Sometimes people think that there is always a choice between a good or bad alternative. But often you only get to choose the least bad. As you said , what country of means that incurred such an attack would turn the other cheek? The answer is none. And deference matters. Israel lost some of that deference. That is fatal. The US also lost much credibility going back to Obama’s red line. And if you talk to people in Israel as I have there is no way they will not retaliate and take out Hamas.
I also think Netanyahu has got to go. This was a security failure and the buck stops with him. And he is a corrupt jerk who created a right wing coalition to stay in power that emboldened the so called settler movement which has poured gasoline on the fire
Israel has no desire to occupy Gaza. The Arab nations should organize post conflict governance and I believe they would be willing to do so
And Iran’s fingerprints are on this and of course you have Qatar who gives safe harbor to Hamas leadership.
My understanding Bruce, is that preliminary intelligence reports are that last weeks massive atrocity came as a surprise to the Iranians. Given the extreme secrecy Hamas has used in the lead up to the incursion/massacres I find this credible. That said Iran has given a lot of support to Hamas for some times and in that regard has some responsibility. And agreed. This is a rough neighbourhood.
Re: Obama, personally I'm really glad we don't have a bunch of troops in Syria right now considering the "rough neighborhood." Same with getting out of Afghanistan, it's good there's no easy way for the Iranians to hit us back for backing Israel.
The point is he said something definitive. A red line if Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. He didn’t have to say it. But he did. Having said it ground troops would not have been necessary. Could All have been done from the air. If you talk to people in the Middle East they say this damaged the US reputation for deference. He then invited in the Russians. My god the Russians to help get the chemical weapons out of Syria. Which didn’t happen in total.
Agree he should have been vaguer, but he didn't have to be like Homer Simpson and after he said something dumb compound the stupidity by doing something even dumber even if he said he would: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtSWu1s_do Obama's willing to cut his losses rather than charge into quagmires was one of the better notions of his presidency IMO.
Israel has all intentions to occupy Gaza (not only for the land per se, but for the offshore exploration rights) as well as West Bank - as the map brandished by Bibi some weeks ago at UN clearly showed, plus all the declaration of the fervently religious, ethno nationalists from the present government.
And the deal was btw Israel and Qatar to support Hamas, in order to undermine a left wing, secular PLO and Fatah.
Stop saying this is anything like 9/11, because that urge to dig for similarity doesn’t make it true. If a Mexican cartel cloaked itself in a pseudo-nationalistic intent of ‘reclaiming California for Mexico’ (by murdering American civilians) and took over Tijuana from the Mexican government, then for 15 years turned it into a missile base from which to shoot rockets into all of Southern California, maybe you’d have a similar metaphor. If that culminated into death squads going into San Diego and murdering over a thousand Americans of all creeds and races, maybe you’d be close.
Does anyone here think the US wouldn’t be justified and also strategically correct in a counter invasion, despite the horrors of urban warfare, after telling residents to flee south?
To say Israel isn't allowed to bomb buildings that contain Hamas HQs and ammo is blatantly incorrect. To claim Israel isn’t allowed to go after the underground rocket launching sites and tunnels full of genocidal terrorists is also untrue. The reason clever people lecture Israel, is because they can’t fathom what it’s like to live next to such an organization dedicated to genocide. Also, ‘clever people’ always rush to make sure Israel can’t respond in any way. And lastly, Jews only are allowed to die, not retaliate. That’s the ‘progressive’ way.
I honestly do not know if the analogy to 911 is correct. But even if the analogy is incorrect...it does not mean that going into Gaza is a good idea. My sense is that if we had it to do over again we would react differently post 911. Conversely, and as you point out, Hamas has done considerably more to Israel than anything the US faced and is a much more immediate threat.
Personally, I think Israel has a right to defend itself and am reluctant to be too opinionate on a topic this complex. The region is a train wreck, and the issues go back a long time. All of that said, while strength of arms maintains Israel in the short-term, it is alliances that make Israel sustainable (at least with a standard of living consistent with a developed nation). US aid to Israel is over .5% of GDP and has remained at that level for decades. Imagine shaving .5% of GPD (that would be just withholding aid and not even impacting other trade or transfers) off a developed nations GDP for a decade or more. It would tough.
