I think that is a fallacy of necessity argument. — schopenhauer1

I said it was an act of desperation, not necessity. I think it's terrible such things should happen, and I think it is only rational that Israel should try to guard itself against such attacks.

Yes, so in those scenarios where Israel was the underdog, they acted in a way to get peace, not the opposite. — schopenhauer1

If we take the 60's and 70's as reference, Israel acted by absolutely clobbering its opponents militarily.

The theat Israel faced during the Yom Kippur war was very serious. Had they lost, it would have meant the end of Israel. I'm not blind to that fact.

Prior to 1948, I think it's only reasonable that the Palestinians refused to be kicked out the lands they owned. The 1948 "agreement" we can thank the British for.

From 1973 onward, and especially 1991 onward, I don't think Israel could realistically be considered an underdog anymore considering the state of its enemies, and who its allies were.

Which is why strict 1967 borders has been seen as a concern (beyond just the settlement issue). — schopenhauer1

A two-state solution would, in my opinion, severely compromise Israel geopolitically. It already has zero strategic depth and is surrounded by historical adversaries.

This is why I never saw a two-state solution as being realistic.

Who would you prefer babysit your toddler? Israel or Hamas? — RogueAI

Neither. Both rationalize murdering each other's children.

More to the point, who would you trust as a nuclear power, Israel or Iran?

Neither. Both states are run by religious extremists.

Who would you prefer babysit your toddler? Israel or Hamas? More to the point, who would you trust as a nuclear power, Israel or Iran?
— RogueAI

You're on the verge of sounding racist, dude. I'm sure that's not what you intended. — frank

How is it racist? It is a fact that Israel is more progressive and less oppressive than Iran and Hamas. Just look at how they treat gays. These hamas sympathizers are suspect - not only do they seem to be antisemetic, they also come off as homophobic.

Does any of that impact an Iranian's ability to take care of a toddler?

Fyi AP seems to be confirming now, based on the evidence available to them, that it was most likely a Hamas rocket.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-hospital-rocket-gaza-e0fa550faa4678f024797b72132452e3

My comment that "it would sound like it's incoming no matter who shot the rocket" turned out to make a lot of sense I think.

So continued condemnation for a barbaric terrorist organization that keeps its own people hostage by perpetuating/provoking a war with its neighbor, funnels almost any money it can get from operating its country to its military/violent wing, has no conscience, treats Israelis and own people as expendable pawns, hides its supplies and reserves in hospitals and schools, only cares about death of its citizens when it can be used as propaganda, not actually protecting human life, right?

As if Hamas wasn’t capable of mass collateral damage of its own people and then trying to gain world sympathy from it. That’s literally their whole MO! And since it wasn’t as removed as an enemy combatant dropping bombs, they had to double down on the propaganda. The already primed Arab extremists and unreasoned supporters would take the bait of course. At that point the mobs of mainly young men are just waiting to be activated.

'I am a Zionist': How Joe Biden's lifelong policy bond with Israel shapes war policy

For a US president to try and score good boy points with perhaps the most controversial and corrupt prime minister Israel has ever had at the expense of what little stability there was in the Middle-East is as pathetic as it is dangerous.

I don't think I've ever seen a US administration mismanage foreign policy this badly. Literally everything they touch turns into a trainwreck.

I don't think I've ever seen a US administration mismanage foreign policy this badly. Literally everything they touch turns into a trainwreck. — Tzeentch

Throwing more red meat to the forum bias masses I see.

Netanyahu is the prime minister he has to work with, that is independent of supporting Israel in theory and supporting a strategic ally specifically after being surprise attacked.

And Biden in his speech did tell them to not to fall into the trap that US did after being attacked and to abide by its liberal democratic principles.

You stated yourself the strategic difficulty of Israel. In this kind of incident, Biden isn’t going to jeopardize that in a hostage situation and the type of indiscriminate killing that started it.

You stated yourself the strategic difficulty of Israel. — schopenhauer1

Israel's strategic challenges are going to increase dramatically if it alienates the entire Middle-East and thus becomes permanently surrounded by enemies - enemies which are now not as weak as they were in 1973 and have powerful allies of their own.

Relying on its big brother to avoid having to find a modus vivendi with its neighbors is what caused this situation to not have moved an inch in the past decades.

