Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[theprestige]

Some dead Hamas leaders in Qatar, as well as Gaza, would go a long way to destroying them as an organisation.

Hamas leaders in Qatar are irrelevant, if there's no Hamas in Gaza for them to lead. Going after the commanders on the ground in Gaza, and the troops they're commanding in the field, seems like a much more direct and practical approach.

Contra Ziggurat, if there's one thing we've learned from the conflict in Ukraine, it's that removing senior commanders doesn't stop the enemy from continuing to attack. What does stop the attacks is removing the attackers.

A lot of Palestinians would appreciate Hamas being removed.

Maybe a lot of Palestinians should get off their anti-Semitic, Islamofascist asses and remove Hamas, then.

(Which of course they will do, as Islamofascists always do, remove competing Islamofascist organizations, whenever there's no Jews within range. But until that day, your "silent majority" of Palestinians are quite content to sit on their hands and let Hamas work.)

 

[Planigale]

(re: 5d chess) That doesn't track even if you're looking for a reason for Israeli forces to have done it. They couldn't blame Hamas and get PR cred; nobody they'd want to flip would buy it. The only possible actual reasons I can imagine would be "there was an important Hamas figure there that couldn't be targeted more precisely for some reason" or "some angry nutter did it off orders."

It's just vastly more likely it was done by Hamas either coldly on purpose or with some kind of IED screwup.

Except that if the IDF wasn't responsible we would have heard an explicit denial from the iDF. Instead what we have had is 'the incident is under investigation.'

 

[Ziggurat]

And how many times has Israel defeated the various Palestinian uprisings?

Why would it matter? Winning a battle doesn't win you a war. That's not how any of this works.

Hamas has never really been defeated, only beaten back. Hamas has lost battles, but they haven't lost the war.

And then?

There can be no "and then" until Hamas is defeated. Not beaten back, as they have been so many times before, but actually defeated. Defeated so thoroughly that even they cannot deny it.

And then we can work on what comes next.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except that if the IDF wasn't responsible we would have heard an explicit denial from the iDF. Instead what we have had is 'the incident is under investigation.'

Uh, no. That initial response is completely normal even if they aren't responsible. Because of the fog of war, it's always possible that the IDF did something that command isn't aware of. They really don't want to deny something and then have it proven that they did it, even accidentally, so before they deny something they investigate to see what happened. It's only after they can establish that it wasn't them do they issue a denial.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's just vastly more likely it was done by Hamas either coldly on purpose or with some kind of IED screwup.

A screwup is extremely plausible. Islamic terrorist "workplace accidents" are a known phenomenon.

 

[theprestige]

Except that if the IDF wasn't responsible we would have heard an explicit denial from the iDF. Instead what we have had is 'the incident is under investigation.'

What we'd like to see, from a responsible military engaged in combat operations: "We're investigating the incident to find out what happened."

Unless it's the Jews. Then we just assume they're evil.

And be "we" I mean you, of course.

 

[theprestige]

There can be no "and then" until Hamas is defeated. Not beaten back, as they have been so many times before, but actually defeated. Defeated so thoroughly that even they cannot deny it.

There's a plurality in the west that keeps telling Hamas they're not defeated yet, and that their violence has merit and may yet yield results. If those people changed their tune, and started telling Hamas they're done, and that further western support is conditioned on them accepting defeat and embracing peaceful submission, Hamas would be done overnight.

I do not understand* why all these people who pay lip service to the idea that Hamas is evil and should be defeated, still insist that Israel must do it the hard way, and then also condemn Israel for trying to do exactly that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There's a plurality in the west that keeps telling Hamas they're not defeated yet, and that their violence has merit and may yet yield results. If those people changed their tune, and started telling Hamas they're done, and that further western support is conditioned on them accepting defeat and embracing peaceful submission, Hamas would be done overnight.

Is it really Western verbal support (thoughts and prayers, but not actually weapons or money) that Hamas depends upon? I won't deny it's helpful to them, for propaganda, to have Western "support", but I would think actual support from coreligionist neighboring nations is more critical to Hamas staying around. A few rocket launchers from Syria is worth a lot more than any number of middle-class American college student demonstrations.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Why would it matter? Winning a battle doesn't win you a war. That's not how any of this works.

Hamas has never really been defeated, only beaten back. Hamas has lost battles, but they haven't lost the war.



There can be no "and then" until Hamas is defeated. Not beaten back, as they have been so many times before, but actually defeated. Defeated so thoroughly that even they cannot deny it.

And then we can work on what comes next.

IMO that is the strategic thinking that led to the current situation in the Middle east.
Let's defeat the bad guys without any attempt at understanding why and how they got to power, burn everything around them and then we'll sort it out.
The various earlier victories against the Palestinians, the two victories against Iraq, the victory in removing Khadafi and the victory over the Taliban to me show how well that method works.

I hope I'm wrong and this time it will be different. You seem convinced it is.

 

[Planigale]

You're pulling these numbers out of your ass. You have no evidence to back it up.

And you absolutely are defending Hamas. Just as the pacifists in WW2 were objectively pro-fascist, you are pro-Hamas whether you intend to be or not.

The IDF have said about 20% of those killed by Hamas on 7 October were active service military or reservists on security duties. If you don't like the figure take it up with the IDF.

I can't find the original IDF report but the Times of Israel is not a anti-Israeli source and they say that 300 of the 1,400 casualties were military. So that is about 20%.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/police-74-of-civilians-killed-october-7-identified/
IDF have been announcing how many Hamas operatives they have killed each day. The IDF figures may not be correct. There are figures for Gazan deaths they may not be correct, but it appears that for every Hamas militant IDF says they have killed approximately 100 Gazan civilians are reported as having died. You can follow IDF on twitter too.

