A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To Jerusalem: Gaza/Israel conflict

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m obviously dense because I’m not understanding what he means:

OG
‘it aint that complicated: we should be comfortable with whatever level of death and destruction the populace experiencing that death and destruction and its freely and fairly elected governing body is.’

Nobody believes Hamas is winning elections freely and fairly. They terrorize their people with propaganda and violence.

Nobody claimed a scandal when the election was held. Everyone believed that the they won fair and square:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/...-huge-majority

International observers concluded it was a fair election. From wikipedia:

The National Democratic Institute (NDI) in partnership with The Carter Center reported "a professional and impartial performance of election officials".[33] The European Union delegation reported "there was nothing which would indicate that the final result was not the outcome chosen by the voters".[34] A CRS Report for Congress on the 2006 elections concluded: "The election was overseen by 17,268 domestic observers, complemented by 900 credentialed international monitors. ... The Bush Administration accepted the outcome of the Palestinian legislative elections and praised the PA for holding free and fair elections. ... The conduct of the election was widely considered to be free and fair."[45]

OG
‘the population of gaza continues to overwhelmingly support hamas not just as a political body but as an ideological one, cheering the murder, rape and imprisonment of civilians, including women and kids. the west doesn’t get to cry uncle on someone else’s behalf.’

This sounds great for bloodlust but doesn’t mirror reality:

https://news.stanford.edu/report/202...edium%20extent.

52% of Palestinians don’t trust Hamas

That is some pretty impressive cherry-picking on your part. How far down in your google results did you have to go to find that? The reality is that Hamas is more popular than ever after October 7 and most Palestinians support both Hamas and October 7.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...es-2023-12-14/

Even the Arab outlets report this. Stop kidding yourself.

https://allarab.news/over-70-of-pale...nt-poll-shows/

A broad majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip approve of the Hamas invasion and massacre on October 7 of last year, a recent poll published by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows.

The support for Hamas’ decision to launch its attack rose in the Gaza Strip (57-71%) and slightly dropped in the West Bank (82-71%) since the last PSR poll in December.

OG
‘anything less than a full idf occupation and administration of every inch in, above and below gaza is an endorsement of terrorism as a legitimate means of achieving political ends.’

Advocacy of full blown occupation. Nobody believes urban warfare ends well. Lindsay Graham, Tom Cotton and OG with a sprinkling of nuclear bombs, nutso.

OG
‘when the residents of gaza reject the ideology that continues to perpetrate the rape and murder of civilians and start to report or at least not sanction rockets stored in schools, war councils happening in hospitals and tunnel networks under aid depots, the war will end. until then, you don’t get to treat civilians as worse than combatants when it suits you and then appeal to civility and humanity when the idf shows up to collect.’

How does a citizenry reject Hamas? Civil war?

80% of Palestinians have severe views on economic outlook. 75% of people have food insecurity. How does that populace rise up?

For the past 20 years, Hamas has been digging tunnels, converting water pipes to rockets, launching rockets from population centers all over Gaza, and the youth of Gaza have been trained that their highest calling in life is die while killing Jews. Have you seen any appeals from Palestinians for international assistance in getting rid of Hamas? Have you seen any of these protestors on US campuses saying that Hamas should go? No, they enjoy overwhelming support.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't know that we are all agreed on the bolded. I think we agree they are justified in attempting to root out Hamas, but there has to be some line here. No one would approve of nuclear weapons being used against Hamas in Gaza, even if it killed every single Hamas fighter. I think we also agree that there is collateral damage in any war (you knowing better than most on this board), but how much collateral damages are we comfortable with? That's the real debate.

If Hamas is effective enough at embedding their infrastructure into the right places "the line" might be reached if we judge the line on civilian deaths. I think the line is whether or not Israel is justified because they are attempting to attack military infrastructure not how much collateral damage is required to get to the military infrastructure.

[fusnik]

Nobody claimed a scandal when the election was held. Everyone believed that the they won fair and square:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2006/...-huge-majority

International observers concluded it was a fair election. From wikipedia:





That is some pretty impressive cherry-picking on your part. How far down in your google results did you have to go to find that? The reality is that Hamas is more popular than ever after October 7 and most Palestinians support both Hamas and October 7.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle...es-2023-12-14/

Even the Arab outlets report this. Stop kidding yourself.

https://allarab.news/over-70-of-pale...nt-poll-shows/





For the past 20 years, Hamas has been digging tunnels, converting water pipes to rockets, launching rockets from population centers all over Gaza, and the youth of Gaza have been trained that their highest calling in life is die while killing Jews. Have you seen any appeals from Palestinians for international assistance in getting rid of Hamas? Have you seen any of these protestors on US campuses saying that Hamas should go? No, they enjoy overwhelming support.

