Israel - Hamas War XII

[GrimTuesday]

Interesting article in Jewish News Syndicate (a right wing news service backed by the Adelson Foundation) regarding the war and America's role in it.

https://www.jns.org/biden-is-the-primary-obstacle-to-israeli-victory/

Quote

Israel’s dependence on the United States was stated bluntly by retired IDF Maj. General Yitzhak Brick in an interview earlier this week.

“All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability. … Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

Brick went on to explain that President Joe Biden’s demand that Israel permit “humanitarian aid” to enter Gaza means that he is demanding that Israel keep Hamas fully supplied with food, water and fuel.

Obviously this is the ramblings of why I suspect is a right wing hawk, but it certainly does put into question America's culpability in this. If America has the ability to, through cutting off supplies, intercede in the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and they don't do it, that is a moral failing of the highest order.

There is also the rather amusing anger at Biden as if he hasn't been mostly backing everything Israel has done (at least in public). Even the most tepid criticism or any effort to get Israel to allow even the slightest amount of humanity to Palestinians is seen as the worst betrayal.

 

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

If America has the ability to, through cutting off supplies

Brick is overstating things seriously. Israel has plenty of home-grown ammo, missilies, munitions, included SPICE, which is its own version of JDAM guidance kits. It's bullshit to say it's "all" from the US, except arguably the actual air force which is 95% made up of American aircraft -- but Israel has plenty of know-how to keep their current fleet flying, so even there it doesn't really matter.

The reason the US supplies that stuff to much of the free world is basically the economics of scale -- its contracts with arms manufacturers means it gets all that material more cheaply than anyone else could. But the US stopping sales -- which would basically never happen, by the by, because there are contracts and agreements that can't just be waved away -- wouldn't really change anything except make for a longer conflict, which is hardly in the best interests of Gazans, Israel, the region, or the US.

 

 

[Ran]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I see no reason to think they can succeed now. 

When the IDF occupied Gaza, there was far less arms proliferation. In fact, the disengagement in 2005 was followed by a boom in the "tunnel economy" as scores of tunnels were dug now that the IDF was no longer stopping them.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

When the IDF occupied Gaza, there was far less arms proliferation. In fact, the disengagement in 2005 was followed by a boom in the "tunnel economy" as scores of tunnels were dug now that the IDF was no longer stopping them.

Sorry, are you claiming that during that time Gaza was not actively resisting Israel and was peaceful? I'm pretty sure one of the big reasons that Israel left Gaza was because they kept being attacked and soldiers kept dying. 

And you're right that in the first gulf War the coalition forces launched a lot of air strikes. What you didn't note is what they were launching them against - largely military vehicles and emplacements like SAM batteries. Very few went into any cities at all. If you want to compare a war that had an army of 300k troops, hundreds of tanks and an actual air force to hamas and Gaza, well, I don't think that is quite the winning point you think it is. 

[Ran]

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, are you claiming that during that time Gaza was not actively resisting Israel and was peaceful?

Where do you see that in what I wrote? I'm talking about arms proliferation, which was questioned. Hamas and other militants were far less armed. Most of the terror attacks of the Second Intifada were suicide bombings and knifings. Hamas of 2004 was far less militarily dangerous to Israel than Hamas of October 7, 2023. 

 

47 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm pretty sure one of the big reasons that Israel left Gaza was because they kept being attacked and soldiers kept dying. 

Certainly, it was a reason. Israel still doesn't want to occupy Gaza. But if some interim government can take root and other partners are willing to help with security, it's a way forward. Do people genuinely just want Gaza to be a terrorist haven in perpetuity? Because returning to the status quo is basically what that amounts to. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

Where do you see that in what I wrote? I'm talking about arms proliferation, which was questioned. Hamas and other militants were far less armed. Most of the terror attacks of the Second Intifada were suicide bombings and knifings. Hamas of 2004 was far less militarily dangerous to Israel than Hamas of October 7, 2023. 

I don't entirely even understand this point. Are you saying that suicide bombings are not a concern? The October 7th attack is framed pretty universally as a terror attack, not a military one, and equipment was not the reason it succeeded. 

Also, during that time thousands of rocket attacks were launched from Gaza on the regular. The rate of rocket attacks was actually higher than compared to after. 

Mostly I think @mormont is largely right - the weaponry the insurgents use is so miniscule and easy to move around that it should not be a primary goal to stop. It wasn't stopped particularly well previously when Israel was there and it wasn't the main problem of October 7th either. If you think that Gaza can be completely disarmed successfully of all aks and all rockets, well, good luck with that level of insurgent control.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

Certainly, it was a reason. Israel still doesn't want to occupy Gaza. But if some interim government can take root and other partners are willing to help with security, it's a way forward. Do people genuinely just want Gaza to be a terrorist haven in perpetuity? Because returning to the status quo is basically what that amounts to. 