WW2 figures are from wikipedia.

Would you be prepared to admit that I have not made the figures up? Remember if you are a member here you address the argument not the arguer. If you disagree please quote evidence, don't just insult me and run away.

I also think you are fundamentally wrong about pacifists in WW2, many did essential war work, including as medics in combat zones. I think no one would claim e.g. Friends (Quakers) as crypto-fascists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is it really Western verbal support (thoughts and prayers, but not actually weapons or money) that Hamas depends upon? I won't deny it's helpful to them, for propaganda, to have Western "support", but I would think actual support from coreligionist neighboring nations is more critical to Hamas staying around. A few rocket launchers from Syria is worth a lot more than any number of middle-class American college student demonstrations.

No but in the same sense that standing in Times Square on September 12, 2001 and loudly proclaiming how swell of a guy Bin Laden was wouldn't have helped Al-Qaida at all.

"Don't praise the terrorists please" isn't just a matter of helping them in a literal sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No but in the same sense that standing in Times Square on September 12, 2001 and loudly proclaiming how swell of a guy Bin Laden was wouldn't have helped Al-Qaida at all.

"Don't praise the terrorists please" isn't just a matter of helping them in a literal sense.

I would think praising terrorists would run the risk of causing a backlash, as it would infuriate others who would then swing their own "thoughts and prayers" support to the other side. Knowing how contrarian Americans are I'd bet that at a good portion of the Americans currently "supporting" Israel are only doing so because they were appalled/annoyed by the people "supporting" Hamas.

 

[Planigale]

There is no "humane" way to destroy Hamas. They have acted to ensure any possible actions that would take them down inflict considerable harm on Gazans in general, because Hamas doesn't care about the welfare of Gaza. A lot of people here have basically concluded this means Hamas should not be taken down, or that the only permissible methods are ones that won't actually work.

That is a mistake.

A specific example.

I would criticise the Israeli government for blockading Gaza and not allowing electricity, food, water or fuel in.

Politically it was a bad decision because you have no room to escalate, and can only de-escalate. Legally it was a bad decision because their is a specific war crime of depriving a civilian population of food and water, the Israeli government in saying they were going to do this explicitly accepted they would commit a war crime. from a PR PoV this can only be seen as targeting a civilian population and collective punishment (in itself a war crime).

I accept the argument that fuel is used by Hamas to power rockets. Blockading fuel but allowing water and food and electricity would have provided minimal aid to Hamas. It would have allowed escalation, e.g. cutting electricity prior to a ground assault.

 

[Planigale]

Did Japan' defeat in WW2 eliminate its grievances? No, it did not. Did Germany's? Likewise, no.

Peace rarely comes as a result of eliminating grievances. It usually comes as a result of victory for one side and defeat for the other. After that, you can work on improving conditions for everyone involved, but not before.

That worked well n WW1!

 

[theprestige]

A specific example.

I would criticise the Israeli government for blockading Gaza and not allowing electricity, food, water or fuel in.

Politically it was a bad decision because you have no room to escalate, and can only de-escalate. Legally it was a bad decision because their is a specific war crime of depriving a civilian population of food and water, the Israeli government in saying they were going to do this explicitly accepted they would commit a war crime. from a PR PoV this can only be seen as targeting a civilian population and collective punishment (in itself a war crime).

I accept the argument that fuel is used by Hamas to power rockets. Blockading fuel but allowing water and food and electricity would have provided minimal aid to Hamas. It would have allowed escalation, e.g. cutting electricity prior to a ground assault.

Cutting off supplies of all kinds to an enemy army is not only an absolutely legal and acceptable strategy in warfare, it's highly recommended by experts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That worked well n WW1!

So we should have not had WW1?

We should have let Germany win WW1?

We should have... what?

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

 

[The_Animus]

The only answer is to nuke the entire area, both Palestine and Israel, into oblivion.

They can't fight over living at or near a holy site if it's a radioactive wasteland and it would give them a mutual enemy to hate even more than each other.

I look forward to my nobel peace prize.

 

[lobosrul5]

That worked well n WW1!

Signing an armistice and then not enforcing the terms of it is a bad idea, I agree. I mean totally separate topic but the whole "Versailles led to WW2 cause it was too harsh" is an argument that falls flat on its face with any critical analysis. Like the fact that the allies didn't enforce it.

ETA: UNLESS you are saying Israel leaving Hamas to their own devices in gaza after 2005 is similar to 1918, then I see your point.

 

[Planigale]

Did Japan' defeat in WW2 eliminate its grievances? No, it did not. Did Germany's? Likewise, no.

Peace rarely comes as a result of eliminating grievances. It usually comes as a result of victory for one side and defeat for the other. After that, you can work on improving conditions for everyone involved, but not before.

I would say it rarely comes as a result of victory. WW1 led to WW2. The Korean war is a direct continuation of WW2. Arguably the civil wars in ex-Yugoslavia, and the Taiwan issue were direct continuations of WW2, as is the current Gazan war.

 

[Jedi]

There's a plurality in the west that keeps telling Hamas they're not defeated yet, and that their violence has merit and may yet yield results. If those people changed their tune, and started telling Hamas they're done, and that further western support is conditioned on them accepting defeat and embracing peaceful submission, Hamas would be done overnight.

I do not understand* why all these people who pay lip service to the idea that Hamas is evil and should be defeated, still insist that Israel must do it the hard way, and then also condemn Israel for trying to do exactly that.

and if they really cared about Palestinians they would realize that Israel is doing them a favor removing hamas as well