Interestingly, in the UK we've just had a 4 part drama, using real politicians, called 'The Wargame'.
Although the programme depicts how Russia manipulates a situation to ensure the UK becomes isolated from its allies and made to look like an aggressor when in fact it's the victim of a viscous attack, it could just as easily have been describing how hammas managed to make Israel appear to be the instigator of the October war.
Definitely worth watching and makes you realise how the playbook of deception unfolds.
The right to respond is correct. So the military with the best intelligence in the world, could’ve gone door-to-door, or underground, and figure out who did this deed. And then punish these perpetrators accordingly.
What I don’t agree with is flattening an entire city with the excuse that the perpetrators are hiding behind schools, hospitals, and children.
What Israel did as retaliation, is the equivalent of getting punch punched in a bar fight, and then flattening a city to get it the guy who did it.
The analogy fails because October 7 was not a bar fight followed by a police manhunt. Israel was attacked by an organized armed force governing the territory next door. Hamas was not a handful of identifiable criminals waiting to be arrested; it had thousands of fighters, an extensive tunnel network, weapons positions and command infrastructure embedded in dense urban terrain.
No serious military doctrine says an attacked state may respond only against individuals whose personal participation in the original attack has first been proven. The laws of war permit attacks on military objectives while requiring distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions to protect civilians.
And historically, the idea that armies normally telephone, text or otherwise warn civilians before individual attacks is simply false. Advance warning is required where circumstances permit, but the ICRC expressly recognizes that surprise and operational security can make warning infeasible. Israel, however, has repeatedly used leaflets, phone calls, texts and other warnings in Gaza—including well before the current war. UN reporting documents those practices in both 2008–09 and 2014.
You can debate particular Israeli strikes. But “just go door-to-door and find the perpetrators” is not a realistic substitute for fighting an organized army embedded in an urban population.
**“So, ultralights versus F-15s is proportional?”**
Proportionality does not mean matching aircraft. An army attacked by men using paragliders is not obliged to respond with paragliders. The relevant legal test concerns whether the expected civilian harm from an attack would be excessive compared with its anticipated concrete military advantage. Comparing aircraft tells us nothing about whether a particular strike meets that test. [ICRC explanation](https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality)
Nor does operating among civilians give an armed group immunity from attack. But it does not remove the opposing army’s obligations to protect civilians either. The question is how particular attacks are conducted—not whether both sides have equally sophisticated weapons.
**“Who benefits from Hamas?”**
My answer would be Hamas’s leadership and those who see it as a means of advancing their regional ambitions. Certainly, I do not see ordinary Palestinians benefiting from endless war. But who benefits from a situation and who controls it are different questions. What specifically are you suggesting?
Qatar funded salaries, fuel and assistance in Hamas-run Gaza, with Israel permitting transfers. That deserves scrutiny. But money admitted by Israel is not necessarily money supplied by Israel, and civilian assistance is not automatically the same thing as military funding. [Background on Qatar’s payments](https://apnews.com/article/8b7690d7585671d2d11f31f922e8f8f6)
The idea that improving living conditions would help maintain calm proved disastrously inadequate as a security strategy. Criticizing that policy is entirely reasonable. Treating it as proof that Israel wanted Hamas’s attacks is another claim altogether.
**“What does the US get for their 3 billion a year ‘aid’ to Israel?”**
The existing agreement provides a baseline of $3.8 billion annually, subject to congressional appropriations, with additional assistance beyond that in some years. The relationship includes military cooperation, missile-defence development and intelligence cooperation. [Congressional Research Service background](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33222.html)
My argument for it is straightforward: the United States gains a capable democratic ally in a region with numerous authoritarian governments and armed groups hostile to American interests. That does not make every Israeli policy right, or every aid package beyond criticism. But the relationship has strategic value; it is not simply a charitable donation.
**“Is it good for the US to have representatives with dual citizenship?”**
Dual citizenship alone does not trouble me. I have dual citizenship myself, although I am not American. I would judge representatives by their conduct, their conflicts of interest and whether they fulfil their obligations to the country they serve. A second passport is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty.
**“Would you be OK if we had a representative in Congress who wore a uniform from the Chinese military?”**
If you mean someone actively serving the Chinese military while serving in Congress, absolutely not. But that is a different proposition from dual citizenship. Are you referring to a particular person and documented conduct?
I regard the Chinese government as a serious security threat, and I am deeply concerned about its interference in Canada. However, the Canadian inquiry documented foreign interference while finding no evidence of parliamentarians conspiring as “traitors” against Canada. That supports demanding stronger safeguards and accountability; it does not establish that an entire party is owned by Beijing. [Inquiry findings](https://foreigninterferencecommission.ca/fileadmin/report_volume_1.pdf)
**“What would Israel do if they did not have American weapons to bomb their neighbors with?”**
It would still face the question of how to defend its population. Losing American weapons would constrain its options; it would not resolve the conflict or make attacks against Israelis legitimate.
