Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Schmaven]

And yeah, Israel needs to find a way to destroy those tunnels, which are totally military objects, in its war with Gaza. It is what countries do at war - destroy enemy assets.

But not too many of their assets.  Nowadays you can only destroy as much as your enemy has destroyed of your assets.  Gotta fight fair and all.

[Strongpoint]

Even under this weird paradigm of proportional response...

https://twitter.com/officejjsmart/status/1717630939545715040

Here Hamas attacks Tel-Aviv, not even trying to aim for military targets. If not for Israeli advanced defense, there would be many, many dead people.

Why Israel can't proportionally attempt to destroy buildings and kill people in Gaza if Gaza attempts to destroy buildings and kill people in Israel? It's like saying that you can't shoot back at the guy who tried to shoot you dead because he missed

[hector13]

Possibly because not all of the millions of people who live in Gaza are members of Hamas, and the Iron Dome defense system shoots down upwards of 90% of the missiles that have a trajectory toward Israeli cities, and Gaza has no equivalent defense system against Israeli weapons.

[Frumple]

It is outright wrong to compare Gaza to a prison and Hamas to a gang. There are no Israeli forces in Gaza to enforce anything since 2005. Gaza is de facto self-governed. And those armed guys are de facto guys that not only defend this territory but also conduct offensive operations aka Armed Forces. Things are what they are, not what they are called or what they are recognized as.

Israel's regularly gone into gaza to do whatever it pleases or bombed it as punishment for one thing or another for longer than hamas has had bloody handed control over the strip. You don't have to be inside something you've walled off if you control its airspace and every meaningful exit and have enough artillery pointed at it to level most of it. Israel abrogating responsibility for the territory while still maintaining de-facto control at will doesn't mean the place is self-governed. It just means Israel's been playing fuckfuck games with the definition of occupation and whether or not Gaza is actually a state or not (about as much as Transkei or Rehoboth were, if that).

What do you even mean by "no control over their borders, trade or infrastructure?" As far as I can see people can't get into Gaza without asking for permission (or going with military force), they obliviously trade (they don't make their rockets out of thin air) and they obliviously control their own infrastructure.

They've been blockaded for over a decade, their infrastructure only exists and functions to the extent israel (and egypt, to a lesser extent) allows (and israel has a history of not allowing it -- and we're actively seeing that gaza doesn't have control over power, food imports, etc.), we're literally seeing a situation where no one's letting the people of gaza escape the strip and there's sod all they can do about it, so on and so forth. Limited smuggling capability is no more a common conceptualization of "trade" than the market for cigs is in a jail. Infrastructure that's controlled by other entities literally isn't yours. Etc., etc., etc.

Hamas barely functions as an administrative entity, and they don't actually get to decide how or if most stuff inside the strip functions. It only has what control it has because no actual nation wanted to take responsibility for the mess gaza was turned into, and a pile of other actors decided they'd be a good patsy in the meantime.

If an obliviously enemy who wants your total destruction is currently too week to do so, it doesn't mean that this enemy is not a threat to your existence.

I mean, by this metric the people of iraq or iran, the middle east in general, china, probably others, would be justified in calling a good quarter or third of the US population at a minimum an existential threat, and Hamas actually has good targets of much of the Israeli population.

Hamas can want genocide all it wants, it's not bloody capable of it, never has been, and almost certainly never will be. It takes more than intent to be a threat, much less an existential one. You have to have the capability on top of willingness to exercise it, and for all its terribleness a comanche style raid counts for that a hell of a lot less than the steady encroachment and slaughter israel's been doing to the palestinian people for basically its entire post WW2 existence.

Hamas is a threat, of violence and atrocity, of terrorist attacks, and so on, but there is exactly fuckall it can do to the existential state of Israel, even if they had complete authority over the entire palestinian population of the territory that was once mandatory palestine (which they don't).

Israel, on the other hand, has a lot more than fuckall it can do to the existential state of the palestinian people in the general region, and there basically hasn't been a point in either of our lifetimes they've stopped steadily eroding it.

Bloody hell, they haven't even stopped outside Gaza for this conflict; while the IDF's been bombing gaza and getting ready to go in and die in droves in a land based mobilization, settlers have been murdering dozens on the west bank and emptying out entire villages of their palestinian population as israeli police and IDF forces basically just sit back and watch.

