killed with two other Quds Force generals: Gen. Hossein Aminollahi and Gen. Mohammad Hadi Haj Rahimi, General Zahedi’s deputy. Both men were also veterans of wars in the Middle East, according to Iranian media reports. Four other officers of the Quds Forces were also killed. ...

The killings come at a time of war in Gaza, which Iran has tried to spread and intensify across several fronts through the involvement of its proxy militias, known as the axis of resistance. Those proxies have opened fronts in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and the Red Sea from which to attack Israel and Israeli interests. Iran also provides financial, tactical and military support to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the two main Palestinian armed groups fighting Israel in Gaza.

Losing General Zahedi, Iran’s top field commander, and his deputy, instantly wipes out years of military expertise and personal connections that are often key to successful operations in the Middle East, analysts said.

At the very least, Iran will suffer a short term tactical blow until it can regroup. Depending on how quickly Iran can deploy a comparable replacement for General Zahedi, analysts said, its forces and proxies could be vulnerable.

“This is the Israeli version of the U.S. strike on Qassim Suleimani,” said Dana Stroul, formerly the Pentagon’s top Middle East policy official who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “Not only did the strike impose costs directly on I.R.G.C. leadership, but by taking out individuals responsible for covert operations abroad, it will deal a significant blow to Iran’s proxy network.”

According to MEMRI:

The Iranian news agency Tasnim, which is affiliated with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), published, on October 15, 2023, an exclusive report titled "The 'Mighty Pillar' Maneuvers Were The Resistance [Organizations'] Planning For An Attack On Israel; [They Constituted] Four Years Of Training The Palestinians For 'Al-Aqsa Flood.'" The report extensively reviewed documentation of Hamas members' training in maneuvers held in the past four years in advance of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

It should be noted that Hamas belongs to the Iran-led resistance axis, as do the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Shi'ite militias in Syria and the Golan Heights, the Shi'ite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Also, on October 10, 2023, the Iranian regime mouthpiece Kayhan boasted that the attack had been planned and organized by the late IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani and that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had hinted at the "complete conquest" of Israel in August 2022 and August 2023 (see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 10857, October 12, 2023).

The detailed Tasnim report has two aims. One is to praise and glorify the actions of Hamas, an Islamic resistance organization that is a protégé of the Iranian regime, and to show its superiority over Israel's intelligence, organizational, and military capabilities.

The second reason for the report's publication is to claim that Iran is not connected to the Palestinians' actions and that the capabilities Hamas showed were the result of its own training, determination, and courage. However, it is clear from the Tasnim report that Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei himself had announced the name of "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood" years before it was carried out, and also in these statements had ordered the establishment of a joint command and control center of the resistance groups – groups operated, trained, and armed by Iran under the supervision of Soleimani and, after him, current Qods Force commander Esma'il Qa'ani. According to the Tasnim report, Khamenei said: "It is no surprise that the fighters and activists from all the [resistance] factions are coordinating all their efforts to fight the enemy, in training, equipment, preparation, and execution of a joint battle in the field."

There are conflicting claims regarding the degree of involvement Iran had in the planning of October 7th, nevertheless no one questions the IRGC Quds Force's involvement in, and support of, the ongoing attacks against Israel, particularly the daily attacks by Hezbollah in the north that have displaced 80,000 Israeli citizens.

[mishkin]

Nobody doubts that the Iranian government supports/is behind the attacks/some attacks against Israel. The question is why it was decided to escalate the conflict now.

We have gone from rescuing hostages and eliminating any Hamas militant in Gaza to devastate the entire strip and now to an open war with Iran.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

February 2024:
Gaza ceasefire: Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu rejects Hamas's proposed terms

"By the end of the 135-day pause in fighting, Hamas said negotiations to end the war would have concluded."
a 135 day 'temporary' truce that transitions into a permanent one is the condition. Doesn't sound very temporary.

November 2023:
Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say
Every time? Try to spin it all you want.

There was a temporary ceasefire after this one, what's the releveance of bringing this up? I think it's pretty obvious that I meant since after the last one, since clearly both sides agreed to it and it happened. Thanks for making me state the obvious.

