Israel and Palestine- The permanent mess

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Kal showed you that HRW "disagreed" with your horrible take.

Two people got killed by a bomb? No. 

20% of militant rockets fail and fall within Gaza. They were firing hundreds of them every day, for days on end. The Al-Ahli "bombing" that HRW claims was one of those failures. I can't speak to all of these others, but bear in mind this:

Quote

Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them

They are going on what other people -- mostly UNRWA, the Gaza Health Ministry, Al-Aqsa, and Hamas -- are telling them.

That said, if some clinic was allegedly bombed by the IDF, pretty sure that was because they were in the middle of being attacked by militants who were using it. Just the other day, the IDF traced a rocket attack as coming directly from the grounds of a hospital, and this is not the first time this has happened. These buildings become legitimate targets when the enemy actively uses them to attack the IDF and Israel. This underscores that Hamas creates these conditions. 

12 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

70% of infraestructure leveled, you and other here simply dont care about it.

The IDF estimates that the Gazan tunnel network is over twice the length of what they previously estimated. Whose fault is it that Hamas has burrowed under everything? Israel didn't make them do this, they chose that tactic, just as they choose to make the population their shield.

Again, this is quite clearly a good example of you perhaps thinking Hamas is bad (do you? I can't recall what you've said on the topic) but not actually grappling with what that means and how you deal with it. Hamas is a parasite wrapped around every piece of Gaza, and rather than surrender themselves, they hold tighter. Defeating them comes at a high cost precisely because they have made it their central strategy.

Edited January 16 by Ran

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

"Hamas is bad", and indeed the fact that Israel is doing something about it

Not doing anything about it actually.  What Israel is doing is murdering women and children in a host of ways, having destroyed an entire region where 2 2+ million live, but they aren't removing Hamas, as all the news outlets having been reported for quite a few days now.  The world knows it.  The world objects. Israel cannot understand that.

 

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

  What you seem to know doesnt matter, cuz in reality you dont care. Neither jace or chatywin. Just admit that you think all those crimes against humanity are justified in your views, it will be easier for all of us when we discuss this things.

I think that the enemy has deliberately embedded itself in an urban center in such a way that defeating them makes civilian casualties inevitable. They did this on purpose, they did this with stolen international aid money, and dared Israel to do what it takes to beat them. And its horrible. Fucking horrible. 

What it's not is a genocide or a crime against humanity. 

It's a war.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not doing anything about it actually

Strange how the IDF has announced that the intensive phase of fighting in northern Gaza is over because all Hamas battalions have been routed. 

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

but they aren't removing Hamas,

Reality is here, and it says Hamas isn't running the show in Gaza, and won't be running it when the war is done, so I don't know what sort of braindead media you are reading that has convinced you of anything otherwise.

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But yet that's cool for the Israeli government? Everyone agrees they are appalling as well.

Do they?

The last couple of pages show that while there's an agreement that Netanyahu is appalling, there's considerable disagreement over whether how he and his government have chosen to prosecute this operation against Hamas is appalling. That's where the discussion is, and that there isn't a parallel discussion about how Hamas have chosen to operate is surely not a surprise?

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

No. I'm sorry, but no. Air power and missiles and mortars and heavy guns exist to degrade the fighting capacity of the enemy. No other purpose for them exists. 

But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about whether or not to use them. Nukes also do the same thing, but I'm pretty sure you're not saying that they should be used. 

38 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Didn't the Iraqi president say that 40,000 people died in Mosul? And there were a million people driven out of the city. The problem in Gaza is that the civilians have no place to go that Hamas cannot embed themselves in.

I don't know about 40000 people dying in Mosul; that's not what reports have stated that I can find. The Kurdish intelligence said 40,000 but that appears to be high compared to other reports. Most reports said around 9-10k. That's still bad! Also note that a whole lot of those civilians were specifically executed by ISIL to coerce others; they weren't just deaths from bombings.