Israels alliances are built on Israel's moral superiority to groups like Hamas. Anything that damages that superiority hurts Israel in the long-term.
Again, I am not offering specific tactical advice to Israel. I am pointing out that the US had a lot more strategic autonomy post 911 than Israel does now. Israel needs its alliances (particularly with the US) in ways that the US did not. This may be the more salient way in which the 911 analogy fails. Post 911 the US had significantly more strategic autonomy than Israel has now.
It may be that Hamas is offering Israel a chance at a tactical victory but setting them up for a strategic ambush. Worse, they might get neither.
I should add that I am not saying what Israel and Hamas do is anyway morally equivalent. Morally Israel is in the right to defend itself and has consistently held itself to a higher moral standard than its enemies (although it has been in the wrong in other ways and like the US has failed to live up to its own moral code at times).
What I am saying is that perhaps Israel's greatest strength long-term is being morally superior to its opponents. Again, strength of arms gives it this luxury. I just think Hamas is trying to set up Israel to squander its greatest strength.
I agree with your statement of Isreal being morally superior to it's opponents, though in the case of Hamas after it's mass slaugter of civilians that's a very low bar. That said if you want the benefits of being morally superior you have to be morally superior and I rather fear that Israel in it's 100% understandable and legitimate rage is going to needlessly kill thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. Actions speak louder than words and already they have shown that they regard the suffering, indeed lives of Palestinian civilians to be pretty cheap.
This discussion ignores 80 years of persecution by All Israeli governments, on an individual, group and societal levels. Actions that have been and continue to be by military and legislative processes, across all Arab regions in Palestine. The patina that Israel is the good guy does not wear well, nor is there any shiny surface beneath.
Actions do speak louder but only when they are recognised.
Nope. 9/11 didn’t involve Al-Qaeda on the US border, left there to strike again within a few minutes drive. You can’t compare the two in that way. This is about removing an existential threat. Hamas doesn’t stop if left alone. Hamas didn’t stop when Palestinians were given all of Gaza. Hamas won’t stop when Palestinians are given all the West Bank too.
¨Stop saying this is anything like 9/11, because that urge to dig for similarity doesn’t make it true.¨
The military situation, and Israel´s strategic situation is totally unlike the American situation after 9/11. However, the domestic political situation in Israel is playing out almost note for note for the political situation in the US.
Specifically, the Bush administration screwed up, so they did a lot of blame-shifting, used a lot of words indicating that ´this is no time to think, we have to bomb something, anything´. That was followed by a lot of yelling about if ´you´re not with us you´re against us´, us here actually referring to the Bush administration and not the United States, and then thoroughly screwed the pooch with regards to Afghanistan right off the bat. All in about a span of 3 months.
So far, it looks like Bibi and his friends are first and foremost concerned with saving their jobs and advancing the agenda they had before this happened, so they want to emit a lot of tough talk and blame-shift.
If they bork the military situation to the same degree (or worse) than the Bush administration did this is going to be very very very ugly.
I have never voted for anyone right of center, and would never vote for Bibi. So far military leaders, head of the general security service (shabak) have claimed personal responsibility for their technical failures. Finance minister Smotrich who is farther to the Right than Bibi stated that the government has failed the citizens of Israel.
That said, and despite polling showing nearly 90% wanting Bibi gone for incompetence, there is a lot of unity. The unity government itself is massive. Pro Palestinian, Left wing peace activists where the majority of who got massacred by Palestinian death squads. The politics of any Israeli didn't matter at all. Dozens of Thai and Nepalese workers were murdered. Over twenty Israel Bedouin Arabs were murdered. That changes everybody's perspective regarding Hamas.
If there is to be any peace, at any time, it first goes through hitting Hamas far harder than before. Appeasement is what got Israel a massacre.