I chose the Stanford polling because it ended the day before the attack on Oct 7, and I thought that was fascinating. If you dig into the poll, pre attack only 1 in 5 favored Hamas. In the strip Hamas support was only at 1 in 4.

The report concedes that Hamas support explodes, pun intended, after the attack, with a peak support in December, and consistent recession over the ensuing months.

Its obviously an insanely complicated problem.

Again this comes down to what level of death are we ok with to destroy an ideology?

OG, Tom Cotton and LG think we should level Gaza. What do you think the IDF should do and by extension us since we supply money and arms?

[Goatnapper'96]

I chose the Stanford polling because it ended the day before the attack on Oct 7, and I thought that was fascinating. If you dig into the poll, pre attack only 1 in 5 favored Hamas. In the strip Hamas support was only at 1 in 4.

The report concedes that Hamas support explodes, pun intended, after the attack, with a peak support in December, and consistent recession over the ensuing months.

Its obviously an insanely complicated problem.

Again this comes down to what level of death are we ok with to destroy an ideology?

OG, Tom Cotton and LG think we should level Gaza. What do you think the IDF should do and by extension us since we supply money and arms?

I don't think the ideology can be destroyed, but Israel can disrupt the capability to hurt Israel of the organizations that spring from the ideology.

I am not sure there is a solution to the real problem but in the real world Israel has to deal with the consequences of the problem. Hamas fighters killed are not likely to fight against Israel and rockets found and blown up are not likely to be launched.

[fusnik]

I don't think the ideology can be destroyed, but Israel can disrupt the capability to hurt Israel of the organizations that spring from the ideology.

I am not sure there is a solution to the real problem but in the real world Israel has to deal with the consequences of the problem. Hamas fighters killed are not likely to fight against Israel and rockets found and blown up are not likely to be launched.

Agreed.

I'll defer to you because my experience in ME fighting equates to watching, Zero Dark Thirty, American Sniper and Green Zone, but how does the IDF kill Hamas fighters and find rockets? Per those movies we are talking highly concentrated population zones littered with combatants and danger around every corner.

It seems to me the only reasonable solution is either: leveling the entire place or striking some agreement with Hamas.

[Omaha 680]

I agree with the bolded. There is very strong support for the war in Israel. Nothing like unanimity, that's not the issue most Israelis have with Netanyahu.

To your second paragraph - I think you and frank are saying the same thing. Hamas does not care about the civilians they've endangered. But they pretend they do to drum up support from dumb Americans and others. But regarding the strategy of responding to Hamas, how do you sit back while Israel pins the Palestinians up against the Egyptian border and pummels them? What kind of strategy is "we're going to let this massacre continue until it burns out, just to show them that it won't work the next time"?

To be honest, I'm much closer to o_g's thoughts than Fusnik's previously in the thread. But to have a position like o_g's doesn't mean you are indifferent to death and suffering. It is all awful and horrific. But the status quo ante is no longer acceptable. I also disagree that the bolded is what is happening or has happened. The combatant to civilian kill ratio for the IDF in this conflict is probably the "best" in the history of modern urban warfare. In spite of all the discomfort and propaganda, they have actually done a remarkable job limiting civilian casualties given the job that needed to be done. And this is even if you accept the Hamas Health ministry's numbers which are definitely inflated and they purposefully don't identify combatants.

Given how the west is buckling to propaganda and their left flank, Israel (and the citizens of the west bank honestly) would have been better off if they had just moved quickly to finish off Hamas leadership in Rafah at the end of 2023.

[Goatnapper'96]

Agreed.

I'll defer to you because my experience in ME fighting equates to watching, Zero Dark Thirty, American Sniper and Green Zone, but how does the IDF kill Hamas fighters and find rockets? Per those movies we are talking highly concentrated population zones littered with combatants and danger around every corner.

It seems to me the only reasonable solution is either: leveling the entire place or striking some agreement with Hamas.

Urban warfare is dangerous and tedious. It is also very messy. Israel assaults to take territory and then after securing the territory it cleans it up by getting into the tunnels and underground infrastructure to ferret out Hamas fighters and destroy its equipment.