But it was also over 9 months. Note also that they did have humanitarian convoys and paths out of Mosul set up, they had airdropped supplies and food regularly, they dropped fewer bombs in that 9 months than Israel has in the first two weeks. And this was against an enemy that did have military equipment beyond rifles and RPGs. 

I cite Mosul because it's a great example about how a modern military can mitigate civilian losses better than what Israel is currently doing. 

38 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Yeah, of course they do. Israel has their rules of engagement and I'm sure most of their soldiers do their best to abide by them. What I am shocked by is Ripp's suggestion that Israel do more to cap their offensive abilities and, presumably, meet Hamas on some kind of equal footing. 

That's not what he suggested, at least not the equal footing. Again, his point was to value Palestinian lives, which you equated with Hamas. 

38 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

That's a "no" from me, Dawg. You have asymmetrical capabilities for a reason - to preserve combat strength and save lives. Opting against using them to fight Hamas at a similar capacity is tantamount to murdering your own soldiers for the sake of public relations. 

I don't think going from bombings to tanks is quite the downgrade you're making it out to be, but also...yes? It is absolutely part of the deal to make this better for PR, because that's kind of a big deal! It's also kind of a big deal to stop killing as many civilians. We already know that Israel is downgrading their capabilities - we've heard repeatedly that if Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza they could. That would definitely be easier than what they're doing, so again - we're just haggling over how much less they're going to use. 

Does it degrade Israel capabilities that much to allow for more humanitarian aid, or to drop fewer bombs than in Mosul? Really, dawg? 

My take is that Israel isn't doing this to preserve lives (obviously not Palestinian ones, but also not Israeli ones) or to preserve combat strength; they're doing this because it's faster, and also because they largely don't have any other plan. 

[Rippounet]

14 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

What I am shocked by is Ripp's suggestion that Israel do more to cap their offensive abilities and, presumably, meet Hamas on some kind of equal footing. 

No. I've merely been pointing out (again and again) that treating everyone as an enemy combatant is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that's how a situation deteriorates. It's not something I'm pulling out of my ass either, it's been a "classic" problem of Western militaries when they intervene abroad: if they're not suspicious of local civilians then they will lose people, but conversely if they treat all civilians as potential hostiles all the time, they will lack precious assistance and intel from locals, and at least some of their objectives will become almost impossible to achieve. There's a delicate balance to be found, which starts with having well-thought-out ROE as well as clear and regular communication with the local population (possibly including communication about the ROE). It's not about idealism, but about having some kind of long-term strategy without which the military become butchers, and thus progressively turns the entire population against them, which runs the risk of making the very rationale for the operation moot.
Fucking heck, it's not like this hasn't happened in recent history, uh? You should know, I would think.
So I know you want to present this as a case of naivete versus pragmatism, when it's really about short-term efficiency versus long-term objectives. I'm sure the Israeli choices make sense to you because they make life easier for the IDF in the short-run, but that's done at the expense of the very possibility of peaceful co-existence in the long-run. Or, in simpler terms, it fucks up the situation for the foreseeable future. So yes, further moderation was warranted, for anyone caring about the long-term. A handful of phone calls isn't enough to tell the people in Gaza that the IDF actually values their lives, this smells almost like a communication strategy for outside observers. More restraint and communication would have helped lay the groundwork for what happens once the IDF pulls out ; because that didn't happen, Israel can be said to be not just ruthless, but fucking stupid too. In simpler terms: it's trying to put out a fire by pouring tons of gasoline on it. That might work in the short-term, but it creates an explosive situation for the future. Of course, the alternatives weren't easy, but it should be clear by now what the current Israeli government's "long-term strategy" (if it can be called that) is: more of the same, that is, "a boot stamping on Palestinian faces — forever." You want to voice support for that? Fine, but have the decency of trying to understand what you're supporting here, because you're siding with an unsavory crowd that's only getting started.
 

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Ran said:

Strange how the IDF has announced that the intensive phase of fighting in northern Gaza is over because all Hamas battalions have been routed. 