I'm not suggesting returning to a status quo. I'm countering your statement that occupying Gaza will make it somehow less dangerous. What it will likely do based on experience for the last 40 years of insurgencies is make it a hotspot of violence. It will likely reduce threats to Israeli citizens - at least from Gaza (it also will almost certainly increase agitation from Lebanon and the west bank), but there will be continued attacks for years.

 

[Relic]

An estimated 80% percent of Gazans have been displaced from their homes. A population the size of a city is homeless. They were told to go south, to some supposed safe zone, which the UN does not consider safe.

We are witnessing a massive crime against humanity being committed here. Absolutely boggles the mind that Israel is allowed to carry out collective punishment to this extent. I have lost any and all sympathy that I had following the Oct 7th attack. What we are seeing, this response by Israel punishing an entire population, is absolutely criminal, morally  repugnant, disgusting, and deserves to be punished. 

 

Edit - removing a sentence that was not truly reflective of how i feel. I still sympathize with the good people of Israel. But this government needs to go, and more needs to be done to get it out of power immediately. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Relic

[Craving Peaches]

21 minutes ago, Relic said:

Absolutely boggles the mind that Israel is allowed to carry out collective punishment to this extent.

It's ridiculous and I don't know why the government of my country is still backing it. It's morally wrong, legally wrong, and politically wrong.

[Ran]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Are you saying that suicide bombings are not a concern? The October 7th attack is framed pretty universally as a terror attack, not a military one, and equipment was not the reason it succeeded. 

Thousands of rockets plus over a thousand heavily armed men were able to carry out the attack. It was a terror attack, but it was also a military attack. If they had knives and slings, they couldn't have done anything like the damage that they did. You can see footage of their using RPGs against civilian vehicles. Yes, an intelligence failure is also part of it, but it's not like you can actually guarantee no intelligence failures in perpetuity -- if it can happen, it will happen.

Suicide bombings happened in Baghdad and Kandahar and Kabul after interim governments were arranged, and yet interim governments were able to exercise substantive control over these cities. Suicide attacks are a disruptive terrorist element, but you can work past them. What you can't do is try to have a government control a city where substantial portions are not under its control because of armed militants. It doesn't work.

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm countering your statement that occupying Gaza will make it somehow less dangerous.

I mean, pick any time period you'd like in the last 30 years, you will not find over 1,200 dead Israelis (nearer to 1,300 now, I guess, with the IDF soldiers KIA) without having to count many years. The Second Intifada took more than 4 years to take over 1,000 Israeli lives. 

A demilitarized Gaza with some interim government and IDF or coalition or whatever security is absolutely, and unquestionably, safer for everyone than the situation where Hamas and other heavily armed militants control Gaza.

 

[JoannaL]

another very disturbing  (and by German definition antisemitic) article by Grata Thunberg regarding the Gaza war.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/gaza-climate-justice-human-rights-greta-thunberg

content: october 7 only half a sentence and worse: Israel committing "genocide"

In Germany this is all over the news again. Friday for Future Germany which is historically a very strong section of FFF is fighing for weeks now to distant themselves from Greta, but this time it may be just too much. the whole climate movement it Germany is flailing because ot this totally unnecessary involvement in the Hamas attack and following war.

Personally I can say that at my daughthers school all FFF groups and activities stopped about 5 weeks ago. No one is doing anything for the climate any longer, which is stupid, because climate problems will not go away only because some activits are antisemites (though they would claim they aren't). But perhaps another movement, which is not FFF ,  is needed now.

 

 

[Conflicting Thought]

48 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

another very disturbing  (and by German definition antisemitic) article by Grata Thunberg regarding the Gaza war.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/gaza-climate-justice-human-rights-greta-thunberg

content: october 7 only half a sentence and worse: Israel committing "genocide"

In Germany this is all over the news again. Friday for Future Germany which is historically a very strong section of FFF is fighing for weeks now to distant themselves from Greta, but this time it may be just too much. the whole climate movement it Germany is flailing because ot this totally unnecessary involvement in the Hamas attack and following war.

Personally I can say that at my daughthers school all FFF groups and activities stopped about 5 weeks ago. No one is doing anything for the climate any longer, which is stupid, because climate problems will not go away only because some activits are antisemites (though they would claim they aren't). But perhaps another movement, which is not FFF ,  is needed now.

 

 

So where is the antisemitism? Calling what israel is doing genocide is the antisemitism?