It's the United States' pathetic groveling that has encouraged Israel to stay on this ultimately self-defeating path.

By siding with Israel's hardliners the US is bringing Israel closer to the cliff and burning bridges in the process, but few people seem to realize this.

Fyi AP seems to be confirming now, based on the evidence available to them, that it was most likely a Hamas rocket. — flannel jesus

I am not attempting to convince anybody about who is responsible for the explosion in the hospital parking lot, by the way have any of the investigators/experts identified this as a hospital parking lot, not a hospital?

It seems like a religion has sprung up around the Hospital attack story. All I can ask is that everyone get as much information from the second hand reports put out by news outlets and decided for themselves.

Just a few things to point out, from the above report:

Israel’s assessment, backed by U.S. intelligence and President Joe Biden, also cited the lack of both a large crater and extensive structural damage that would be consistent with a bomb dropped by Israeli aircraft. — AP report

Other sites have stated that it could be an weapon that detonates in the air, leaving a small crater or maybe none at all.

The AP analyzed more than a dozen videos from the moments before, during and after the hospital explosion, as well as satellite imagery and photos. AP’s analysis shows that the rocket that broke up in the air was fired from within Palestinian territory, — AP

I will be looking at the videos:

and that the hospital explosion was most likely caused when part of that rocket crashed to the ground....

A lack of forensic evidence and the difficulty of gathering that material on the ground in the middle of a war means there is no definitive proof the break-up of the rocket and the explosion at the hospital are linked.

...
A small explosion is then seen on the ground in the distance, followed two seconds later by a much larger blast closer to the camera. The corner of the scroll at the bottom of the live broadcast reads 6:59 p.m. Gaza time. — AP

No definitive proof - AP

For comparison, 2019 missile strike, but this time a longer ranged missile possibly with a larger warhead?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47689684

American officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information, said that multiple strands of early intelligence, including infrared satellite data, show a launch of a rocket or missile from Palestinian fighter positions within Gaza. They cautioned that the analysis was preliminary.

A senior Defense Department official said that, based on data collected by infrared sensors, the United States was “fairly confident” the launch did not come from Israeli forces. — NYT

Launched from Palestinian fighter positions, yes, and not from Israeli forces? I take it then that Israeli forces are not embedded in Palestinian fighter positions?

Lt. Col. Amnon Shefler, an Israeli military spokesman, said the calls to the hospital were part of a wider campaign to urge civilians to leave northern Gaza ahead of an expected Israeli invasion. Colonel Shefler said the hospital was not a target for the military. — NYT

The IDF confirms that calls were made to evacuate the hospital. I saw on Israeli commentator saying 'you mean the hospital under which Hamas stores weapons?'

This BBC report shows a video of a single projectile in the sky, breaking up and exploding.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061

It also shows the hospital and the graveyard - right next to the hospital. In close proximity, next door, virtually. Surely this is not what they mean?

“I believe the US intelligence community likely has enough imagery, communications intercepts, and other data to determine where the projectile originated that stuck in the Al-Ahli al-Arabi hospital and what the original statements of people on the ground were as to what they believed happened,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East and retired CIA officer.

“In addition, from the video released publicly, the explosion is consistent with a rocket that still had a lot of rocket fuel at the time of impact,” Mulroy added.
...
It might help a little bit with planning for potential ground clearance, and some of the signals intelligence collection capabilities could detect Hamas communications to help pinpoint hotspots of their activity. But the official noted that Hamas has been pretty smart about staying off communications – one of the reasons, sources say, the group was able to avoid Israeli detection during the planning of the October 7 attack in Israel. — CNN

The rocket explodes, leaves no fiery trail to the ground, but still has enough unburned fuel to cause an explosion on the ground?

Hamas has been 'pretty smart to stay of communications' - except to discuss failed rocket launches.
If two people discuss a rocket explosion in Arabic, does that mean anything? How do we know these are Hamas operatives?

I am not presenting any conclusive evidence either way. I am just pointing out that the reporting on this is confused, and some news outlets have drawn conclusions while others say they cannot draw conclusions. Maybe they have access to different experts and reporters, but that proves that their knowledge is incomplete.

Meanwhile, no-one is suggesting that the 4,000 plus deaths in Gaza are anything less than Israeli IDF attacks. Yet they want to defend a 200 to 450 deaths in a hospital parking lot. Very strange.