It's Israel that could end the bloodshed at any moment. It's Israel that have been rejecting calls for a ceasefire. The people of Gaza do not deserve Israeli monsters in exchange of Hamas monsters.

Israel can only end the bloodshed by ending Hamas. A 'permanent' ceasefire increases the bloodshed, it does not end it.
Hamas, on the other hand, can end the bloodshed by capitulating.

Far less than what is required to sustain Gaza is being let through even after international pressure on Israel to allow aid in. You can try to present it as if Israel is doing it out of its own mercy. It's not. We've spent weeks, if not months, where little aid was allowed to pass through. The fact that countries had to resort to airdropping supplies is just insane in its own. Israel wants to starve, kill off, get rid of Palestinians in Gaza to the extent that they're allowed within in the international community. If they knew they could get away with it the Israeli administration would have no trouble going full Nazi on the civilian population of Gaza. Countless statements from all levels of the Israeli government and military is a testament to that. The soldiers are not chanting "no uninvolved" for no reason.

We've been through this exact argument several times now on this thread. Let's just skip to the part where you cease to reply because you've no counter argument.

I will say it in other words, what was the need to bomb the Iranian embassy? why Israel decided to expand the conflict by attacking Iran directly?

We talked about it a few weeks ago, perhaps nothing that happened was planned but Israel's strategy from the beginning has been to flee forward with brute force and make the most of the situation.

The embassy wasn't bombed. A neighbouring building was bombed.

Nobody doubts that the Iranian government supports/is behind the attacks/some attacks against Israel. The question is why it was decided to escalate the conflict now.

We have gone from rescuing hostages and eliminating any Hamas militant in Gaza to devastate the entire strip and now to an open war with Iran.

Why is it that only Iran is allowed to make moves, but whenever Israel makes counter-moves it's an escalation?

[sumskilz]

Nobody doubts that the Iranian government supports/is behind the attacks/some attacks against Israel. The question is why it was decided to escalate the conflict now.

We have gone from rescuing hostages and eliminating any Hamas militant in Gaza to devastate the entire strip and now to an open war with Iran.

Maybe it hasn’t made it much into the international news, but Israel has been at war in the north since Hezbollah started launching rockets on the morning of October 8th, and Israeli strikes against Iranian targets involved in support of the conflict are nothing new. Presumably Israel had good intel on Zahedi’s location and took the opportunity to take out a high value target that would at least temporarily degrade their enemies’ capabilities. I don’t see it as any different than Ukraine striking high value targets within Russia, which some have called an escalation. If it’s an escalation, fine, in both Israel and Ukraine’s case such an escalation is to their advantage in that it lets their enemies know that they can’t operate with impunity, and forces them to be more cautious.

[mishkin]

If what has happened is normal or little more than a slight escalation, let us hope that Israel does not take advantage with some new barbaric "defensive" measure.

[PointOfViewGun]

"By the end of the 135-day pause in fighting, Hamas said negotiations to end the war would have concluded."
a 135 day 'temporary' truce that transitions into a permanent one is the condition. Doesn't sound very temporary.

There was a temporary ceasefire after this one, what's the releveance of bringing this up? I think it's pretty obvious that I meant since after the last one, since clearly both sides agreed to it and it happened. Thanks for making me state the obvious.

Israel can only end the bloodshed by ending Hamas. A 'permanent' ceasefire increases the bloodshed, it does not end it.
Hamas, on the other hand, can end the bloodshed by capitulating.

We've been through this exact argument several times now on this thread. Let's just skip to the part where you cease to reply because you've no counter argument.

You can try to confine the parameters to a level that you think you can defend but you clearly do not realize how stupid that argument sounds. It even becomes moot in its entirety as you point at a temporary ceasefire taking place. Basically your argument: "Hamas doesn't ever want a ceasefire unless it's permanent and except the times they actually conducted a temporary ceasefire" per your own admission so on and on.

A permanent ceasefire by itself does not increase the bloodshed. You have been unable to back that up with any intelligent thought so far. On this issue, and others, you have been projecting your own failure to provide any counter argument whatsoever. The best you did was to employ mental gymnastics to argue as if what really happened did not happen. Facts and logic still applies to your positions and your defense of Israeli misconducts is laughable at best.

