Israel - Hamas war VIII

[Darzin]

34 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Overall war? Of course. Individual instances such as the firebombing of Dresden though...

In general I think if you can't stomach the rules of engagement in WWII you shouldn't be having a war in the first place.  All these horrific wars of choice America has engaged in since has poisoned that discourse. 

[Craving Peaches]

48 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I was listening to a pod earlier and Ben Rhodes made a very good point about the orders for civilians (as in non-militants) to go south and the fact that the terrorists blend in w/ the civilian population. Can anyone guess what that point was? 

I am drinking the tea of cynicism when I say this, but could it possibly be that Southern Gaza will be attacked next to remove the terrorists there, and civilians will be told to move to the Sinai Peninsula, thereby achieving the proposals in the leaked plan, and leaving Gaza to be annexed after the Palestinians have been cleared out?

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I remember the first time I encountered them as a kid with no knowledge they existed. What a trip.

 

It is so bizarre. It requires ignoring all the archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence. It is near impossible to convince holders of these beliefs otherwise, since they claim all the proof against them is fake.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Darzin]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

@Fragile Bird -- Where did you get the idea Jerusalem isn't segregated?

"What I found was a deeply segregated city. There is one set of rules that applies to Jews and another that applies to Palestinians."

A Jewish film maker even did a film about it.

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2019/11/14/shooting-jerusalem-a-glimpse-into-life-in-a-segregated-city

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Israel Quietly Pushed for Egypt to Admit Large Numbers of Gazans
The Israeli government has not publicly called for large numbers of Gazans to move to Egypt. But in private, diplomats say, it has pushed for just that — augmenting Palestinian fears of a permanent expulsion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/05/world/middleeast/israel-egypt-gaza.html

 

Jews meaning Israeli citizens of which 1/5 are Arab. 

[Bael's Bastard]

44 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I am drinking the tea of cynicism when I say this, but could it possibly be that Southern Gaza will be attacked next to remove the terrorists there, and civilians will be told to move to the Sinai Peninsula, thereby achieving the proposals in the leaked plan, and leaving Gaza to be annexed after the Palestinians have been cleared out?

Israelis do not want Gaza. There is no support for annexing Gaza.

The WB is more complicated. Israel's position in most 2SS negotiations was that it would annex the "consensus blocs" near Jerusalem (where about 70% of Jews in the WB live) and make proportionate swaps from inside Israel, while abandoning the settlements and outposts deeper in the WB.

A not small minority wants to annex the deeper settlements and outposts, but there isn't popular support. In the 2014 negotiations under Kerry, even Netanyahu supported Jews in these settlements remaining in a Palestinian state.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[Darzin]

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Israelis do not want Gaza. There is no support for annexing Gaza.

I wrote A whole post on this earlier but this idea that Israel wants Gaza is unhinged and not at all related to reality.  

[Kalbear]

35 minutes ago, Darzin said:

I wrote A whole post on this earlier but this idea that Israel wants Gaza is unhinged and not at all related to reality.  

It doesn't mean they won't take it. It also doesn't mean they'll allow it to be run by Palestinians  it's clear that Israel doesn't want to settle Gaza - and certainly won't any time soon unless they force all the people out.

It isn't clear what they will do instead. 

It seems pretty clear that a majority of Israelis were fine with the status quo of Gaza being a nonstate that was locally run by terrorists and internationally blockaded and policed by Israel. That isn't Israel possessing or invading Gaza, but it's hardly not Israel controlling it. And Gaza becomes a whole lot easier to control if it has 1 /5 the population, where those others have fled to Sinai or west Bank or Jordan.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It is so bizarre. It requires ignoring all the archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence. It is near impossible to convince holders of these beliefs otherwise, since they claim all the proof against them is fake.

It's basically your standard conspiracy theory. I'm sure there are a couple things they can point to as evidence, but it goes against a mountain of info that disproves it. 

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It doesn't mean they won't take it. It also doesn't mean they'll allow it to be run by Palestinians  it's clear that Israel doesn't want to settle Gaza - and certainly won't any time soon unless they force all the people out.

It isn't clear what they will do instead. 

I agree they don't want it, but what is a solution? I don't think a three state scenario with an independent Gaza will succeed, even if Hamas is kicked out. If a ceasefire happened right now it would still take ages to rebuild with many uninhabitable areas for the time being. They also lack the resources to rebuild sans a major international package. And then there's always the risk of another conflict bring Gaza back to square one. 