As a personal anecdote, I have stopped arguing politics with my Right wing brother in law. He doesn't get into it with me. Israelis on the Left have been impressed by the level of volunteerism from regular Ultra Orthodox Jews, despite all the previous acrimony. The work those religious people are doing at recovering and identifying bodies of civilians is true humanitarian work. Israel is not the US, and people fail to wrap their heads around it. If a large portion of the US was made up of people who have experienced the same types of genocide and persecution, it would get closer. Elections will happen, so far the government hasn't blame shifted a thing. Bibi himself hasn't accepted any responsibility, and is rather quiet, but he's done for politically. The issue right now is fighting Hamas, because there is no accepting of further rounds of massacres from them.
Instead of worrying about what the Israelis are going to do, wouldn't it be a better use of our experts' time to try to work through what happens afterwards? How does this war end? How is peace made? How are refugees fed & housed? How is Gaze rebuilt? I use the passive voice intentionally. I'm no expert & have no idea what should be done or who should do it.
The frustration there is there is a lot of messaging that that is ALSO something that the two sides need to work out themselves and we should quietly mind our own business in the meantime.
There's one alternative I don't see discussed much, but could end this. Hamas could surrender. Leadership in Gaza and outside (with pressure on Qatar) turn themselves in; like Japan in WW II, but before the metaphorical bomb is dropped.
Probably right, but I'm thinking about it from the point of view of how Israel frames the conflict. Hamas is a weird hybrid of a terrorist organization and a state actor. As long as Israel frames it as terrorist, Israel's actions are seen as retaliation, especially since, as Dan says, deterrence is no longer on the table. But you can also think of Hamas as a political party that won an election in Gaza and then leveraged their leadership position so that there were no more elections - making Gaza an independent state ruled by a dictatorship.
Of course both are true, but states have lost wars, and, facing overwhelming force, have sued for peace in the past. It's one thing for Israel to justify its actions by saying "They provoked this with a heinous act; they put civilians in harm's way by embedding the military in Gaza City. So those casualties are their fault." It's another thing to add "We will respond with overwhelming force unless they surrender and meet the following conditions."
I agree with nearly all of this article. It's pretty obvious that Isreal is going to continue to go in hard in Gaza and nothing will stop it. That said I do think a US response of urging Israel to take lots of meaningful steps to reduce innocent civilians suffering, and indeed that Israel not commit war crimes, would have done something to enhance its credibility with the large chunk of the world sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. Though I suspect years of backing Israel and indulgent reactions to their excesses may have made it rather too late for that.
Nothing Israel does will change the mind of antisemitic fucks around the world, such as the president of Columbia, or Putin, or the Iranians, or the Arab world. But this isn't a popularity contest, it's about handling an existential threat.
I have not yet read other comments, but to me the Levy/Hassan excerpt is self-immolating when the third "context" point is limited to apartheid/occupation and says nothing about Hamas' implacable hostility to Israel's existence and indeed the presence of Jews in that location. It in essence limits the "context" from the Israeli side to a single short attack. That in my mind discredits whatever else they have to say.
I really like the concept of "ripeness" in these sorts of matters. For example some people like to bring up South Africa as a analogy to what's going on, but in a lot that doesn't really hold up. The big thing that brought both sides to the table in the early 90's in that situation was the collapse of the USSR which meant no more funding for the ANC from the Soviets and the Apartheid Regime could no longer it was a sort of necessary evil as a bulwark against communism. This things were very "ripe" for De Clerk and Mandela to cut a deal.
Likewise in Northern Ireland the situation was pretty "ripe" in the 90's as John Major was more willing to negotiate than Thatcher had been and the IRA's leadership had come to the conclusion (perhaps earlier) they couldn't win militarily and cutting a deal was the smartest move for themselves. That didn't make Good Friday inevitable, but it made it possible.
We don't really have that on either side the the IP conflict in general (both sides seem determined to dig in and fight it out even if it takes generations rather than cut a deal), and the latest round of warfare in Gaza in particular.