If what has happened is normal or little more than a slight escalation, let us hope that Israel does not take advantage with some new barbaric "defensive" measure.

Imagine Turkey bombing the the residence of Greek embassy in Kenya that was housing PKK leader Öcalan at the time. What stance do you think all these people would take regarding that? The bombing of the embassy is as hypocritical as it gets and sets a very dangerous precedence. In their partisan stance to defend Israel they have no problem with dismantling basic principles.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You can try to confine the parameters to a level that you think you can defend but you clearly do not realize how stupid that argument sounds. It even becomes moot in its entirety as you point at a temporary ceasefire taking place. Basically your argument: "Hamas doesn't ever want a ceasefire unless it's permanent and except the times they actually conducted a temporary ceasefire" per your own admission so on and on.

There was 1 (one, singular, meaning the proper word is 'time', not 'times') temporary ceasefire. Since then, it has time and again refused temporary ceasefires. This is not difficult to grasp.

A permanent ceasefire by itself does not increase the bloodshed.

Its consequences do.

You have been unable to back that up with any intelligent thought so far.

Hamas has vowed to violate any ceasefire and commit 7/10 again and again, until they destroy Israel. While this thought isn't intelligent, it's also not my own, but theirs. You take satements by any random individual in Israel as fact and government policy, but refuse to take Hamas official's on their word. I wonder why that is?

In case it somehow isn't clear still, I'll spell it out: Another 7/10 means another war in Gaza. That means more bloodshed.

On this issue, and others, you have been projecting your own failure to provide any counter argument whatsoever.

Speaking of projecting.

[Kyriakos]

Speaking as someone who can - or rather could - be termed a "friend of Israel", I simply don't see how it can be claimed that Israel doesn't end the war because it cares about hypothetical future palestinians killed due to Hamas remaining in Gaza.
It just isn't rational - not just to claim it, but to expect anyone to believe it. Israel clearly doesn't give half a crap about dead palestinians.

[PointOfViewGun]

There was 1 (one, singular, meaning the proper word is 'time', not 'times') temporary ceasefire. Since then, it has time and again refused temporary ceasefires. This is not difficult to grasp.
Its consequences do.
Hamas has vowed to violate any ceasefire and commit 7/10 again and again, until they destroy Israel. While this thought isn't intelligent, it's also not my own, but theirs. You take satements by any random individual in Israel as fact and government policy, but refuse to take Hamas official's on their word. I wonder why that is?
In case it somehow isn't clear still, I'll spell it out: Another 7/10 means another war in Gaza. That means more bloodshed.
Speaking of projecting.

I'm glad to see you backtrack from your earlier claim that Hamas has been the one refusing ceasefires. I reckon the more you're pushed the more backtracking you will do. It is not difficult to grasp that indeed. If Israel doesn't want an other 7/10 it can first start by not begging other actors to provide funds for Hamas. Ceasefire wasn't what empowered Hamas. Israeli deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza is.

[Mithradates]

Speaking as someone who can - or rather could - be termed a "friend of Israel", I simply don't see how it can be claimed that Israel doesn't end the war because it cares about hypothetical future palestinians killed due to Hamas remaining in Gaza.
It just isn't rational - not just to claim it, but to expect anyone to believe it. Israel clearly doesn't give half a crap about dead palestinians.

Future Palestinians and Israelis killed due to Hamas remaining in Gaza.

[Kyriakos]

Future Palestinians and Israelis killed due to Hamas remaining in Gaza.

Can't you infer that the point is it only cares about dead Israelis? Come on
Can't pretend there is an ethical position, when the ethical part of it (we care about all dead people) is a blatant lie. Let alone that Israel is the one who kills over 90% of those who die.

[AqD]

Nobody doubts that the Iranian government supports/is behind the attacks/some attacks against Israel. The question is why it was decided to escalate the conflict now.

We have gone from rescuing hostages and eliminating any Hamas militant in Gaza to devastate the entire strip and now to an open war with Iran.

Because our politicians have been obstructing the war effort.

