Jace, Extat

Go with the loafers.

5 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

But American policy to the war had a lot of questionable choices.

What does this mean? Speak!

8 hours ago, Ran said:

jeremiad

 

...

Long live the King.

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Saudi Arabia is by far the world's first oil exporter, with massive reserves.
It could be a far better "irreplaceable" ally than Israel (or France).
At least get your realpolitik right ffs.

Strong disagree on the Saudis, but I'll open the kimono here: I mentioned France just for you 

34 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

I agree with them being an important ally, though I’m not sure they are entirely irreplaceable. You could make the case for Jordan fitting into that role. 
 

While I’m a firm supporter of Israel, it doesn’t mean they should be given carte  blanche to pound Gaza to dust or endlessly expand the settlements in the West Bank. 

No, no, no... Jordan is not Israel. Israel is more than an ally-able piece of geography. Israel has acting power. You don't trade away a relationship with a world actor. Irreplaceable. Much more useful than France or the Saudis.

33 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Still not an answer.

Are you asking, like what I'd do if I was in charge of Israel? What I'd advise?

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm not sure I'd interpret Jace's views as that, I think she just has zero care or concern for the lives of anyone that isn't American citizens or probably Israeli Jews. Not even us lapdog allies of the US actually matter as anything more than pawns on the chess board.

Oh come now darling, don't speak so sweetly about me; I'm like to swoon. 

22 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

What are American interests in this case?

Israel is an ally. An irreplaceable ally.

36 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Well what would you do

Well, I'm an American. I would pursue American interests. 

3 hours ago, karaddin said:

Jace since you're going mask off "open war will set us free" let's hear your honest opinion about how to avoid future insurgency in Gaza. Do you think the Palestinians should just be pushed out as part of this operation so Israel doesn't have to face this threat again, or is that a step too far?

Gaza is and will be a ruin. The area will have to be occupied indefinitely by Israel, and all UN aid must be managed then dispensed by Israel. They will have to build and back a local government as rebuilding takes place, with say a 50 year plan to empower this government towards statehood.

I mean it's not what I would do, but I'm a monster. 

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

I had..four students miss their final yesterday.  Surprised none of them tried this.

Executions! Iron maidens! And for whoever is left, put them to the question! They'll beat the curve with just a taste of The Rack!

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So how does 'eradicate Hamas' do that? Hamas isn't in Iran. Hamas' leaders aren't in Iran. Hurting Hamas doesn't harm Iran in any meaningful way. 

And why would punishing Iran stop Hamas in the future? It certainly hasn't so far. 

One war at a time my dear. Hamas in Gaza is being dealt with now, their ability to conduct another Oct. 7th attack is being destroyed. A sword removed from the hand of Iran.

Once the southern and northern borders are secure, Gaza under military control, strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities can begin in earnest.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Go on - take that further. Extrapolate where that needs to go. 

You know where it needs to go. War with Iran. They must be punished for enabling their proxies and prevented from getting the bomb.

Kal, out of a desire to break this circle we're in I'll say that it's obvious to me that Israel isn't stopping at Gaza.

Hezbollah is next. No more Iranian proxies as neighbors is the only policy possible at this point.

'Aight...

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

There have been so many varied suggestions. You've shot them all down. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to reiterate them again. But I'll try a bit.

• You need to actually state what the goal of the war is. "eradicating Hamas' is not a goal that is either achievable or reasonable any more than a war on drugs or terror is. It is a slogan. If Israel wants to take full operational control over the Gaza strip that is at least closer, though probably unwise as a goal - but at least it is feasible. 

 

I feel like this is implicit in the goal of eradicating Hamas- Israel will resume military control of Gaza. I suppose they could declare such intention now, but doesn't refraining from stating such as policy give other states the opportunity to step up and propose administration of Gaza? The U.N. itself, perhaps?