===

... though I guess you could go with acknowledging both Hamas and Israel are existential threats for their relevant targets (Jews, whoever's in between them and majority control of mandatory palestine at a minimum/every palestinian they can run off or kill, respectively). I wouldn't, because it drastically exaggerates what Hamas is capable of, but you could.

It just wouldn't change which of the two is the greater threat, both in capability and actual deed, and it wouldn't be even a little close.

[Schmaven]

The Hamas threat to Israel is magnified by their shared genocidal aims with Hesbolla to Israel's North, as well as Syria and Iran.  All together, those groups pose a serious existential threat.  And the fact that Hamas is honeycombed so tightly into the civilian population makes them very resistant to elimination.  By regularly firing rockets at Israel, and now these cross border barbarian raids, they take a significant amount of Israeli focus away from the other threats.  For Israel to actually go in and eliminate their rocket and terrorist activities would require a massively high cost to ground forces, further imperiling their overall national defense against other hostile neighbors, who seem to be just waiting for an opportunity to attack.

Civilian deaths are indeed tragic.  Which is another reason it is a war crime to scatter military installations among civilian sites.  That means in order to destroy weapon stockpiles and rocket launchers, civilian lives are necessarily lost.  Which is very different than directly targeting civilians, like Hamas also does (the music festival and small villiages). 

Hamas purposefully uses human shields additionally by blocking evacuation routes and telling their population to stay put. 

Why doesn't Egypt allow refugees in from Gaza?  Why doesn't Lebanon, Turkey or Syria take refugees in by sea?

[hector13]

They don’t take the forcibly displaced because there’s a genuine fear they wouldn’t be allowed back in, as well as the possibility that militants get out and launch attacks from host countries.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-arab-countries-unwilling-palestinian-refugees-gaza-104083766

[martinuzz]

Hamas, and their predecessors have been the useful idiots for all the 'fellow' muslim brother countries that 'stand by them' for decades, as long as they keep fighting Isreal. Accepting Palestinians as refugees, or helping them improve their wellbeing does not fit that picture.
Gaza would have had less trade restrictions and blockades (not just by Israel, but by most of the world) if they weren't governed (and suppressed) by what is accepted by a global majority to be a terrorist organisation.
Israel has been facing an existential threat ever since it's existence, and will be, as long as there are groups and or countries that have the removal of all jews from Israel (in other words, genocide) as part of their charters or constitution.

That being said, expansionist zionists minorities violently colonizing the West Bank should be declared terrorists and arrested by Israeli law (and stolen West Bank land returned to Palestinian authority), and a two state solution, peaceful coexistence, is what should be.

[Strongpoint]

Possibly because not all of the millions of people who live in Gaza are members of Hamas, and the Iron Dome defense system shoots down upwards of 90% of the missiles that have a trajectory toward Israeli cities, and Gaza has no equivalent defense system against Israeli weapons.

Not all millions of Germans living in the Third Reich were Nazis... But it was Third Reich that shot V rockets in Britain and it was the Third Reich that received carpet bombing. Gaza is also hostile to Israel not merely Hamas.

It is just another aspect of wars. If you fight a government of a country, you fight all of a country (unless there is an allied resistance)

And you are completely missing my point. I am saying that it is absurd to even take into account if people were killed or not. Intent is what matters when you determine what is a justified response, not a result. I see no difference in the moral evaluation of an action that tried to kill thousands and an action that managed to kill thousands

Israel's regularly gone into gaza to do whatever it pleases or bombed it as punishment for one thing or another for longer than hamas has had bloody handed control over the strip. You don't have to be inside something you've walled off if you control its airspace and every meaningful exit and have enough artillery pointed at it to level most of it. Israel abrogating responsibility for the territory while still maintaining de-facto control at will doesn't mean the place is self-governed. It just means Israel's been playing fuckfuck games with the definition of occupation and whether or not Gaza is actually a state or not (about as much as Transkei or Rehoboth were, if that).

It is absurd.

What you described is Israel being a hostile country to Gaza and using its armed forces to do hostile actions. By your definition, NATO occupied Yugoslavia in 1999, and USA periodically occupies... MANY countries. Oh and ALL of Ukraine is currently occupied by Russia because their missile regularly hit all regions

Words have meanings!

military occupation:
control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory

Israel has neither control nor possession of Gaza. They also didn't try to achieve it after 2005 when they ended the occupation.  And I am not sure they want a permanent occupation of Gaza now.


Also, the Israeli blockade is greatly exaggerated.