And yes, a misfired rocket did cause casualties earlier, read Wikipedia's rocket attacks on Israel page.

In November 2012 three relatives, including infant son, of a BBC journalist Jehad Mashhrawi was killed by what was initially attributed to IDF strike, with photo of Jehad holding his dead son becoming viral in world media, but a few months later UN attributed the strike to a rocket fired from Gaza.[179] On 25 June 2014 a child was killed by a misfired rocket.[180] On 28 July 2014 Hamas rockets exploded inside Gaza killing seven and damaging Al-Shati refugee camp and Al-Shifa Hospital.[181] On 8 May 2019 in a rare admission, Islamic Jihad confirmed that a Palestinian child was killed by their own misfired rocket.[182] In 2022 overall 16 people estimated were killed by rockets falling short in Gaza.[183] On 11 May 2023 a failed rocket killed four civilians in Beit Hanoun as out of 507 fired rockets 110 fell short in Gaza.[184] In October 2023 the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion was initially attributed to Israeli airstrike, until after independent evidence became available it was attributed to a misfired Hamas rocket.[185] — Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

Total dead, 2001 to 2015: 33. Thirty three.

Note the final entry deliberately fails to mention that over 300 were killed in the last attack, as in stands in contrast to the others.

That was quite the ramble

By siding with Israel's hardliners the US is bringing Israel closer to the cliff and burning bridges in the process, but few people seem to realize this. — Tzeentch

Have a look at the videos on the Oslo Accords, and how far they have progressed from there!

Also see a 1978 video of Benjamin Nettan. "Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to a separate state?" No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1c-DSZ_l9Q

Transcript

4:19
nobody wants peace more than Israel but
4:23
the stumbling block to the road for
4:24
peace is this demand for a PLO state
4:27
which will mean war war which will mean
4:29
more violence in the Middle East and I
4:31
think I sincerely believe if this demand
4:33
is abandoned we can have real and
4:35
genuine peace...


6:54
these are the ones who say they are part
6:56
of the Arab nation these are the ones
6:57
who say they already have a Palestinian
6:58
state there is no right to establish a
7:01
second one on my doorstep which will
7:03
threaten my existence there is no right

... — Transcript

Israel’s assessment, backed by U.S. intelligence and President Joe Biden, ... — AP report

Why on Earth would anyone conducting a serious investigation include a line like this in their article?


Anyway, you can find similarly (presumably) biased reports "debunking" the Israeli story on channels like Al Jazeera, so honestly it's impossible to say for certain what happened.

AP seems to be presenting nothing new or conclusive, so the idea that they are in a position to be "confirming" anything is a bit naive, to put it mildly.

From the start I think this looked like a precision strike and not like a 1 in 1,000,000 fluke, even if simply by virtue of likelihood, but again, at this point there's no way to say for sure.

You're right. The position of Israeli hardliners has always been the same, and it has always been quite extreme by normal standards. They've rarely deviated from their course, and when that threatened to happen under Rabin they offed him.

It's the United States' pathetic groveling that has encouraged Israel to stay on this ultimately self-defeating path. — Tzeentch

Simply not putting onus back where it belongs. Seems deflection to me. If you want to talk about the greater breakdown of strategic 2 state solutions, that makes sense. Moderate Pals need the backbone to do it. They need their Arab Allie’s ti encourage them to not stay on this ultimately self-defeating path. They also just need outright condemnation of Hamas.

I can’t imagine how the allies could have conducted the end of WW2 if at every bombing raid of Nazi Germany, even at the point when Nazi Germany was no longer a real threat to the other countries for all intents and purposes (circa 1945), they were condemned.

Granted ALL of that consideration, I do think Israel has to figure out how to conduct operations without mass bombings. My point with the Ww2 analogy is that, (and I’m by no means a military tactician) these type of bombings seem to be apart of ground operations as well to minimize the casualties on the side that is about to send in ground troops.

But I also realize in other cases I it has other objectives. For example if you have two rational actors (they both care about protecting human lives for their own people) the bigger country will force the smaller to stop the very first time the smaller one sees how much damage the bigger one is willing to inflict. That’s not the case with Hamas.