Reality is here, and it says Hamas isn't running the show in Gaza, and won't be running it when the war is done, so I don't know what sort of braindead media you are reading that has convinced you of anything otherwise.

Israeli, NYT, Washington Post, Guardian, the New Yorker, etc.

 

[straits]

41 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

I think that the enemy has deliberately embedded itself in an urban center in such a way that defeating them makes civilian casualties inevitable.

They have not "embedded" themselves in an urban center. They grew up in the ghetto that it is. And all of their violence and resistance - organized or not - has adapted to the surroundings. There is no scenario where Israel will tolerate well-delineated army barracks and military areas without actually destroying them the moment they can be called a proper military institution. This outcome is entirely logical.

Not recognizing this is an embarassment to your mental faculties.

4 hours ago, Ran said:

In what universe do we pretend that 8,000 or 10,000 dead terrorists, whatever number it stands at now, are people we need to cry over?

In a one-sided bombing campaign where over 60% of the 23,000 dead are women and children, you come up with this number? This is delusional. The assumption that every male of 18 and over - teens included - is a trained member of Hamas ascribes militant characteristics to Palestinian society which would be nonsensical for nearly any other ethnic group. It is taking the shape of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the outcome will be an entire society at war, whose unifying factor is the oppressor.

[TrueMetis]

Just for everyone talking about ROE and how it's unreasonable for the IDF to moderate casualties, that's what ROE *IS* that is the entire goddamn point. They are the conditions, circumstances, and limits on which force is allowed to be used. And to sit here and act like not only is that not the case, but that the IDF using a particularly restrictive ROE is fucking insane. Canada when peacekeeping and requiring permission to shoot back is restrictive ROE, meanwhile Isreali snipers have been shooting civilians. Their favourite pastime. Like at the bare goddamn minimum could you accept "don't shoot unarmed people" even if "don't shoot armed people unless they make themselves a threat" is a step to far? And don't act like that second one is unreasonable, that second one is precisely the kind of ROE you see in situations like this where people might have firearms for personal protection. Yes it increases risks to soldiers, but for most countries it's better to accept that risk and trust your soldiers ability than risk slaughtering civilians.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

What it's not is a genocide or a crime against humanity.

not acording to people that know wtf they are talking about

[Jace, Extat]

57 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about whether or not to use them. Nukes also do the same thing, but I'm pretty sure you're not saying that they should be used. 

 

Nukes are a strategic asset. Gaza is a tactical quagmire. 

IDF isn't dropping 2,000 pound bombs just because, they're using them to take out the tunnels and bunkers underneath buildings.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

<snip>

I cite Mosul because it's a great example about how a modern military can mitigate civilian losses better than what Israel is currently doing. 

 

And that's fair. But U.S.A. and allies had years to plan that out. Israel had hours.

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

That's not what he suggested, at least not the equal footing. Again, his point was to value Palestinian lives, which you equated with Hamas. 

 

When the forwarded position is that the IDF fight in ways that help Hamas, then I disagree with it. I didn't equate all Palestinians with Hamas, I pointed out the absurdity of fighting an enemy with less conventional weapons than you have available when in an active combat zone. 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

I don't think going from bombings to tanks is quite the downgrade you're making it out to be, 

 

Tanks are no good in city fighting, besides the fact that they make such sweet sweet targets for RPGs it's too easy to break treads in those environments. Too many firing angles. And Israel needs its armor for Hezbollah.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

but also...yes? It is absolutely part of the deal to make this better for PR, because that's kind of a big deal! It's also kind of a big deal to stop killing as many civilians. We already know that Israel is downgrading their capabilities - we've heard repeatedly that if Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza they could. That would definitely be easier than what they're doing, so again - we're just haggling over how much less they're going to use. 

 

See, I see it completely different. I would never sacrifice a single citizen for political gain. Soldiers are citizens. Israel's first duty, as a state, is to do everything possible to preserve the life and wellbeing of its citizens. Including when sending them into combat. It's what marks the difference between western and non-western militaries. We care what happens to our people.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

Does it degrade Israel capabilities that much to allow for more humanitarian aid, or to drop fewer bombs than in Mosul? Really, dawg? 