[Kalbear]

Also, referencing any of the previous two state solutions now is meaningless. Israel isn't going to do that any time soon, even the idiotic Trump plan. It would be shocking if the PA would be involved in what happens to Gaza at all at this point. Statehood for Palestine will likely not be a consideration for 20 years.

[Craving Peaches]

A grandmother and her three grandchildren have been killed in Lebanon after their car was attacked. The Lebanese government is going to complain to the UN. Lebanon and Hezbollah and claim it was an Israeli drone strike, Israel initially claimed it was a Hezbollah anti-tank missile, although Israel is now saying it had engaged a 'suspicious vehicle' that was 'transporting terrorists', and is 'investigating' the reports of civilians in the vehicle, so make of that what you will.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Yeah I didn't want to get into it here but the idea that Dems pander to evangelicals is pretty wild. You might be able to find one or two local examples, but come on.  They pander to all kinds of other nuttiness but that' s a pretty ridiculous claim, @Varysblackfyre321.    

 

6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

It's absurd to suggest democrats try to appeal to evangelicals. Many people on this issue don't seem to understand or like to ignore that support for Israel by US Jews (who are overwhelmingly Democratic, Zionist, care about Jews in the US and Israel, and support a Palestinian state) and "support" for Israel by Evangelicals (who are overwhelmingly Republican, End Timesey, don't actually give a shit about Jews in the US or Israel, and oppose a Palestinian state) are for entirely different reasons. But antizionists like to conflate these polar opposite positions.

I should address these quotes.

First; fair enough. Appeal isn’t the appropriate word—I feel it’s more dems (in part) have tried not to enrage them with this particular topic fearing tremendous backlash overestimating the strength of Israel’s popularity within the country and how representative their views actually are to even more moderate Christians.

 

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

You want them to move to Australia, are you one of those people?

No, I would never wish anyone to move to Australia. Kidding 

Seriously I was a bit confused on the post I was responding to like you seem to agree that the building of more settlements were settlements was bad seemed to allude to something that would make it a bit morally complex topic.

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you even read some of the nonsense he’s posted?

What do you disagree with me on? Please tell me so maybe I can better explain myself or recognize a fault in my logic.

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree they don't want it, but what is a solution? I don't think a three state scenario with an independent Gaza will succeed, even if Hamas is kicked out. If a ceasefire happened right now it would still take ages to rebuild with many uninhabitable areas for the time being. They also lack the resources to rebuild sans a major international package. And then there's always the risk of another conflict bring Gaza back to square one. 

This gets into a lot of theory and guessing, but what I don't want to do is assume a spherical Israel and Palestine. It would be great if Israel would fuck off from the West Bank, trust the PA enough to administer Gaza, and give a lot of aid; it would be great if the PA would agree to take Gaza as it is and concede that Israel has a right to monitor the new Palestinian state for a long while and make sure Palestine was demilitarized. But none of those things are going to happen. Nor is Gaza going to be recognized or steered towards being a country by anyone; there are no Palestinians around who would agree to it, least of all the PA who would (rightly) see it as a way for Israel to annex the entire West Bank, and no one else is going to agree to take it over. Israel is not going to get more liberal towards Palestinian statehood any time soon, possibly never. Hamas is not going to change in any useful way. The PA probably isn't going to change, and it's not clear what would be the use if they even did. 

So instead I'm going to get into outcomes that make some sense and then try and make the best of them.