Oh... and Israel doesn't just strike Gaza for no reason. It always happens in retaliation to attacks coming from Gaza. Retaliation, not punishment. Plain and simple self-defense.

Hamas can want genocide all it wants, it's not bloody capable of it, never has been, and almost certainly never will be. It takes more than intent to be a threat, much less an existential one. You have to have the capability on top of willingness to exercise it, and for all its terribleness a comanche style raid counts for that a hell of a lot less than the steady encroachment and slaughter israel's been doing to the palestinian people for basically its entire post WW2 existence.

At the very least, Gaza is a valuable ally in a larger war when other nations will once again decide that Israel should not exist. So yes, it is a part of the existential threat.

But... OK... let's assume that Gaza is not an existential threat at all... it is just a threat that is, evidently, capable of killing over 0.01% of your population in a single strike. Should Israel just ignore this "small nuisance?" If not, in what way do you propose to negate this non-existent threat?

They don’t take the forcibly displaced because there’s a genuine fear they wouldn’t be allowed back in, as well as the possibility that militants get out and launch attacks from host countries.

Or within host countries. HAMAS is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization hostile to the Egyptian government.

[pr1mezer0]

I suppose all hamas fighters should go live in their army barracks, how would that work for them, considering the idf can call every Palestinian on their phones to tell them to evacuate b4 an airstrike, and know the proportion of terrorists to civilians killed when they hit their homes.
Vengeance isn't self defence, and is retaliation on the citizens (of a state Israel doesn't recognise) going to deter terrorists who 'use human shields'? For peace at least one side has to extend the olive branch of forgiveness and trust. That doesn't mean you have to neglect safety measures, just stop oppressing people.
A 2 state solution is a red herring when the authorities on both sides want all of israel-palestine. There'll never be peace until all religions are secure in all the holy land.

[Frumple]

What you described is Israel being a hostile country to Gaza and using its armed forces to do hostile actions. By your definition, NATO occupied Yugoslavia in 1999, and USA periodically occupies... MANY countries. Oh and ALL of Ukraine is currently occupied by Russia because their missile regularly hit all regions

Words have meanings!

I mean, they do, and the word you're looking for is "Bantustan" (though that's more accurately applied to the state of the west bank) or "Reservation" at its most charitable. If you think those were independent self-governed entities that weren't (or aren't, for the ones still around) militarily controlled by their possessing neighbor, I got bridges to sell you.

It takes more than just bombing to be occupying something; control over infrastructure, borders, and so on. The only reason Israel's control over that isn't explicit is because they intentionally abandoned it instead of wanting clear responsibility for the mess Gaza had been turned into. It didn't remove that responsibility, Israel just very deliberately tried to abrogate it.

If the relation between Ukraine and Russia was like the one between Gaza and Israel, the situation in Ukraine would be a hell of a lot worse than it is now.

Oh... and Israel doesn't just strike Gaza for no reason. It always happens in retaliation to attacks coming from Gaza. Retaliation, not punishment. Plain and simple self-defense.

It's consistently grossly disproportionate and aimed -- from what I recall, with explicit acknowledgement of it by leadership within Israel -- at collective punishment of the gaza population, not retaliation against any particular attack. It's why the IDF is so fond of targeting civilian infrastructure and residential buildings even when they're entirely aware the actual military impact of doing so is somewhere between minimal to non-existent and actively detrimental. It's neither plain, nor simple, and only the barest fig leaf of self-defense.

But... OK... let's assume that Gaza is not an existential threat at all... it is just a threat that is, evidently, capable of killing over 0.01% of your population in a single strike. Should Israel just ignore this "small nuisance?" If not, in what way do you propose to negate this non-existent threat?

Look to south africa, to a number of other places with similar conditions. It would not be clean because there's no clean solution left at this point, and probably hasn't been anything even approaching one since the israeli far-right murdered Rabin at the absolute latest, but integration of a bantustan or something adjacent to, but hopefully more functional and less abusive than, the US or Canada treatment of the natives, is probably the only option that doesn't lead to the eventual genocide of most or all of the relevant palestinian populations. Israel has been incredibly clear it's not going to stop fucking up the populations in the west bank and gaza, so it needs to get off its ass and take responsibility for the authority they're practicing.

Which'll be a mess, but if folks keep shitting the bed for decades eventually you're going to have a bloody mess to clean up.