Edit: not to mention that the objective at the end of the war was fully accepted defeat by the Nazi opponents.

It's not conclusive, no. Al Jazeera is of course just a propaganda machine, AP at least has a history of being more objective. We don't have conclusive proof one way or another, but everyone immediately believing what Hamas said was a mistake.

Simply not putting onus back where it belongs. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree.

You can't justify the actions of Israel's hardliners through Hamas. In fact, said hardliners have at various points in time supported Hamas to weaken the PLO and reduce support for a two-state solution.

My point with the Ww2 analogy is that, (and I’m by no means a military tactician) these type of bombings seem to be apart of ground operations as well to minimize the casualties on the side that is about to send in ground troops. — schopenhauer1

Mass bombing has never made a whole lot of sense. At the end of WW2 not a single German city was left standing, yet they fought on till the bitter end.

And this is also not WW2 - this is basically Israel conducting a counterinsurgency operation. Mass bombing during counterinsurgency operations has the opposite effect, since the huge amounts of civilian casualties ensure the extremist elements grow.

For example if you have two rational actors (they both care about protecting human lives for their own people) the bigger country will force the smaller to stop the very first time the smaller one sees how much damage the bigger one is willing to inflict. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like caveman logic to me.

If this were a feasible strategy I don't think the United States would have suffered a string of defeats at the hands of much smaller nations which it bombed completely into the ground.

Al Jazeera is of course just a propaganda machine, AP at least has a history of being more objective. — flannel jesus

30 years ago, perhaps. I can't say that I can credit the western press with much objectivity these days, and I don't think AP is an exception.

Just to clarify, my main point is not that Israel cannot defend itself using military force (assuming the humanitarian principle of proportionality is adhered to), but that the way it is seeking to defend itself is self-defeating, and that the US cheering Israel onto this self-defeating path is only making things worse, not better, for Israel.

The Biden administration is simply too incompetent to see this. And even if it did, it doesn't have anyone that can credibly conduct diplomacy in the Middle-East anymore (which makes the situation that much worse), because they're that incompetent.

So instead it defers to the safe option which is trying to score good boy points with Israel in the hopes of securing domestic support from the Israel lobby. Again, it's utterly pathetic.

By siding with Israel's hardliners — Tzeentch

Do you mean the hardliners who selfishly oppose those committed to their utter destruction? That is, the touchy-feely, cuddly-friendly neighbors of Israel, who just recently, as it happens, in case you missed it, murdered - apparently just for the heck of it to show what fine and fun fellows they are - about 1400+ just plain folks, kidnapping another 200-plus. And of course what do you make of the US negotiating on behalf of Palestinians and in favour of a two-state solution? (Of course in the world of Tzeentch that never happened, nor happens.) And that the Egyptians and Jordanians - no fools they - who should be brothers to the Palestinians, want no part of them at all.

No, it seems the only pathetic groveler here is you. And it's unseemly; you should stop it.

You can't justify the actions of Israel's hardliners through Hamas. In fact, said hardliners have at various points in time supported Hamas to weaken the PLO and reduce support for a two-state solution. — Tzeentch

You mean nearly 20 years ago when the extent of how they operate as a para-governmental entity wasn't known yet and as you stated earlier were almost co-equal with Fatah in terrorist acts? (Obviously that has been far exceeded by this point). Who should have known better than think that Hamas was going to reform?

Also,

Do you mean the hardliners who selfishly oppose those committed to their utter destruction? That is, the touchy-feely, cuddly-friendly neighbors of Israel, who just recently, as it happens, in case you missed it, murdered - apparently just for the heck of it to show what fine and fun fellows they are - about 1400+ just plain folks, kidnapping another 200-plus. And of course what do you make of the US negotiating on behalf of Palestinians and in favour of a two-state solution? (Of course in the world of Tzeentch that never happened, nor happens.) And that the Egyptians and Jordanians - no fools they - who should be brothers to the Palestinians, want no part of them at all.

No, it seems the only pathetic groveler here is you. And it's unseemly; you should stop it. — tim wood

Absolutely, right on. Well-stated
. :fire: :up:

Mass bombing has never made a whole lot of sense. At the end of WW2 not a single German city was left standing, yet they fought on till the bitter end.