 

It bolsters Hamas. They'll steal it. 

 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

My take is that Israel isn't doing this to preserve lives (obviously not Palestinian ones, but also not Israeli ones) or to preserve combat strength; they're doing this because it's faster, and also because they largely don't have any other plan. 

I've already stated my opposition to the bolded. 

As for the italicized:

I agree completely. But what did von Moltke (the elder) say about how to make war more humane? 

Spoiler

"Make it short."

 

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Nukes are a strategic asset. Gaza is a tactical quagmire. 

IDF isn't dropping 2,000 pound bombs just because, they're using them to take out the tunnels and bunkers underneath buildings.

Allegedly that's why they're doing it. And there are a whole lot of other ways to take care of tunnels, especially since they aren't going anywhere. 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

And that's fair. But U.S.A. and allies had years to plan that out. Israel had hours.

It took them 9 months to do that. 

And there was absolutely no reason that Israel had to respond within hours in the way they did in Gaza. Once the border was secure and the Hamas troops were dealt with in Israel they had plenty of time to do almost anything they wanted to. The notion that it was this urgent threat seems incredibly weird to me. 

The big difference is that the  Iraqi army saw the citizens of Mosul as their people. Israel, clearly, does not do the same with Palestinians. 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

When the forwarded position is that the IDF fight in ways that help Hamas, then I disagree with it. I didn't equate all Palestinians with Hamas, I pointed out the absurdity of fighting an enemy with less conventional weapons than you have available when in an active combat zone. 

But...Israel is already doing that. They could easily do more with conventional weapons if they so chose. So you're disagreeing with how Israel is already waging war and want them to drop more bombs more often? 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Tanks are no good in city fighting, besides the fact that they make such sweet sweet targets for RPGs it's too easy to break treads in those environments. Too many firing angles. And Israel needs its armor for Hezbollah.

Israel is routinely using tanks in Gaza right now, dozens of them. They disagree with your military assessment. They also use armored bulldozers - again, in active combat. 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

See, I see it completely different. I would never sacrifice a single citizen for political gain. Soldiers are citizens. Israel's first duty, as a state, is to do everything possible to preserve the life and wellbeing of its citizens. Including when sending them into combat. It's what marks the difference between western and non-western militaries. We care what happens to our people.

Note that making a whole lot of other people pissed off at you so they start attacking your citizens - soldiers and otherwise - does not preserve the life and wellbeing of its citizens as well as you think. This is precisely the short-term thinking that Israel is now reaping. 

But again I ask - since Israel is clearly doing things against what you think are right, are you wanting Israel to bomb even more? 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

It bolsters Hamas. They'll steal it. 

So what? I'm quite serious - let's say they steal it. They can't sell it, they can't barter with it, they can't use it to control the populace given there are no active places to control anyone right now. What does it matter if they steal it? 

 

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

But U.S.A. and allies had years to plan that out. Israel had hours.

Well, Israel could have taken whatever amount of time to plan… something? Anything? Because it doesn’t seem like they have much of a plan, both short and long term, other than razing Gaza to the ground and kill as many as necessary to get to an undetermined number of terrorists. Alternatively, the US could have gone in w/o a plan and the result would have been significantly different.

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Israel's first duty, as a state, is to do everything possible to preserve the life and wellbeing of its citizens.

Are you sure? Because from where I’m standing it looks like they’re doing fuck all for the Israeli hostages. 

12 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

They'll steal it.

Talking point similar to “there’s no hunger in Gaza b/c evil Arabs hoard all the food, it’s in their DNA”. Especially now w/ such heavy IDF presence in Gaza. The NGOs and UN reports all state that it is Israel that is slow walking the distribution of aid, doing repeated and unnecessary checks, not allowing aid to go into certain areas, etc etc etc.

13 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

I agree completely. But what did von Moltke (the elder) say about how to make war more humane? 