1. Israel wins quickly in Gaza at great civilian cost. So let's say in the next 3 months Israel meets all of its military goals and effectively kicks Hamas out of Gaza. If they did so in this timeframe it is likely that the civilian casualty rate would be huge - at least at the rate we're seeing so far, and possibly worse. That means that both allies and regional countries are going to have a very hard time cooperating with Israel and will likely not do so - including the US. The US would ultimately agree to administering Gaza and would then suffer a fair amount of insurgency deaths. That would likely doom Biden's re-election and bring a much harsher Republican government into power, which would then crack down even more on Gazans. End result is a Gaza that is devastated, a non-state for a long time, and with a permanent military presence that lasts for years. Israel would likely remain on something of a wartime footing for a while in this situation. In the worse version of this, this would spiral into a regional war. 
2. Israel wins in Gaza because Hamas is weak. Hamas either does not have the ability to fight back as bad as folks thought or the run of the mill troops decide that they like not living and dying in tunnels and negotiate a surrender if the main people will be jailed but not executed. Israel, under heavy pressure from the world and especially the US, agree to this term. Gazans are in much better shape, regional powers help administer the area (likely Saudi Arabia-Qatar-US joint mission, with possible help from Egypt and Jordan). Insurgency is still present but not common. Regional powers can start the process of getting local Gazans into positions of power and getting a government. Israel at this point may consider a Gazan state depending on those locals and the deals, and this might have a chance of getting through - very much depends on the Israeli attitude and who is in office in the US. Gaza would also have the best chance of getting aid and support this way, and rebuilding better. The PA is largely cut out of any deals and the West Bank settlement continues unabated. This is probably the 'best' outcome.
3. Israel wins in Gaza after a longer struggle. If the war takes 6 months or more the civilian death toll per day may not be as high as it is at the start, but it will double or triple what the numbers are now. Israel is more cautious and less egregious in targeting, which means Israel will lose more people and Israel will be able to get more general support from people. This assumes the general bombing campaign is going to basically stop aside from very specific targets, and most of the damage will be done via ground assault. Humanitarian aid will have a much better chance to get through. Gaza will likely be significantly more damaged than #2. Israel will have a better chance of getting some regional support. It will also likely fade from outrage in the US and elsewhere as the number of deaths is more acceptable and there are fewer flashy incidents. The end result would likely be something like a UN-backed administration scheme with Israeli oversight, absolutely no statehood and a permanent, long-term refugee camp that probably gets to be another terrorist attack in 10 years time, as the UN would not be effective in granting statehood and Israel won't push the issue. 
4. Israel 'wins', but only because it stops. If the war lasts more than 12 months it means Hamas is significantly harder to weed out. Israel would respond first by ground invasion and then bombing again if that continues to not work well enough. Iran probably in this situation is able to resupply and arm Hamas well enough that Hamas can get some wins of its own here and there. Israel would crack down further in this case - meaning no humanitarian aid, more targeting 'safe' places, and escalation into the West Bank. Eventually Israel stops and declares that they have done enough and Hamas is not a threat to Israel at this time, and it becomes a significantly worse version of mowing the grass. No one bothers to change the government of Gaza. Gaza is the most devastated and unlike in other scenarios gets nothing but refugee aid - no rebuilding, no trying to make Gaza better economically. Refugees resettle in Egypt and Jordan and become a major drain on those countries and agitate for revenge, and try and go elsewhere in the world with little success. End result would be a Gazan area that is significantly depopulated, neighbors in the region destabilized, a huge long-standing humanitarian crisis that Israel has no interest in helping, the West bank being the worst off, and very likely major terrorist actions happening both in the Israeli area and elsewhere. 

None of these are very good for Palestinians, and worse none of them really rely on anything Palestinians can actually do. But I don't see that Palestinians will have or be allowed to have much of a voice here. It very much depends on what Israel chooses to do both in military supremacy and in diplomacy. And so far, they've largely been fucking both up pretty badly. I would probably bet on #3 being the most likely with #1 also possible, and Gaza becoming an actual refugee camp with no allowed traffic going from Israel to Gaza, no internet, no electricity, no water, no food. I don't think that's the right choice for a lot of reasons but I also don't see how Israel politically would do much else. 

[Kalbear]

14 hours ago, Hmmm said:

Yes, and this is a good point to elaborate on. People say that Israel cannot make Hamas disappear through military actions alone, and that is probably true. But such actions can still severely weaken them and the threat they pose to Israel. 

Hamas today is a de-facto government of a state with 2,3 million people, has its own army of maybe 50 000 militants (counting the other groups it is allied with), and has a vast tunnel network that hides weapons factories, bomb shelters, command centers, logistics depots, staging areas for assaults, and even hospitals. 

Hamas will likely continue to exist even if this Israeli invasion is successful. But then they might number a few thousand militants, and have to constantly hide from and fight against the authorities in Gaza (whatever they are) at the same time as planning their attacks against Israel. They won't have any tunnel network to protect or support them, nor any other forms of more sophisticated infrastructure or logistics systems. They would also have a lot less money.

So all in all, the threat they pose to Israel would be far smaller than today. Large invasions such as the one on October 7 would be completely impossible. They would need to go back to small terrorist attacks and maybe some tiny rocket volleys here and there, and that's about it. 

You can compare it to what happened to ISIS. That organization also still exist, but it has a fraction of the power it did eight years ago. There is a huge difference between having to hide in the shadows, and essentially commanding a small country...

Wanted to get back to this because this is a laughable response.