If your argument is that American weapons should come with enforceable conditions on their use, that is a serious policy discussion. But “bomb their neighbors” assumes away the distinction between attacking civilians and attacking military targets. Both Israel and its enemies should be judged on their actual conduct, under the same rules.
Thank you for your well-thought-out responses to my questions. I really appreciate it.
I don’t know if America can afford 35 billion a year to anyone but ourselves. Our own citizens are hurting and that’s a lot of money. I would stop all aid to any foreign country until we don’t have starving citizens, drug problems, and young people buried under student debt who can’t buy homes.
Your honesty and clear explanation of your points is much appreciated. Thank you.
Hamas built 350 miles of tunnels under Gaza with thousands of of exits all over.
They have been operating out of multiple civilian locations. That’s not an excuse, but fact.
When you use a civilian location to operate out of it changes the nature of the location.
Israel has and did go into the tunnels. We know Hamas murdered some hostages when they heard the IDF was close to them.
I’m in agreement about minimizing civilian casualties. However I think we need to remember destruction of the tunnels wasn’t wanton, it’s done with the idea of preventing them from being used again.
If you leave them intact you know Hamas will use them for the next war.
From my research, I am leaning toward the idea that the underground tunnels were already there and have been from a previous civilization.
I can’t see how a rag tag group of terrorist could have the capacity to put in 350 miles of underground tunnels.
As far as bombing civilians to get to these terrorist, I’m going to go with Friedrich Nietzsche. “when you fight monsters be careful you don’t become one yourself”.
Israel has become a monster by committing a genocide in the name of self defense.
Bombing Lebanon now, and as always, in the name of Hamas.
A people who have the top spy agency in the world, could shut down the money flow of their enemy and win the war overnight if they had the will.
But, Hamas gives them license to keep taking more land. That’s what I see.
Thank you Paul. We have similar characters spouting "genocide" here in the UK.
Hi, Paul. I don’t see your comments in any written attachment. Should I?
Can u see this ?
I clicked on ‘view comment’, which is all I can see. It broughte me here.
Thank you 🙏
Interestingly, in the UK we've just had a 4 part drama, using real politicians, called 'The Wargame'.
Although the programme depicts how Russia manipulates a situation to ensure the UK becomes isolated from its allies and made to look like an aggressor when in fact it's the victim of a viscous attack, it could just as easily have been describing how hammas managed to make Israel appear to be the instigator of the October war.
Definitely worth watching and makes you realise how the playbook of deception unfolds.
The right to respond is correct. So the military with the best intelligence in the world, could’ve gone door-to-door, or underground, and figure out who did this deed. And then punish these perpetrators accordingly.
What I don’t agree with is flattening an entire city with the excuse that the perpetrators are hiding behind schools, hospitals, and children.
What Israel did as retaliation, is the equivalent of getting punch punched in a bar fight, and then flattening a city to get it the guy who did it.
The analogy fails because October 7 was not a bar fight followed by a police manhunt. Israel was attacked by an organized armed force governing the territory next door. Hamas was not a handful of identifiable criminals waiting to be arrested; it had thousands of fighters, an extensive tunnel network, weapons positions and command infrastructure embedded in dense urban terrain.
No serious military doctrine says an attacked state may respond only against individuals whose personal participation in the original attack has first been proven. The laws of war permit attacks on military objectives while requiring distinction, proportionality and feasible precautions to protect civilians.
And historically, the idea that armies normally telephone, text or otherwise warn civilians before individual attacks is simply false. Advance warning is required where circumstances permit, but the ICRC expressly recognizes that surprise and operational security can make warning infeasible. Israel, however, has repeatedly used leaflets, phone calls, texts and other warnings in Gaza—including well before the current war. UN reporting documents those practices in both 2008–09 and 2014.
You can debate particular Israeli strikes. But “just go door-to-door and find the perpetrators” is not a realistic substitute for fighting an organized army embedded in an urban population.
So, ultralights versus F-15s is proportional?
Who benefits from Hamas?
Who funds Hamas?
What does the US get for their 3 billion a year ‘aid’ to Israel?
Is it good for the US to have representatives with dual citizenship?
Would you be OK if we had a representative in Congress who are uniform from the Chinese military?
What would Israel do if they did not have American weapons to bomb their neighbors with?
Robin, let me take your questions individually.
**“So, ultralights versus F-15s is proportional?”**
Proportionality does not mean matching aircraft. An army attacked by men using paragliders is not obliged to respond with paragliders. The relevant legal test concerns whether the expected civilian harm from an attack would be excessive compared with its anticipated concrete military advantage. Comparing aircraft tells us nothing about whether a particular strike meets that test. [ICRC explanation](https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality)
Nor does operating among civilians give an armed group immunity from attack. But it does not remove the opposing army’s obligations to protect civilians either. The question is how particular attacks are conducted—not whether both sides have equally sophisticated weapons.
**“Who benefits from Hamas?”**
My answer would be Hamas’s leadership and those who see it as a means of advancing their regional ambitions. Certainly, I do not see ordinary Palestinians benefiting from endless war. But who benefits from a situation and who controls it are different questions. What specifically are you suggesting?