And this is also not WW2 - this is basically Israel conducting a counterinsurgency operation. Mass bombing during counterinsurgency operations has the opposite effect, since the huge amounts of civilian casualties ensure the extremist elements grow. — Tzeentch

Besides the fact that your first statement sort of contradicts your second statement (did they keep fighting or not?.. The answer is yes they kept going, but they were eventually defeated.), your analysis contra my analogy just seems wrong here.

When analyzing history, we have to make sure to understand what elements can be somewhat comparable and what elements are incompatible. Granted, there will be disagreement, I think there can be comparisons and contrasts that can be made to highlight how conflict is waged in general.

In some sense, even though Nazi Germany was extremely rigid and hierarchical (and in that sense predictable actors in war), by the end of the war, Hitler acted irrationally. Instead of giving up when it was known the defeat was all but inevitable, he encouraged the rigid compliant hierarchy to carry on to the bitter end. It was not until after he literally had to commit suicide, that the German leadership had to give up the ghost and finally declare unconditional surrender. In that sense there are some similarities of irrational actors waging war. Hitler wanted hand-to-hand street combat, all hands on deck, women and children fighting to the bitter end. He wanted nothing less than absolute maximum resistance to the end. Hamas being irrational actors, want the same thing. Death does not make a difference to them. Protecting their own people's lives makes no difference to them. The bombings in WW2 were for several reasons. The main one was to destroy weapons and manufacturing facilities. The other was to cause fear and break their will and to stop resisting. But you see, Nazi Germany wasn't representing a "just cause" JUST because they (by that point) were the underdog! I think most historians (minus very egregious examples like the fire bombing of Dresden) agree this war could only be won with full surrender of Germany. And by this point, the unbelievable amount of devastation that had taken place perpetrated by the Nazis just did not give the Allies any pause on this one.

This sounds like caveman logic to me.

If this were a feasible strategy I don't think the United States would have suffered a string of defeats at the hands of much smaller nations which it bombed completely into the ground. — Tzeentch

That's because (and justifiably), they did not have an unconditional surrender mentality as in WW2, as they knew those wars were not worth it in the end. The times there were actual hot wars during the Cold War did indeed have very spotty (if any) justification (such as the whole "Domino Theory" during Vietnam).

You mean nearly 20 years ago when the extent of how they operate as a para-governmental entity wasn't known yet and as you stated earlier were almost co-equal with Fatah in terrorist acts? — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu receives widespread criticism for this policy.

How Benjamin Netanyahu Empowered Hamas (The Telegraph, 2023)

I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Netanyahu helped create Hamas, just like the US helped create Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

He used Hamas specifically to sabotage the PLO to avoid having serious talks about two-state solutions and other peace plans.

It follows a familiar pattern. Trying to downplay it is senseless.

Besides the fact that your first statement sort of contradicts your second statement (did they keep fighting or not?.. The answer is yes they kept going. but they were eventually defeated.), your analysis contra my analogy just seems wrong here. — schopenhauer1

The first statement is about WW2, the second statement is about conducting counterinsurgency.

In some sense, even though Nazi Germany was extremely rigid and hierarchical (and in that sense predictable actors in war), by the end of the war, Hitler acted irrationally. Instead of giving up when it was known the defeat was all but inevitable, he encouraged the rigid compliant hierarchy to carry on to the bitter end. It was not until after he literally had to commit suicide, that the German leadership had to give up the ghost and finally declare unconditional surrender. In that sense there are some similarities of irrational actors waging war. Hitler wanted hand-to-hand street combat, all hands on deck, women and children fighting to the bitter end. He wanted nothing less than absolute maximum resistance to the end. Hamas being irrational actors, want the same thing. Death does not make a difference to them. Protecting their own people's lives makes no difference to them. The bombings in WW2 were for several reasons. The main one was to destroy weapons and manufacturing facilities. The other was to cause fear and break their will and to stop resisting. But you see, Nazi Germany wasn't representing a "just cause" JUST because they (by that point) were the underdog! I think most historians (minus very egregious examples like the fire bombing of Dresden) agree this war could only be won with full surrender of Germany. And by this point, the unbelievable amount of devastation that had taken place perpetrated by the Nazis just did not give the Allies any pause on this one. — schopenhauer1

Israel is not fighting WW2. It's conducting a counterinsurgency. The dynamics are totally different, and I don't see the point in this comparison.