I have been thinking very much the same thoughts - that I see no alternative for Israel even though the path forward seems utterly disastrous. After Israel has taken its murderous revenge in Gaza, then I think the horror at what they’ve done may set in. But, maybe not, since Americans have never taken in the horror of what our country did to the people of Iraq.
Hamas started this. It doesn’t seem like anybody can stop it until exhaustion sets in.
I like how you assume Israel is more murderous than Hamas. That’s a fascinating ‘progressive’ assumption. So far Hamas has executed one of the biggest single day atrocities of all time, yet you assume Israel will do worse. Then Islamic Jihad hit a hospital with a heavy rocket equivalent to a GLRS is destructive power, murdering (according to Hamas) between 200-500 civilians. So those are two Palestinian atrocities, but you still claim Israel will do worse? On what basis, other than being fed a steady stream of pro Palestinians lies for years?
Not sure what you base your opinion on re occupation? Do you have information or just an opinion? I have just an opinion which is they don’t. It has never worked out for them in the past and I fact rarely works for anyone.
They have vast offshore gas fiends already so do t think this is a gas play
I agree with you re Netanyahu. I think he is a bad guy who promulgated a bad strategy with the settler movement on the West Bank trying to make a two state solution impossible I also agree he wanted to undermine the PLO in Gaza. Could then say We have no one to negotiate with as we don’t know who speaks for the Palestinians. Incredibly cynical and reaped poison fruit. Neither Hamas a creature of the Muslim brotherhood nor PLO have done well by the actual Palestinians. Arafat died with billions in Swiss banks and Abbas is playing catch up. Totally corrupt
Not really about the short term Gaza operation, but the broader ‘gotta wait for both sides to be ready’ aspect of this has been frustrating, to use a nice word. The various ‘final status’ plans since Oslo all kinds look the same and are all short of either side’s perceived BATNA. But we can just exert straight up pressure for a deal because that would be interfering. Instead, every time something flares up the local police here (Los Angeles) and everywhere else in the west go on alert. I recognize just because it is someone’s problem doesn’t mean it’s someone’s business but just so frustrating. Or just pick one of the maps and after the Gaza operation have the Ford and Eisenhower stick around to encourage folks to stick to it.
The vast majority of the concerned are not in Israel, so let me present some more context. Currently, the powers of Gaza are still shooting rockets indiscriminately at civilian populations. Schools aren't functioning properly because of this. Rockets are lethal in Israel just as much in any part of the world. Hamas and co are not done with their evil.
So in addition to those killed, there are many, many displaced from rockets and the massacre that occurred on Simchas Torah. I don't see any of the concerned coming to help. Israel has evacuated communities from the north to rocket fire and potential fighting on that front. No one seems to be coming to our aid.
There is not enough unequivocal condemnation and isolation of Hamas. Israel is still being blamed for the attacks. People are trying to claim the Palestinians are a victim of Hamas, as well. But somehow they only get condemned now, with no one working to build any form of democracy in Gaza. People express concern for Palestinians only when Israel "retaliates."
Without diminishing Israel's right to self defense and justifiable horror at the attack on their country and people, isn't this exactly what Hamas would have wanted to happen in reaction? And shouldn't that give some pause to the course of action?
I'm not well schooled enough in defense and security matters to know whether there are any other means that would prove a sufficient response, but I can only hope and assume such options were considered and deemed infeasible, because the alternative here seems to be a maximal response that will threaten Israel militarily on at least two fronts (Gaza and Lebanon), possibly a third (Syria), and jeopardize any long term prospects of normalization. In other words, Hamas stands on the cusp of achieving the full-on regional conflict it's so long desired, in addition to getting to fight Israelis on its own turf. Is it really the case that this is least worst option? Because it seems pretty bad.
Excellent point. The idea that Hamas was simply seizing an opportunity to lash out and had no plan beyond a few days of mayhem seems naive to me. I don’t know what the trap is - maybe it’s just about prompting the Israelis to overreact - but they have certainly games this out and knew all along exactly what’s coming.
I'm worried - there is something we're not talking about. Today's MSM articles are full of advice on how to stand for human rights and not overreact to the Hamas attack—implying that Israel has the right to defend itself, but not too strongly.