[Craving Peaches]

10 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

So where is the antisemitism? Calling what israel is doing genocide is the antisemitism?

Is any criticism of Israel just being automatically labelled as antisemetic now? I can't see anything antisemetic in the article. I don't think I've missed something?

Edited December 5, 2023 by Craving Peaches

[Conflicting Thought]

4 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

I'm confused. Is any criticism of Israel just being automatically labelled as antisemetic now?

Like its been happening since before the war. But this is just ridiculous. Tho, the poster does have a history with claims like this one 

[Heartofice]

I’m not seeing anything I’d class as antisemitism there either, I might have missed it.

It does demonstrate a ‘grab bag’ approach to political issues from Thunberg that is probably not helpful, though I’d imagine a venn diagram of people campaigning for climate justice and who are also campaigning against Israel would have a lot of crossover! So she’s basically just preaching to crowd, if she thinks that a good idea then that’s up to her.

[Ran]

I'm not familiar with how German laws defines antisemitism, so JoannaL would have to clarify.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Must be this part:

Quote

We are now seeing a sharp increase in antisemitic and Islamophobic statements, actions and hate crimes in Sweden and the world. The leader of the largest member of Sweden’s rightwing governing bloc is speaking of demolishing mosques, and the Israeli flag was burned in front of a synagogue in Malmö. This is unacceptable. We unreservedly condemn all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. Everyone speaking out on this crisis has a responsibility to distinguish between Hamas, Muslims and Palestinians; and between the state of Israel, Jewish people and Israelis.

No wait, its the exact opposite, and a pretty measured statement, all things considered.

Edited December 5, 2023 by IheartIheartTesla

[JoannaL]

33 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

So where is the antisemitism? Calling what israel is doing genocide is the antisemitism?

 I do not think you may find  in any German mainstream article in any German newspaper the genocide prejudice against Israel- which is the state of the Jews- in this moment - not even on the far left.

this does not mean that there are no articles about the Palestinian suffering or the awful politics of Netanjahu and the Israel government.

Why this problem with the genocide accusation?

to accuse someone of genocide is obviously very harsh and you would need good proof, but to accuse the state of the Jews of genocide is also in itself quite tasteless and full of enmity - and this enmity may be antisemitsm and /or  be the cause of it.

here is an interesting article in the Guardian about the Jews-and-genocide relationship, which may say it better:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/03/charging-jews-with-genocide-declare-them-guilty-precisely-what-was-done-to-them-middle-east

I think this explains quite clearly what I mean:

"There is a sadistic triumphalism in charging Jews with genocide, as though those making it feel they have their man at last. The sadism resides, specifically, in attacking Jews where their memories of pain are keenest. By making them now the torturer and not the tortured, their assailants wrest their anguish from them, not only stealing their past but trampling on it"

and

"When, for the sheer irreligious hell of it, we begin withdrawing fellow-feeling from Jews, upturning the moral universe and declaring them guilty of what was done to them, this impiety shows itself first as thinking the unthinkable, then as saying the unsayable. It is impossible not to ask – how long before we do the undoable?"

so , for me ,  using the word genocide is going too far, and I also do think that Greta knows exactly what she is doing since she is always repeating and renewing  her attacks (beginning with awful kraken picture which was obviously antisemitic)

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

(beginning with awful kraken picture which was obviously antisemitic)

Oh please, that was so minor. 

I don't think the article is anti-Semitic, but it does repeat the same pattern that's problematic. One throwaway line about what Hamas did was bad in an essay going after Israel, oftentimes downplaying what happened with an accusation of genocide while not also discussing that Hamas openly wants to commit a genocide when that's not Israel's stated goal. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Oh please, that was so minor. 

I don't think the article is anti-Semitic, but it does repeat the same pattern that's problematic. One throwaway line about what Hamas did was bad in an essay going after Israel, oftentimes downplaying what happened with an accusation of genocide while not also discussing that Hamas openly wants to commit a genocide when that's not Israel's stated goal. 

Dude, it's been almost two months and hamas has killed 3 civilians since that time. Israel has killed over 15000, damaged or destroyed 40% of all the buildings of Gaza, removed cultural heritage sites, destroyed schools and parks and hospitals and refugee camps - and most importantly is still doing so.

If you want Netanyahu gone, or if you want Israel to tone down their violence, or if you want 2 million fewer people to suffer - you need to criticize Israel right now. 

[JoannaL]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

If you want Netanyahu gone, or if you want Israel to tone down their violence, or if you want 2 million fewer people to suffer - you need to criticize Israel right now. 

Criticize Israel yes, throw the Holocaust in the face of all Jews no.