There's one really important thing about ISIS that so far Israel is not willing to do - that's control the territory. The crucial thing that happened with ISIS was that it was kicked out and fought, and the forces that moved in stayed there. They didn't go and fight Isis in Mosul and then just leave afterwards. This is a key problem with the bolded above, because Israel has said that they do not want to be the authorities in Gaza from the get-go.

And if they are not...who will be?

Who are these magical authorities that will police Gaza for Israel? And how will they prevent Hamas or another terrorist group from taking hold? With ISIS it was helped tremendously by the fact that the people taking over were Iraqi. They cared about the people there, they spoke the language, they took care to not blow up holy sites and important parts of the cities, and they did care about civilian lives lost. That isn't the case in Gaza. The only group that would take over that might have that kind of care is the Palestinian Authority, and they will under no circumstances be administering Gaza and being Israel's lapdog. 

Most of the regional powers do not have either the resources or the political will to do that sort of job. Egypt has refused it before, and that was before it was trash and a major source of insurgency. Jordan can't do it. Saudi Arabia is probably the closest power that has the actual power, but they have no experience with insurgencies and have their own problems with extremists and corruption. The US and its allies are the best at this sort of thing but they have no appetite for it. The UN would do a very shitty job of peacekeeping, and be unable to do basically anything else - they aren't going to be the authorities that Hamas would 'fight' and they aren't going to be going out on major patrols, nor do they have the resources to deal with things like tunnels and smuggling. 

No, this solution is just magical thinking. You could literally kill every single Hamas fighter right now and they'll replace them or even import them from the rest of the region in a year's time. That's what we saw with ISIS. What you need is some way of making that area actually governed, and the only country that could reasonably do it (albeit at a great threatened cost) is Israel, which has flat-out refused to do so. 

[House Balstroko]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Wanted to get back to this because this is a laughable response.

There's one really important thing about ISIS that so far Israel is not willing to do - that's control the territory. The crucial thing that happened with ISIS was that it was kicked out and fought, and the forces that moved in stayed there. They didn't go and fight Isis in Mosul and then just leave afterwards. This is a key problem with the bolded above, because Israel has said that they do not want to be the authorities in Gaza from the get-go.

And if they are not...who will be?

Who are these magical authorities that will police Gaza for Israel? And how will they prevent Hamas or another terrorist group from taking hold? With ISIS it was helped tremendously by the fact that the people taking over were Iraqi. They cared about the people there, they spoke the language, they took care to not blow up holy sites and important parts of the cities, and they did care about civilian lives lost. That isn't the case in Gaza. The only group that would take over that might have that kind of care is the Palestinian Authority, and they will under no circumstances be administering Gaza and being Israel's lapdog. 

Most of the regional powers do not have either the resources or the political will to do that sort of job. Egypt has refused it before, and that was before it was trash and a major source of insurgency. Jordan can't do it. Saudi Arabia is probably the closest power that has the actual power, but they have no experience with insurgencies and have their own problems with extremists and corruption. The US and its allies are the best at this sort of thing but they have no appetite for it. The UN would do a very shitty job of peacekeeping, and be unable to do basically anything else - they aren't going to be the authorities that Hamas would 'fight' and they aren't going to be going out on major patrols, nor do they have the resources to deal with things like tunnels and smuggling. 

No, this solution is just magical thinking. You could literally kill every single Hamas fighter right now and they'll replace them or even import them from the rest of the region in a year's time. That's what we saw with ISIS. What you need is some way of making that area actually governed, and the only country that could reasonably do it (albeit at a great threatened cost) is Israel, which has flat-out refused to do so. 

Why would Palestinians subject themselves to being ruled by Israel in the Gaza Strip? I agree with the idea that a stable government needs to be established in order to prevent another extremist faction from taking over, but it needs to come from within the Arab world, otherwise it will be seen as an occupation. 

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

Why would Palestinians subject themselves to being ruled by Israel in the Gaza Strip? I agree with the idea that a stable government needs to be established in order to prevent another extremist faction from taking over, but it needs to come from within the Arab world, otherwise it will be seen as an occupation. 

They wouldn't do it voluntarily but Israel isn't going to allow them to choose. The PA isn't going to govern under Israel's terms. None of the Arab world will either as it stands - it'd be political suicide for them, and possibly actual suicide.

Israel is going to require that whoever takes over is heavily bound to what Israel wants. That will mean fighting insurgents, being fairly brutal to the population, denying humanitarian aid, etc. No Arab nation is going to agree to that. 