... beyond that, the problem with considering the scale of population impact, is that Israel has been inflicting comparable amounts of casualties to the west bank and gaza populations on a scale that averages out to that kind of damage yearly, nevermind the deprivation and general abuse that's not directly fatal. For decades. Hamas managed a strike that did more damage to the population of Israel than has been inflicted in one go for most of its history, and that amounted to around a year, or less, of the damage Israel's been inflicting on the west bank and gaza -- and it took the IDF being remarkably stupid for it to happen. That attack being as bad as it was wasn't because of Hamas competence or capability, it was because the IDF decided fucking with people on the west bank was more important than keeping a terrorist group under wraps. It's not a "small nuisance", but there's no way in hell Hamas actually takes down Israel.

It's the difference between a terrorist group let run rampant over an open air prison and an actual nation with a fairly significant military. The two are not an equivalent threat to each other, not by a very, very long shot.

And you are completely missing my point. I am saying that it is absurd to even take into account if people were killed or not. Intent is what matters when you determine what is a justified response, not a result. I see no difference in the moral evaluation of an action that tried to kill thousands and an action that managed to kill thousands.

Then you've got a problem in regards to moral evaluation of this conflict -- because Israel has both tried and managed to kill thousands, repeatedly, so you're dealing with at best equivalent moral actors. If there's no moral difference between those things, then there's no moral difference between the fuckers that toss a grenade into a nursery and the fuckers that pulp a family with a pressure wave, especially if both groups have significant voices calling for mass slaughter and the removal, by grave or eviction, of the relevant populations.

... though, I guess in fairness, to some extent I wouldn't even disagree with that. If hell exists, the leadership of israel and much of the IDF and the settler groups will be standing in it shoulder to shoulder with hamas and their fellow travelers when their times come.

[Strongpoint]

I mean, they do, and the word you're looking for is "Bantustan" (though that's more accurately applied to the state of the west bank) or "Reservation" at its most charitable. If you think those were independent self-governed entities that weren't (or aren't, for the ones still around) militarily controlled by their possessing neighbor, I got bridges to sell you.

South African Bantustans were a facade and a lie. Their so-called governments were puppets of the Apartheid regime and were not de-facto self-governing.

BTW, it is why so-called DNR and LNR never were de-facto countries, unlike Gaza is now. Their "governments" were controlled by Russia and it was a hybrid occupation.

Unless you believe some weird conspiracy theories, HAMAS is not Israel's puppet.
If you want to call Gazxa a bantustan, then it is Iranian or Qatari bantustan but I think it is a huge exaggeration, they are merely allies. IMO, HAMAS does make independent decisions and counts as a de facto independent government of all of Gaza.

The only reason Israel's control over that isn't explicit is because they intentionally abandoned it instead of wanting clear responsibility for the mess Gaza had been turned into. It didn't remove that responsibility, Israel just very deliberately tried to abrogate it.

So... Countries now have an obligation to occupy territory they don't consider theirs...   It is interesting. Israel decided to stop the occupation and give de facto self-governance to Gaza.

I do think that Israel made a huge mistake leaving Gaza. Leaving Gaza without secularization is the same as leaving 1940s Germany without denazification. But then again, for any real secularuzation of Gaza they needed to work with secular Palestinian nationalists and there we open a huge can of worms to discuss...

[Strongpoint]

So Israel has chosen a strategy of raids, going in and out. It will be a long war of attrition then... Damn, it will be extremely deadly. I fully expect 100K+ dead Gazan civilians when the dust settles. I am really curious if those who always suggested Ukraine surrender "to stop pointless bloodshed" will suggest HAMAS do the same...


Also, looking at all those "pro-Palestinian" protests across the globe and how they only increase in intensity... What is your prediction, in which country we will see the first pogrom? My bet is Canada.

[hector13]

I think people are sufficiently aware enough that the Israeli government /=/ Jews in general.

[Duuvian]

Weird to see such a helpful to Putin narrative

[Strongpoint]

I think people are sufficiently aware enough that the Israeli government /=/ Jews in general.

[sarcasm mode on]
Yeah, it is totally how it works. People in increasingly larger and more aggressive crowds heated by more and more real Israeli actions and (Social) media exaggerations are wise enough to make this distinction, there are no actual antisemites left in the world, and there are no Islamic radicals or young and passionate supporters of other radical ideologies who go to those protests! And crowds are never, never manipulated into violence!

Weird to see such a helpful to Putin narrative

Putin's narrative in this new little war is that Israel is bad, Hamas is good