Do nothing, let Israel exterminate Hamas, then the Iranian goverment. Peace and everyone happy afterwards.

Those who are not would rejoin their god in heavan. Good ending for all.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

edit: le double posterino

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I'm glad to see you backtrack from your earlier claim that Hamas has been the one refusing ceasefires.

I have done no such thing.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ds-2024-04-13/
https://www.jns.org/hamas-reportedly...ffer-in-cairo/
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/...436478741.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/w...ease-fire.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...e-of-hostages/

Tell me more about how Hamas isn't rejecting temporary ceasefires.

I reckon the more you're pushed the more backtracking you will do.

It's amusing watching you gloat over something that didn't happen.

It is not difficult to grasp that indeed. If Israel doesn't want an other 7/10 it can first start by not begging other actors to provide funds for Hamas. Ceasefire wasn't what empowered Hamas. Israeli deliberate targeting of civilians in Gaza is.

Lmao, dude. 7/10 wasn't triggered by targetting of civilians, nor was it triggered by Hamas getting money. It was triggered by Hamas wanting to kill the Jews. It still wants to do that. The money may have bolstered their capabilities, but the intent was certainly not born out of recieving money.

Can't you infer that the point is it only cares about dead Israelis? Come on

The purpose of a military is to defend the civilians of its own country. Obviously that's the priority and the primary concern.

Can't pretend there is an ethical position, when the ethical part of it (we care about all dead people) is a blatant lie. Let alone that Israel is the one who kills over 90% of those who die.

I'm stating the simple fact that if this war has to be done all over again, more people will die, not less. And if there's a permanent ceasefire, there's no question that this will happen again.

[PointOfViewGun]

I have done no such thing.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...ds-2024-04-13/
https://www.jns.org/hamas-reportedly...ffer-in-cairo/
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/...436478741.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/w...ease-fire.html
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-...e-of-hostages/
Tell me more about how Hamas isn't rejecting temporary ceasefires.
It's amusing watching you gloat over something that didn't happen.

Resorting to strawman argumentation now, I see. I never said that Hamas never rejected ceasefire proposals. You, however, claimed that it was always Hamas that rejected ceasefires, stressing every time.

Israel is not the one refusing temporary ceasefires, Hamas is. Every time. Because Hamas doesn't want a temporary ceasefire.

Then in your short-sighted argumentation you yourself pointed out that a ceasefire previously held.

There was a temporary ceasefire after this one, what's the releveance of bringing this up?

You of course tried to save face by changing your scope.

I think it's pretty obvious that I meant since after the last one, since clearly both sides agreed to it and it happened. Thanks for making me state the obvious.

You clearly do not see the stupidity of such argumentation. There is not an ounce of intelligent thought in your arguments.

Lmao, dude. 7/10 wasn't triggered by targetting of civilians, nor was it triggered by Hamas getting money. It was triggered by Hamas wanting to kill the Jews. It still wants to do that. The money may have bolstered their capabilities, but the intent was certainly not born out of recieving money.

7/10 was triggered by decades long siege of Gaza by Israel and other violations of Israel on basic rights and livelihoods of Palestinians. Israel asking partners to fund Hamas directly, along with criminal negligence of Israeli armed forces, enabled Hamas' strategy further. I never said that Hamas receiving money was a trigger though. You seriously need to start not relying on such strawmen to produce arguments.

[mishkin]

More than 14,500 children murdered in Gaza so far.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Resorting to strawman argumentation now, I see. I never said that Hamas never rejected ceasefire proposals. You, however, claimed that it was always Hamas that rejected ceasefires, stressing every time.

Hamas has indeed been rejecting every temporary ceasefire proposal, and insisting that it be permanent. It has rejected every offer for a temporary ceasefire, obviously since the one that did happen early in the war. I've given you links to 5 different proposals over the last 3 months for a temporary ceasefire that Hamas rejected. Give me one that Israel rejected since after the temporary ceasefire that already happened.

Then in your short-sighted argumentation you yourself pointed out that a ceasefire previously held.

Obviously I meant after the ceasefire that happened. Why do you make me spell out the obvious? You're not a child.