Something wrong with the idea that you can defend yourself but don't hurt anybody. Iran and its regional terror groups want to kill Jews and destroy Israel, but we advise a need to focus on human rights and a path to peace. Nobal, but is it realistic? The Biden administration is giving Iran a pass. This approach to the Mideast conflict sounds like appeasement - we're not facing an ugly reality. How should the West deal with the ugly truth that Iran doesn't want peace?
I can't say I've read huge amounts of the MSM but I think there's a lot to be said for saying Israel is allowed to defend itself 'strongly' but must act to minimize innocent casualties rather than merely say it will. I read thousands of Palestinians are homeless and presume hundreds of houses are destroyed. I find it hard to believe Israel had intelligence that there were Hamas fighters in each house and there were unlikely to be innocent civilians in them.
Sometimes people think that there is always a choice between a good or bad alternative. But often you only get to choose the least bad. As you said , what country of means that incurred such an attack would turn the other cheek? The answer is none. And deference matters. Israel lost some of that deference. That is fatal. The US also lost much credibility going back to Obama’s red line. And if you talk to people in Israel as I have there is no way they will not retaliate and take out Hamas.
I also think Netanyahu has got to go. This was a security failure and the buck stops with him. And he is a corrupt jerk who created a right wing coalition to stay in power that emboldened the so called settler movement which has poured gasoline on the fire
Israel has no desire to occupy Gaza. The Arab nations should organize post conflict governance and I believe they would be willing to do so
And Iran’s fingerprints are on this and of course you have Qatar who gives safe harbor to Hamas leadership.
A rough neighborhood
My understanding Bruce, is that preliminary intelligence reports are that last weeks massive atrocity came as a surprise to the Iranians. Given the extreme secrecy Hamas has used in the lead up to the incursion/massacres I find this credible. That said Iran has given a lot of support to Hamas for some times and in that regard has some responsibility. And agreed. This is a rough neighbourhood.
Hamas,Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood,Hezbollah,Houthi are all Iranian proxies. Maybe don’t ask don’t tell but Iran complicit
Re: Obama, personally I'm really glad we don't have a bunch of troops in Syria right now considering the "rough neighborhood." Same with getting out of Afghanistan, it's good there's no easy way for the Iranians to hit us back for backing Israel.
The point is he said something definitive. A red line if Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. He didn’t have to say it. But he did. Having said it ground troops would not have been necessary. Could All have been done from the air. If you talk to people in the Middle East they say this damaged the US reputation for deference. He then invited in the Russians. My god the Russians to help get the chemical weapons out of Syria. Which didn’t happen in total.
Agree he should have been vaguer, but he didn't have to be like Homer Simpson and after he said something dumb compound the stupidity by doing something even dumber even if he said he would: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vtSWu1s_do Obama's willing to cut his losses rather than charge into quagmires was one of the better notions of his presidency IMO.
We just disagree. The point is he wasn’t vague. In neon lights he told the world “red line”. Said by the potus not Homer
And he used chemical weapons on his own people. In gross violation of the Geneva Convention
> The US also lost much credibility going back to Obama’s red line.
Oh good grief.
Israel has all intentions to occupy Gaza (not only for the land per se, but for the offshore exploration rights) as well as West Bank - as the map brandished by Bibi some weeks ago at UN clearly showed, plus all the declaration of the fervently religious, ethno nationalists from the present government.
And the deal was btw Israel and Qatar to support Hamas, in order to undermine a left wing, secular PLO and Fatah.
Stop saying this is anything like 9/11, because that urge to dig for similarity doesn’t make it true. If a Mexican cartel cloaked itself in a pseudo-nationalistic intent of ‘reclaiming California for Mexico’ (by murdering American civilians) and took over Tijuana from the Mexican government, then for 15 years turned it into a missile base from which to shoot rockets into all of Southern California, maybe you’d have a similar metaphor. If that culminated into death squads going into San Diego and murdering over a thousand Americans of all creeds and races, maybe you’d be close.
