Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran … War

Interesting article from the Times of Israel, published the day after the Hamas attack.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-ye...-in-our-faces/

[Sephiroth]

It's quite a conundrum regarding proportionality. How, indeed, do you 'proportion' the cruel slaughter perpetrated by Hamas with the collateral casualties of Israel's response? It isn't just a life for a life; the cruelty of Hamas has placed into Israel the determination to wipe Hamas out.

Militarily (I'm a layman), if there are hundreds of miles of tunnels under Gaza within which Hamas operates, Israel has to destroy said tunnels. Bunker-busting bombs of whatever kind are required to do that job.

'Proportionality' becomes a convenient concept on which to take sides. In which regard, jfman has profoundly disappointed me.




---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Interesting article from the Times of Israel, published the day after the Hamas attack.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-ye...-in-our-faces/

Interesting, indeed. It shows a pragmatism on Israel's part that has been rewarded with the 7-Oct barbarism conducted by Hamas.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

And there is no sense in which Israel’s response can be considered proportionate or strategic. It’s straight up vengeance with no regard for what comes next.

I guess it’s reassuring that the penny is finally dropping among people who would consider themselves good moral arbiters of these things.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's quite a conundrum regarding proportionality. How, indeed, do you 'proportion' the cruel slaughter perpetrated by Hamas with the collateral casualties of Israel's response? It isn't just a life for a life; the cruelty of Hamas has placed into Israel the determination to wipe Hamas out.

Militarily (I'm a layman), if there are hundreds of miles of tunnels under Gaza within which Hamas operates, Israel has to destroy said tunnels. Bunker-busting bombs of whatever kind are required to do that job.

'Proportionality' becomes a convenient concept on which to take sides. In which regard, jfman has profoundly disappointed me.




---------- Post added at 09:50 ---------- Previous post was at 09:48 ----------



Interesting, indeed. It shows a pragmatism on Israel's part that has been rewarded with the 7-Oct barbarism conducted by Hamas.

Pretty sure "weaken a moderate political party which has renounced violence and supports a peaceful two-state solution by strengthening a terrorist group whose stated aim is to wipe you out" isn’t really "pragmatic", and was never going to end well…

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

A point worth noting this morning when considering any information released by Hamas:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67321241

Mouzak and his crew are profoundly unserious people if they think they can continue to claim “it didn’t happen, and it wasn’t us anyway it was those armed Hamas people” even while journalists are playing back videos of the massacres of children right in their faces.

Wow, incidentally I saw Mark Regev on BBC live reporting yesterday questioning how innocent anyone in Gaza really was, Mouzak and Regev, two cheeks of the same arse

---------- Post added at 11:53 ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure "weaken a moderate political party which has renounced violence and supports a peaceful two-state solution by strengthening a terrorist group whose stated aim is to wipe you out" isn’t really "pragmatic", and was never going to end well…

Netanyahu thought I'd last forever with "an acceptable level of violence"

[1andrew1]

Looks like Israel has changed direction and won't be leaving Gaza soon. Surely that won't go down well with the bombed and starved remaining population?

Israel will maintain an indefinite grip over Gaza to ensure its own security, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, in his first explicit comments on the country’s plans for the Palestinian enclave after its war with Hamas.

The Gaza Strip should be governed by “those who don’t want to continue the way of Hamas”, Netanyahu told ABC News on Monday, without clarifying whether he was referring to the Palestinian Authority, a rival to the militant group, or an international force.

“I think Israel, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because we’ve seen what happens when we don’t have it,” he said.

Netanyahu’s comments are among the first on the role Israel intends to play in Gaza after a war he has warned could take months to defeat Hamas. They also reflect changing Israeli policy.

In October, defence minister Yoav Gallant said Israel would no longer have “responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip” once the war was over. He added that the conflict would create “a new security reality” for Israeli citizens.

https://www.ft.com/content/bdd6b3c7-...7-e6b42504d18d

[jfman]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Looks like Israel has changed direction and won't be leaving Gaza soon. Surely that won't go down well with the bombed and starved remaining population?

https://www.ft.com/content/bdd6b3c7-...7-e6b42504d18d

I doubt they ever had any plans to the contrary.

I think we should file the pretence that this is about Israeli self-defence alongside other extremist positions.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

And there is no sense in which Israel’s response can be considered proportionate or strategic. It’s straight up vengeance with no regard for what comes next.

It's not a question of "proportionality". There's no such thing in war, only winners and losers.

Israel is at war with Hamas, Netanyahu has already stated his strategic objectives. To totally eliminate Hamas and remove their ability to ever attack Israel again.

If that means systematically going through Gaza and destroying anything that they think is being used by Hamas.........then that is what they're going to do.

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

I doubt they ever had any plans to the contrary.

I think we should file the pretence that this is about Israeli self-defence alongside other extremist positions.

Eliminating your enemy, or at least eliminating their capability to attack you, is self defence.

[jfman]

The pretence that there’s any strategy here other than ethnic cleansing will wear thin over time.

Originally Posted by jfman

I guess it’s reassuring that the penny is finally dropping among people who would consider themselves good moral arbiters of these things.

I’m quite content with when my penny dropped thanks - seemingly far sooner than you think. Though let’s not pretend you stand anywhere near any vantage point from where you could judge someone else’s morals.

[jfman]

I mean yes, I try to avoid opining on morality to avoid accusations of rank hypocrisy. It saves me ranking human lives as well either on race or utility to US foreign policy objectives.

[nomadking]

Israel needs to disrupt and deter Hamas from any further attacks. Otherwise Hamas will simply attack again and again. Of course, so many people will NOT be asking for a ceasefire from Hamas.

What's so complicated about that?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

I mean yes, I try to avoid opining on morality to avoid accusations of rank hypocrisy. It saves me ranking human lives as well either on race or utility to US foreign policy objectives.

This war is a proxy for Iran vs Israel. Iran is a very bad egg in terms of human rights, political gangsterism and racial hatred.

Whatever you may think of the US and the questionable elements of their foreign policy, in middle east terms the US is dedicated to supporting viable existence of Israel

Hamas are the *******s hete and is at war with Israel. Wars bring casualties. Also if Hamas releades the illegally taken hostages, there would be a ceasefire.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Israel needs to disrupt and deter Hamas from any further attacks. Otherwise Hamas will simply attack again and again. Of course, so many people will NOT be asking for a ceasefire from Hamas.

What's so complicated about that?

The people asking for a cease-fire are asking it of both sides (otherwise it’s not a cease-fire, is it?) - you’re just making stuff up….

Israel need to have a plan for what they do after they defeat Hamas, or all that will happen is that a successor to Hamas will appear, just like Hamas were a successor to Fatah.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This war is a proxy for Iran vs Israel. Iran is a very bad egg in terms of human rights, political gangsterism and racial hatred.

Whatever you may think of the US and the questionable elements of their foreign policy, in middle east terms the US is dedicated to supporting viable existence of Israel

Hamas are the *******s hete and is at war with Israel. Wars bring casualties. Also if Hamas releades the illegally taken hostages, there would be a ceasefire.

Which is it? Crush obliterate Gaza because Hamas should be crushed (is that the strategic objective?), or just crush them until Hamas release hostages (a substantively different objective)?

Certainly nothing I've heard from the Israeli Government supports the claim that the release of the hostages is the primary objective.

Since Israel has essentially made the objective something completely unachievable it's a never ending conflict. Which, if you wanted to commit ethnic cleansing but not call it that, would be exactly the type of scenario you'd want to engineer.