  Hide contents

"Make it short.

Then we have confirmation that this will carry on as a very inhumane conflict, since Bibi and his merry band of psychopaths have already made it clear and repeated it several times that this is going to go on for a long time. He also told Blinken that “this is your war too” (paraphrasing). Blinken is probably happy since wars are a “win-win” in his opinion, and Netanyahu is salivating at the prospect of a much broader war, something he’s wanted for a long time, and now more than ever - if for not her reason (like ethnic cleansing the whole region of Palestinians) than to stay in power and out of prison. 

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

No. I've merely been pointing out (again and again) that treating everyone as an enemy combatant is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that's how a situation deteriorates. It's not something I'm pulling out of my ass either, it's been a "classic" problem of Western militaries when they intervene abroad: if they're not suspicious of local civilians then they will lose people, but conversely if they treat all civilians as potential hostiles all the time, they will lack precious assistance and intel from locals, and at least some of their objectives will become almost impossible to achieve. There's a delicate balance to be found, which starts with having well-thought-out ROE as well as clear and regular communication with the local population (possibly including communication about the ROE). It's not about idealism, but about having some kind of long-term strategy without which the military become butchers, and thus progressively turns the entire population against them, which runs the risk of making the very rationale for the operation moot.

 

All pretty true as far as it goes. When "nation-building" everything you said is important to consider. 

But IDF is not in Gaza to liberate (ostensibly or otherwise) the Palestinians. 

They aren't there to conquer the Palestinians either. 

They're there to make war on Hamas. Defensive war- which is why none of what you've said applies right now. Just on a practical, tactical, level. It doesn't matter. And that's how I'm still viewing the conflict. 

There just wasn't time. Hamas made sure of that. 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Fucking heck, it's not like this hasn't happened in recent history, uh? You should know, I would think.

 

You're not wrong, the way you frame the picture. But I think you're looking at it from a place of supreme advantage, and I don't think Israel has that luxury.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So I know you want to present this as a case of naivete versus pragmatism, when it's really about short-term efficiency versus long-term objectives. I'm sure the Israeli choices make sense to you because they make life easier for the IDF in the short-run, but that's done at the expense of the very possibility of peaceful co-existence in the long-run. Or, in simpler terms, it fucks up the situation for the foreseeable future. So yes, further moderation was warranted, for anyone caring about the long-term. A handful of phone calls isn't enough to tell the people in Gaza that the IDF actually values their lives, this smells almost like a communication strategy for outside observers. More restraint and communication would have helped lay the groundwork for what happens once the IDF pulls out ; because that didn't happen, Israel can be said to be not just ruthless, but fucking stupid too. In simpler terms: it's trying to put out a fire by pouring tons of gasoline on it. That might work in the short-term, but it creates an explosive situation for the future. Of course, the alternatives weren't easy, but it should be clear by now what the current Israeli government's "long-term strategy" (if it can be called that) is: more of the same, that is, "a boot stamping on Palestinian faces — forever." You want to voice support for that? Fine, but have the decency of trying to understand what you're supporting here, because you're siding with an unsavory crowd that's only getting started.
 

The situation is fucked up in the present. Hamas got by for years and years by hiding behind human shields and international law. They have to be destroyed and nobody else was going to do it. 

I know exactly what I'm supporting. I've known what was gonna happen since Oct. 7th. I'll burn in hell before I sandbag an ally that's defending itself.

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Hamas got by for years and years by hiding behind human shields and international law

Don’t forget all the money and support they got from Netanyahu and his goons.

[Jace, Extat]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Allegedly that's why they're doing it. And there are a whole lot of other ways to take care of tunnels, especially since they aren't going anywhere. 

It took them 9 months to do that. 

And there was absolutely no reason that Israel had to respond within hours in the way they did in Gaza. Once the border was secure and the Hamas troops were dealt with in Israel they had plenty of time to do almost anything they wanted to. The notion that it was this urgent threat seems incredibly weird to me. 