In both cases the effectiveness of mass bombing is questionable (in the case of counterinsurgency, outright rejected as a viable strategy).

By far the most-widely supported method of counterinsurgency is the so-called 'Hearts & Minds' approach, in which the side conducting the counterinsurgency seeks to win over the civilian population and erode support for the insurgents.

Indiscriminate bombing achieves the exact opposite.

That's because (and justifiably), they did not have an unconditional surrender mentality as in WW2, as they knew those wars were not worth it in the end. Hot wars during the Cold Wars did indeed have very spotty (if any) justification (such as the whole "Domino Theory" during Vietnam). — schopenhauer1

The US committed de facto genocide in Vietnam, and it wasn't enough to secure them victory.

This method (sadly) has been tried, and it has failed every time. turning the perpetrators into the very monsters they claimed they were fighting.

Israel is not fighting WW2. It's conducting a counterinsurgency. The dynamics are totally different, and I don't see the point in this comparison. — Tzeentch

My point in the comparison is Hitler wanted a counterinsurgency, and in some sense, towards the end of the war, it can be characterized as such in the fact that, why fight when by all rational analysis you are going to be defeated?

And the major point was that this fight was NOT A JUST ONE, just because they were an underdog and were getting heavily bombed.. with many civilians dead, homes destroyed, and displacement of population. All of it terrible that any of it had to take place obviously.

For the rest of it, I'll get to.

I've read from a blog following OSINT sources, that it is also possible the missile from Gaza (e.g. r160 or ayyash250) was intercepted by Israel, so what happened to the hospital the parking lot of the hospital was the result of residues of the collision and burst from fuel. Number of victims seems exaggerated (how many people could really cram into that parking lot?) and it may have been inflated on purpose (do we have evidence of the number victims? pictures?).

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2394966/middle-east
Al Arabiya questioning Hamas leaders. Echoes of the same anti-Western propaganda one can read also in this thread.

Netanyahu helped create Hamas, just like the US helped create Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

He used Hamas specifically to sabotage the PLO to avoid having serious talks about two-state solutions and other peace plans.

[ ... ]

The US committed de facto genocide in Vietnam, and it wasn't enough to secure them victory.

This method (sadly) has been tried, and it has failed every time. turning the perpetrators into the very monsters they claimed they were fighting. — Tzeentch

:100: :fire:

Way too many folks "can't handle the truth!"

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. — reportedly spoken by the commander of the Albigensian Crusade, prior to the massacre at Béziers on 22 July 1209

it was almost certainly a made up number. the hospital doesn't house that many people, not even half that many people, and the number came out immediately after the explosion - there wasn't even enough time for them to count the victims before people were spouting off '500'.

It's amazing what Hamas can just say and the whole world will believe.

It's amazing what Hamas can just say and the whole world will believe. — flannel jesus

Hamas is exploiting the weaknesses of the Western media. As Putin does. The West is much easier to divide. Anyways I wouldn't lose sight of the geopolitical implications of this conflict in Israel wrt the wider/ideological conflict between the West and the Rest.

↪FreeEmotion You're right. The position of Israeli hardliners has always been the same, and it has always been quite extreme by normal standards. They've rarely deviated from their course, and when that threatened to happen under Rabin they offed him. — Tzeentch

There is little doubt that the current Israeli government is taking a hard liners stand. There is nothing wrong with being a hard-liner. Was Sir Winston Churchill a hardliner? Some Israelis and former Israeli Prime Minister - at least one - calls out this right wing government. Many previous Israeli governments have ordered attacks on Gaza, I am sure. There have been swings of the pendulum.

I mentioned the Oslo accords: have a look at what the Prime Minster at that time said:

We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We
have no desire for revenge. We harbor no hatred towards you. We, like you, are people
people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you in
dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. We are today giving peace a chance, and
saying again to you: Enough. Let us pray that a day will come when we all will say: Farewell
to the arms.
We wish to open a new chapter in the sad book of our lives together a chapter of mutual
recognition, of good neighborliness, of mutual respect, of understanding. We hope to
embark on a new era in the history of the Middle East. Today, here in Washington, at the
White House, we will begin a new reckoning in relations between peoples, between parents
tired of war, between children who will not know war. — Israeli PM Rabin, 1993

He ends quoting the scriptures

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to love, and a time to hate;
A time of war, and a time of peace.'
Ladies and Gentlemen, the time for peace has come.