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

• You need to choose what your timeline is, and what the costs and benefits of doing it faster or slower are. Right now there is very little operational value in going fast. There is little chance of any reasonable rearming or fortification that cannot be stopped ahead of time, there is no actual momentum to be had, there is no chance of catching leaders on the battlefield or causing extra damage because of speed, there is no surprise. There is no particular active threat to Israeli people from Hamas, at least from Gaza. Therefore, you can afford to take significant time to get it right. That might be not as viable politically but that isn't a great reason to keep up civilian bombardment. 
•  

 

Disagree, the policy expectation is clear: Remove Hamas control of Gaza as fast as possible as practically as possible.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

• You need to decide what your costs are going to be. Destroying your allies relationships is a risk. That said, Israeli's government probably is in the right in the sense that anything they do to keep the war painful to Palestinians makes it more likely that they will have a more friendly government in power in most places at very little cost to them, so it makes political sense to continue as they are. 
•  

Acceptance of cost is clear: whatever it takes.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

• Finally, you need an actual exit strategy. When are you actually done? Again, 'eradicate Hamas' is not an exit goal or at least isn't an achievable one. 

 

 

The exit strategy is obvious. Elimination of Hamas' operational capacity in Gaza.

...

I'll get to the second category at my leisure.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I’ve generally stayed out of this cuz whenever you and I argue at least one of us gets in trouble.  But seriously?  An evening?  Are you enjoying tea and pretending to be British?  Or are you ensconced in heavy contemplation?  Sorry to bother you Buddha.

Goddamn you. 

Just gimme a minute and I'll russel up something for ya. 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

There have been so many varied suggestions. You've shot them all down. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to reiterate them again. But I'll try a bit.

So what should Israel do?

 

An interesting post. Give me an evening to think on it.

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It would be far more useful and effective for both us and Israel to seriously look at why Hamas got to be there and an entity at all.

But that, neither you, the media, and so many others refuse to even allow to have happened.  Erasure of history.  We haz it in spades.  We don't need to go back as far as the mythological Jewish captivity in Egypt, just to, well, 1947-48.

Israel exists. 

To borrow a line from Politics Thread:

Deal with it.

Then what is Israel supposed to DO??!!??

Are they supposed to deliver ultimatums to Egypt and Qatar - deliver the Hamas leadership or war?

"Stop. Regroup." - For what? Hamas has to go, and that means fighting them out of the last building and to the last man. 

The idea that Israel is supposed to tolerate Hamas as an entity continuing to exist inside Gaza is absurd.

Kal, what the fuck are you trying to say here? 

Hamas, the organization -the structure of the thing- is IN GAZA. It will be eradicated as a functioning entity. Hamas' leadership being abroad is a continued problem, but Hamas' leadership being abroad with their organization intact is a much bigger problem and one that can be addressed by fighting Hamas where it is... in Gaza.

Well, I would say that I prefer Israel's security be achieved by removing Hamas as a controlling entity in Gaza. That's what they're doing. 

You achieve goals as they are possible: dismantling Hamas in Gaza is possible. You do that. Immediately. 

We didn't get Bin Laden in the spring of 2002.

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't say anything about Israel not fighting Hamas. I do think Israel should have significantly different goals than what they've espoused having, and if they have the goal of killing the masterminds they probably shouldn't have started with invading Gaza. 

 

They started with Gaza because that's where the threat manifests, rockets and soldiers. Hamas, the organization, is in Gaza no matter where the leadership lives. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, then. 

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Nope.

 

Don't tease, Z. What's Kal trying to say?

Because there's precedent for invading countries that are harboring terror leadership.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Unless you're proposing that Israel goes to war against Qatar and Egypt...yes? 

If that's your war aim you should probably be pretty open and honest about that. 

Just to be clear:

You think that Israel should not be fighting Hamas in Gaza because Qatar and Egypt is where their masterminds live? Am I getting that right?

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

You continue to ignore the fact the Hamas leadership is not in Gaza.

Does this somehow eliminate the need to dismantle it where it can be found? 

Yeah dawg, sorry. I ain't clicking on that creepy ass blacked-out link