 

 

Hostages. They got half of 'em back by their actions.

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Well, Israel could have taken whatever amount of time to plan… something? Anything? Because it doesn’t seem like they have much of a plan, both short and long term, other than razing Gaza to the ground and kill as many as necessary to get to an undetermined number of terrorists. Alternatively, the US could have gone in w/o a plan and the result would have been significantly different.

Are you sure? Because from where I’m standing it looks like they’re doing fuck all for the Israeli hostages. 

 

Then you need to move your feet. Israel got as many back as possible as fast as possible. 

[Clueless Northman]

2 hours ago, Jace, Extat said:

I think that the enemy has deliberately embedded itself in an urban center in such a way that defeating them makes civilian casualties inevitable. They did this on purpose, they did this with stolen international aid money, and dared Israel to do what it takes to beat them. And its horrible. Fucking horrible. 

What it's not is a genocide or a crime against humanity. 

It's a war.

Just wondering: Weren't the US "freedom fighters", or "colonial rebels", depending on who you ask, actually embedded in the colonies' urban centers, the towns and the overall civilian population? As does, basically, every resistance movement, every guerrilla, including the numerous anti-Nazi resistances across Europe? Aren't right some Ukrainian troops more or less embedded across the major cities, be it Kiev or Mariupol during the siege? Isn't this quite a given, as long as armies don't go the old way and do typical field battles between standing armies, out in the open, far from urban centres?

After all, the key reason why the Pentagon isn't immediately surrounded by DC suburbs is because it's actually surrounded by highway access roads and big bloody parking lots, not because it sits in the middle of the Mojave desert.

 

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I've merely been pointing out (again and again) that treating everyone as an enemy combatant is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that's how a situation deteriorates. It's not something I'm pulling out of my ass either, it's been a "classic" problem of Western militaries when they intervene abroad: if they're not suspicious of local civilians then they will lose people, but conversely if they treat all civilians as potential hostiles all the time, they will lack precious assistance and intel from locals, and at least some of their objectives will become almost impossible to achieve. There's a delicate balance to be found, which starts with having well-thought-out ROE as well as clear and regular communication with the local population (possibly including communication about the ROE). It's not about idealism, but about having some kind of long-term strategy without which the military become butchers, and thus progressively turns the entire population against them, which runs the risk of making the very rationale for the operation moot.
Fucking heck, it's not like this hasn't happened in recent history, uh?

That's something obvious since Algeria more than 60 years ago. But I suppose most people in US (and UK) think it was a bloody mess just because it involved the French, and everybody knows they're useless incompetent.

[Jace, Extat]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

The big difference is that the  Iraqi army saw the citizens of Mosul as their people. Israel, clearly, does not do the same with Palestinians. 

Palestinians aren't Israel's people. I mean I could as well tell you water is wet. The Iraqi and coalition came as genuine liberators. 

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

But...Israel is already doing that. They could easily do more with conventional weapons if they so chose. So you're disagreeing with how Israel is already waging war and want them to drop more bombs more often? 

 

 

Yeah, they already have determined which weapons they have to use that are appropriate to this conflict... I do not want Israel to change that for the sake of PR. If you have a weapon in the arsenal that is approved for use you use it. 

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Israel is routinely using tanks in Gaza right now, dozens of them. They disagree with your military assessment. They also use armored bulldozers - again, in active combat. 

 

 

Yes, as an infantry support vehicle in areas they've already hit with artillery and missile fire, at least as far as I've seen. I thought you were suggesting armored spearheads into the city in lieu of indirect fire methods, which is a no-go. 

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

So what? I'm quite serious - let's say they steal it. They can't sell it, they can't barter with it, they can't use it to control the populace given there are no active places to control anyone right now. What does it matter if they steal it? 

 

It increases their fighting capacity. More supplies = more will to fight.

[kissdbyfire]

18 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Then you need to move your feet. Israel got as many back as possible as fast as possible. 

They got some back but not because they liberated them. The ones they did get back, they got back through negotiations.