It is clear that the time for peace has not yet come. So the cycle continues.

I did a little searching about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, first by watching his interview in 1978 that I posted a link to above. In another interview, he mentions his brother, and that thousands came to his funeral (Rabin was there, according to Mr. Netanyahu, and little did he know that Mr. Netanyahu would be attending Rabin's funeral.

Yani Netanyahu's fame was was in leading the raid in Entebbe to release hostages. He was the only Israeli armed personel killed when they were leaving the airport.

After the raid, the Israeli assault team returned to their aircraft and began loading the hostages. Ugandan soldiers shot at them in the process. The Israeli commandos returned fire, inflicting casualties on the Ugandans. During this brief but intense firefight, Ugandan soldiers fired from the airport control tower. At least five commandos were wounded, and the Israeli unit commander Yonatan Netanyahu was killed

Looking at Mr. Netanyahu, I feel I cannot blame him. He grew up in an environment whose very existence was based on the the the practice of creating artificial nations and destroying local demographics that the colonial powers were so hell bent on doing. Maybe they did not know better. Jewish people also had been squeezed out of many nations due to anti-antisemitism. In fact, the founder of Zionism it was a second option to integration into the societies they lived in. He wanted Jews to integrate into the societies he lived in.

Benzion Netanyahu (Hebrew: בֶּנְצִיּוֹן נְתַנְיָהוּ, IPA: [bentsiˈjon netaˈnjahu]; born Benzion Mileikowsky; March 25, 1910 – April 30, 2012)[2][3] was an Israeli encyclopedist, historian, and medievalist. He served as a professor of history at Cornell University. A scholar of Judaic history, he was also an activist in the Revisionist Zionism movement, who lobbied in the United States to support the creation of the Jewish state. His field of expertise was the history of the Jews in Spain. He was an editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia and assistant to Benjamin Azkin, Ze'ev Jabotinsky's personal secretary. — Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzion_Netanyahu

Revisionist Zionism was based on a vision of "political Zionism", which[clarification needed] Jabotinsky regarded as following the legacy of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism. His main demand was the creation of Greater Israel on both sides of the Jordan River, and was against partitioning Palestine with the Arabs, such as suggested by the Peel Commission.

There is a nice map, which shows the Biblical Israel, very attractive to some Christians and some Jews alike, I guess.

There are three sides to the "Hospital Attack" story.

• We do not know who caused the attack
• It was a misfired Hamas rocket
• It was an Israeli missile

These different and mutually exclusive positions.

Channel 4, for example, an anti-government channel, in my opinion, has this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pAuDA6IOwc

CNN and other media outlets, on the other hand, accept the Israeli version of the story.

Sides are taken, but so many years down the road, no one has done enough to for the civilians.
I hope the nations of the world can do something to solve this conflict, new media tends to ignore civilian suffering: Yemen, Sudan, these are all ongoing disasters right now. Somethings wrong.
Look at the headlines:

While searching for "Hellfire Missile" I found that Israel has an air to surface missile with a '20 metre kill radius'. Apparently the warhead survives the explosion.

Designed for defeating the enemy in open areas, moving vehicles as well as concealed or structure protected enemy.Warhead Versions:

Steel ball blast fragmentation warhead with kill radius of more than 20 meters
Anti-Structure Warhead with 20 cm concrete penetration capability
Fuze Versions:

On impact
Delayed detonation
Proximity detonation — IAI

https://www.iai.co.il/p/sledgehammer

It is surmised that the IDF use 'Sledgehammer' missiles for roof knocking. These are low-payload, high accuracy missiles with proximity detonation capability. This means they can detonate above the roof top, further limiting danger to civilians. Once it is confirmed that residents have vacated a building, the IAF claims that this then clears the fighter for attack and the target is destroyed. The IAF claims that they select the appropriate munitions for a strike to ensure that they achieve the desired effect with minimal damage to untargeted structures and people. This means that they can use bombs with payloads as small as 285lbs for precision strikes. Such claims, however, often do not mitigate civilian harm. Many of these claims are as contested as they are defended. — ReliefWeb