**“Who funds Hamas?”**
Iran is a major backer. The U.S. Treasury has also documented Hamas’s international investment and fundraising networks. [Treasury findings](https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1817)
Qatar funded salaries, fuel and assistance in Hamas-run Gaza, with Israel permitting transfers. That deserves scrutiny. But money admitted by Israel is not necessarily money supplied by Israel, and civilian assistance is not automatically the same thing as military funding. [Background on Qatar’s payments](https://apnews.com/article/8b7690d7585671d2d11f31f922e8f8f6)
The idea that improving living conditions would help maintain calm proved disastrously inadequate as a security strategy. Criticizing that policy is entirely reasonable. Treating it as proof that Israel wanted Hamas’s attacks is another claim altogether.
**“What does the US get for their 3 billion a year ‘aid’ to Israel?”**
The existing agreement provides a baseline of $3.8 billion annually, subject to congressional appropriations, with additional assistance beyond that in some years. The relationship includes military cooperation, missile-defence development and intelligence cooperation. [Congressional Research Service background](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33222.html)
My argument for it is straightforward: the United States gains a capable democratic ally in a region with numerous authoritarian governments and armed groups hostile to American interests. That does not make every Israeli policy right, or every aid package beyond criticism. But the relationship has strategic value; it is not simply a charitable donation.
**“Is it good for the US to have representatives with dual citizenship?”**
Dual citizenship alone does not trouble me. I have dual citizenship myself, although I am not American. I would judge representatives by their conduct, their conflicts of interest and whether they fulfil their obligations to the country they serve. A second passport is not, by itself, evidence of disloyalty.
**“Would you be OK if we had a representative in Congress who wore a uniform from the Chinese military?”**
If you mean someone actively serving the Chinese military while serving in Congress, absolutely not. But that is a different proposition from dual citizenship. Are you referring to a particular person and documented conduct?
I regard the Chinese government as a serious security threat, and I am deeply concerned about its interference in Canada. However, the Canadian inquiry documented foreign interference while finding no evidence of parliamentarians conspiring as “traitors” against Canada. That supports demanding stronger safeguards and accountability; it does not establish that an entire party is owned by Beijing. [Inquiry findings](https://foreigninterferencecommission.ca/fileadmin/report_volume_1.pdf)
**“What would Israel do if they did not have American weapons to bomb their neighbors with?”**
It would still face the question of how to defend its population. Losing American weapons would constrain its options; it would not resolve the conflict or make attacks against Israelis legitimate.
If your argument is that American weapons should come with enforceable conditions on their use, that is a serious policy discussion. But “bomb their neighbors” assumes away the distinction between attacking civilians and attacking military targets. Both Israel and its enemies should be judged on their actual conduct, under the same rules.
Thank you for your well-thought-out responses to my questions. I really appreciate it.
I don’t know if America can afford 35 billion a year to anyone but ourselves. Our own citizens are hurting and that’s a lot of money. I would stop all aid to any foreign country until we don’t have starving citizens, drug problems, and young people buried under student debt who can’t buy homes.
Your honesty and clear explanation of your points is much appreciated. Thank you.
Hamas built 350 miles of tunnels under Gaza with thousands of of exits all over.
They have been operating out of multiple civilian locations. That’s not an excuse, but fact.
When you use a civilian location to operate out of it changes the nature of the location.
Israel has and did go into the tunnels. We know Hamas murdered some hostages when they heard the IDF was close to them.
I’m in agreement about minimizing civilian casualties. However I think we need to remember destruction of the tunnels wasn’t wanton, it’s done with the idea of preventing them from being used again.
If you leave them intact you know Hamas will use them for the next war.
From my research, I am leaning toward the idea that the underground tunnels were already there and have been from a previous civilization.
I can’t see how a rag tag group of terrorist could have the capacity to put in 350 miles of underground tunnels.
As far as bombing civilians to get to these terrorist, I’m going to go with Friedrich Nietzsche. “when you fight monsters be careful you don’t become one yourself”.
Israel has become a monster by committing a genocide in the name of self defense.
Bombing Lebanon now, and as always, in the name of Hamas.
A people who have the top spy agency in the world, could shut down the money flow of their enemy and win the war overnight if they had the will.
But, Hamas gives them license to keep taking more land. That’s what I see.
You misuse the word genocide but I don’t know if it is ignorance or duplicity.
The word isn’t applicable.
Calling a group that has received billions in aid ragtag is a kind of bigotry.
They follow a horrific ideology but it doesn’t mean they’re stupid. They’re also an Iranian proxy who received military and engineering expertise.
But if your intent is to follow your preconceived notions regardless of the lack of fact and reason that’s your choice.
Who gives them the money? If it’s billions as you say, and I have no reason to doubt your knowledge, then those people would be a very small number.
That’s how I would conduct my investigation. I am assuming the professional investigators could handle it.
Bombing thousands of people to catch the terrorists seems barbaric in comparison.
I came to the comments, but no link 🙁