[House Balstroko]

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They wouldn't do it voluntarily but Israel isn't going to allow them to choose. The PA isn't going to govern under Israel's terms. None of the Arab world will either as it stands - it'd be political suicide for them, and possibly actual suicide.

Israel is going to require that whoever takes over is heavily bound to what Israel wants. That will mean fighting insurgents, being fairly brutal to the population, denying humanitarian aid, etc. No Arab nation is going to agree to that. 

Then the entire conflict is at a major impasse. 

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, this solution is just magical thinking. You could literally kill every single Hamas fighter right now and they'll replace them or even import them from the rest of the region in a year's time. That's what we saw with ISIS. What you need is some way of making that area actually governed, and the only country that could reasonably do it (albeit at a great threatened cost) is Israel, which has flat-out refused to do so. 

It also seems impossible for an Israeli force to stay in Gaza and govern it for any amount of time, every soldier or official would be under constant threat of death. Any government would be considered a puppet government of Israel and would have no legitimacy. 

Ideally Israel would crush Hamas' ability to act militarily in the future and then hand the territory over to an international force to govern, whilst Israel agrees to help fund the rebuild. It does seem pretty unrealistic however and would likely not work. There have been examples of countries being rebuilt by their enemies after a war though, WW2 for example. 

I still feel like the best option is just giving Gaza back to Egypt and letting them deal with it, as unlikely as that sounds. I don't see how an independent Palestine doesn't get gobbled up by someone else in the future anyway or end up being the play thing of Iran or some other power. Independence is really just a dream, an unrealistic dream. Egypt might not want to deal with the issue but maybe they can be convinced or bribed to do it.

[Ran]

Gaza is a very small territory with two borders. No terrorists are getting in there from Israel, suffice it to say, so Egypt and the sea are the only way to smuggle people in, and Egypt really wants nothing to do with militants, so they'll be watchful while Israel and Egypt both patrolls the waters. So long as trucks are searched and people are examined, I really don't expect people are going to be imported in to fight in any substantial quantity. Domestic recruitment is of course more of an issue.

As to administration of Gaza, a number of different ideas are being floated and considered. Until we know which Israel and the US prefer, and what incentives they may use if they involve third parties, we really don't know. Personally, I'm not super-fond of an Arab-only coalition doing it, just because their standards are questionable. Not fond of the US doing it alone, because it's barely better than Israel from the eyes of the Palestinians.

A UN peacekeeping force or something like the non-UN Multination Force and Observers in the Sinai peninsula (but obviously substantially larger) would be the most ideal, but for all the support the UN shows Palestine, most of them won't shift a single warm body to actually help administer and insure security in Gaza. So a US-led coalition of some sort seems likeliest.

I saw someone or other remark that a first step should be to basically encourage people in Gaza who have regular dealings with Israelis -- businessmen who export and import through Israel, students, workers -- to step forward and attempt to become the initial seed of a native Gazan leadership that isn't beholden to Hamas or to Fatah but is not incapable of working with Israel in some fashion.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Ran

[Varysblackfyre321]

53 minutes ago, Ran said:

So a US-led coalition of some sort seems likeliest.

Goddamn that sounds depressing. We’d let Israel do more horrific stuff in the best case or join in on the worst case.

53 minutes ago, Ran said:

saw someone or other remark that a first step should be to basically encourage people in Gaza who have regular dealings with Israelis -- businessmen who export and import through Israel, students, workers -- to step forward and attempt to become the initial seed of a native Gazan leadership that isn't beholden to Hamas or to Fatah but is not incapable of working with Israel in some fashion.

Wouldn’t those people be the easiest to frame as merely loyal lap dogs for the occupiers and thus easiest to rally against?

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Daeron the Daring]

32 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Goddamn that sounds depressing. We’d let Israel do more horrific stuff in the best case or join in on the worst case.

Wouldn’t those people be the easiest to frame as merely loyal lap dogs for the occupiers and thus easiest to rally against?

Don't like 80% of West Bank palestinians see the their leadership as a mere extension of Israeli authority/interests, who haven't been fairhfully representing their interests for a long time now?

It's easy to see why, and it's hard to see how Israel could make anything different for gazans.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Don't like 80% of West Bank palestinians see the their leadership as a mere extension of Israeli authority/interests, who haven't been fairhfully representing their interests for a long time now?

It's easy to see why, and it's hard to see how Israel could make anything different for gazans.

They won’t. My guess is that they’re hoping the devastation they’d wreck on the Gazan populace would be so great that a significant counter insurgency would be impossible because of the lack of warm bodies.