My guess is there is no long term solution and that Israel will indefinitely have to assault into these areas to ferret out whatever the next organization will be. I just do not see any hope for Palestinian civilians except immigrating.

[Jeff Lebowski]

To be honest, I'm much closer to o_g's thoughts than Fusnik's previously in the thread. But to have a position like o_g's doesn't mean you are indifferent to death and suffering. It is all awful and horrific. But the status quo ante is no longer acceptable. I also disagree that the bolded is what is happening or has happened. The combatant to civilian kill ratio for the IDF in this conflict is probably the "best" in the history of modern urban warfare. In spite of all the discomfort and propaganda, they have actually done a remarkable job limiting civilian casualties given the job that needed to be done. And this is even if you accept the Hamas Health ministry's numbers which are definitely inflated and they purposefully don't identify combatants.

Yeah, the point is that given the entire context of Hamas integration in Gaza and overwhelming support from Palestinians and how the entire strategy is to embed military assets in the middle of a supportive population, the calculus changes on collateral damage and what options should be pursued. Now if someone looks at that and immediately concludes that you support the idiots like Lindsay Graham advocating for a literal nuclear option, then maybe you just aren't that interested in an honest discussion.

And of course, if you accuse Israel of genocide (I haven't seen anyone here do that), you are just a useful idiot.

[fusnik]

Yeah, the point is that given the entire context of Hamas integration in Gaza and overwhelming support from Palestinians and how the entire strategy is to embed military assets in the middle of a supportive population, the calculus changes on collateral damage and what options should be pursued. Now if someone looks at that and immediately concludes that you support the idiots like Lindsay Graham advocating for a literal nuclear option, then maybe you just aren't that interested in an honest discussion.

And of course, if you accuse Israel of genocide (I haven't seen anyone here do that), you are just a useful idiot.

I think Lindsay’s position is honest and realistic.

It’s rational in the sense that the hope would be after killing 100-200k people it would wake the senses of the other Palestinians in the hope of a volunteer surrender of arms and ideology. Those deaths would be ‘acceptable’ because there was an election in 2006 and the citizenry didn’t object when Hamas rolled into the schools to use gyms as batteries.

Another option would be the smart bombing of military instillations and clearing out of buildings with boots on the ground. This too would cost thousands of lives but would take years. The idea being that eventually the Palestinians would surrender their arms and their ideology. How do we measure this? Who knows. This doesn’t seem like a realistic.

I assume your preferred offense would be close to these?

[falafel]

I know Graham talked about the U.S. being justified dropping the bomb on Japan in WW2, but I did not take his comments to be endorsing the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (I mean, logistically alone it makes no sense for Israel - bomb Gaza and wait for the nuclear fallout to spread across Israel? GTFO). I did take his comments to endorse using whatever force is necessary for Israel to secure its people and its future. In other words, use the smallest bomb necessary to accomplish the job, but make sure it will accomplish the job. In no way is that nuclear weapons here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know Graham talked about the U.S. being justified dropping the bomb on Japan in WW2, but I did not take his comments to be endorsing the use of nuclear weapons in Gaza (I mean, logistically alone it makes no sense for Israel - bomb Gaza and wait for the nuclear fallout to spread across Israel? GTFO). I did take his comments to endorse using whatever force is necessary for Israel to secure its people and its future. In other words, use the smallest bomb necessary to accomplish the job, but make sure it will accomplish the job. In no way is that nuclear weapons here.

Thanks. I saw some sound bites and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Maybe they are just frustrated that Joe is given Israel another billion in weapons after he said he wouldn't do it...

Embedded Tweet

Can't blame Grandpa Joe for doing this... he needs the defense weapons industry to step up the funding for his election campaign given he is so far behind Trump in the polls.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can't blame Grandpa Joe for doing this... he needs the defense weapons industry to step up the funding for his election campaign given he is so far behind Trump in the polls.

He probably just forgot that he decided to stop aid a few days ago.

[Joe Public]

If Hamas is effective enough at embedding their infrastructure into the right places "the line" might be reached if we judge the line on civilian deaths. I think the line is whether or not Israel is justified because they are attempting to attack military infrastructure not how much collateral damage is required to get to the military infrastructure.

Even when operations are directed against valid military objectives, collateral damage cannot be excessive in relation to the military advantage expected to be gained (i.e., distinction and proportionality are separate analyses).