You of course tried to save face by changing your scope.

The scope was obvious. Hamas also accepted a ceasefire in the 2009 war, so clearly my argument is mute right?

You clearly do not see the stupidity of such argumentation. There is not an ounce of intelligent thought in your arguments.

If a 4 year old employed such logic in their arguments I'd be worried they may be slow.

7/10 was triggered by decades long siege of Gaza by Israel and other violations of Israel on basic rights and livelihoods of Palestinians. Israel asking partners to fund Hamas directly, along with criminal negligence of Israeli armed forces, enabled Hamas' strategy further. I never said that Hamas receiving money was a trigger though. You seriously need to start not relying on such strawmen to produce arguments.

Back to the use of the term siege, which we've already discussed as being wrong in this instance. A blockade is not a siege.
7/10 would have happened regardless of Qatari funding. Obviously the funding was a terrible mistake, and one of many reasons Netanyahu should go to prison. Hamas would still, however, try to kill Jews.

[PointOfViewGun]

Hamas has indeed been rejecting every temporary ceasefire proposal, and insisting that it be permanent. It has rejected every offer for a temporary ceasefire, obviously since the one that did happen early in the war. I've given you links to 5 different proposals over the last 3 months for a temporary ceasefire that Hamas rejected. Give me one that Israel rejected since after the temporary ceasefire that already happened.
Obviously I meant after the ceasefire that happened. Why do you make me spell out the obvious? You're not a child.
The scope was obvious. Hamas also accepted a ceasefire in the 2009 war, so clearly my argument is mute right?
If a 4 year old employed such logic in their arguments I'd be worried they may be slow.

"Give me one example of temporary ceasefire they agreed since the latest one they agreed to while I also claim that they rejected every such offer" gotta be the stupidest argument I have ever witnessed on this forum.

Back to the use of the term siege, which we've already discussed as being wrong in this instance. A blockade is not a siege.

You can lie about what we've discussed to take away from your failure to present a proper argument. You backed away from that earlier conversation without a proper answer. Blockade is a synonym for siege.

7/10 would have happened regardless of Qatari funding. Obviously the funding was a terrible mistake, and one of many reasons Netanyahu should go to prison. Hamas would still, however, try to kill Jews. Though I understand you've no problem with that.

7/10 wouldn't have happened if Israel itself didn't do much to empower Hamas in Gaza through funding or political separation of Palestinian Authority from Gaza or if it didn't turn a blind eye to Hamas' public preparations for their attacks. As much as you'd like to demonize Hamas, while ignoring Israeli crimes or even excusing them in some cases, Hamas wouldn't still try to kill Jews. If that was the case all the Jews they encountered during 7/10 would be dead today. In reality, most of the Hamas fighters on 7/10 had as much consideration for Israeli civilians as the Israeli armed forces themselves had for their own citizens.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

"Give me one example of temporary ceasefire they agreed since the latest one they agreed to while I also claim that they rejected every such offer" gotta be the stupidest argument I have ever witnessed on this forum.

I'm asking you to refute my claim. You think that's stupid. Incredible.

You can lie about what we've discussed to take away from your failure to present a proper argument. You backed away from that earlier conversation without a proper answer. Blockade is a synonym for siege.

Bro doesn't know what synonym means. Allow me to highlight the relevant part for you:
"one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses"

7/10 wouldn't have happened if Israel itself didn't do much to empower Hamas in Gaza through funding or political separation of Palestinian Authority from Gaza or if it didn't turn a blind eye to Hamas' public preparations for their attacks. As much as you'd like to demonize Hamas, while ignoring Israeli crimes or even excusing them in some cases, Hamas wouldn't still try to kill Jews. If that was the case all the Jews they encountered during 7/10 would be dead today. In reality, most of the Hamas fighters on 7/10 had as much consideration for Israeli civilians as the Israeli armed forces themselves had for their own citizens.

This post just gets worse and worse the more one reads. Yikes.
Are you unaware of what happened on 7/10 or something? there are videos online. There's a video they recorded and posted themselves of cutting up a pregnant woman, taking the infant out, killing it in front of her, and then killing her.