Does anyone here think the US wouldn’t be justified and also strategically correct in a counter invasion, despite the horrors of urban warfare, after telling residents to flee south?
To say Israel isn't allowed to bomb buildings that contain Hamas HQs and ammo is blatantly incorrect. To claim Israel isn’t allowed to go after the underground rocket launching sites and tunnels full of genocidal terrorists is also untrue. The reason clever people lecture Israel, is because they can’t fathom what it’s like to live next to such an organization dedicated to genocide. Also, ‘clever people’ always rush to make sure Israel can’t respond in any way. And lastly, Jews only are allowed to die, not retaliate. That’s the ‘progressive’ way.
I honestly do not know if the analogy to 911 is correct. But even if the analogy is incorrect...it does not mean that going into Gaza is a good idea. My sense is that if we had it to do over again we would react differently post 911. Conversely, and as you point out, Hamas has done considerably more to Israel than anything the US faced and is a much more immediate threat.
Personally, I think Israel has a right to defend itself and am reluctant to be too opinionate on a topic this complex. The region is a train wreck, and the issues go back a long time. All of that said, while strength of arms maintains Israel in the short-term, it is alliances that make Israel sustainable (at least with a standard of living consistent with a developed nation). US aid to Israel is over .5% of GDP and has remained at that level for decades. Imagine shaving .5% of GPD (that would be just withholding aid and not even impacting other trade or transfers) off a developed nations GDP for a decade or more. It would tough.
Israels alliances are built on Israel's moral superiority to groups like Hamas. Anything that damages that superiority hurts Israel in the long-term.
Again, I am not offering specific tactical advice to Israel. I am pointing out that the US had a lot more strategic autonomy post 911 than Israel does now. Israel needs its alliances (particularly with the US) in ways that the US did not. This may be the more salient way in which the 911 analogy fails. Post 911 the US had significantly more strategic autonomy than Israel has now.
It may be that Hamas is offering Israel a chance at a tactical victory but setting them up for a strategic ambush. Worse, they might get neither.
I should add that I am not saying what Israel and Hamas do is anyway morally equivalent. Morally Israel is in the right to defend itself and has consistently held itself to a higher moral standard than its enemies (although it has been in the wrong in other ways and like the US has failed to live up to its own moral code at times).
What I am saying is that perhaps Israel's greatest strength long-term is being morally superior to its opponents. Again, strength of arms gives it this luxury. I just think Hamas is trying to set up Israel to squander its greatest strength.
I agree with your statement of Isreal being morally superior to it's opponents, though in the case of Hamas after it's mass slaugter of civilians that's a very low bar. That said if you want the benefits of being morally superior you have to be morally superior and I rather fear that Israel in it's 100% understandable and legitimate rage is going to needlessly kill thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. Actions speak louder than words and already they have shown that they regard the suffering, indeed lives of Palestinian civilians to be pretty cheap.
This discussion ignores 80 years of persecution by All Israeli governments, on an individual, group and societal levels. Actions that have been and continue to be by military and legislative processes, across all Arab regions in Palestine. The patina that Israel is the good guy does not wear well, nor is there any shiny surface beneath.
Actions do speak louder but only when they are recognised.
It’s really revenge that Israelis are after, not that I can blame them. They’re going into the same mindless rage which America went into after 9/11.
Hopefully, some of that rage will be directed at the bumbling Netanyahu.
Nope. 9/11 didn’t involve Al-Qaeda on the US border, left there to strike again within a few minutes drive. You can’t compare the two in that way. This is about removing an existential threat. Hamas doesn’t stop if left alone. Hamas didn’t stop when Palestinians were given all of Gaza. Hamas won’t stop when Palestinians are given all the West Bank too.
¨Stop saying this is anything like 9/11, because that urge to dig for similarity doesn’t make it true.¨
The military situation, and Israel´s strategic situation is totally unlike the American situation after 9/11. However, the domestic political situation in Israel is playing out almost note for note for the political situation in the US.
Specifically, the Bush administration screwed up, so they did a lot of blame-shifting, used a lot of words indicating that ´this is no time to think, we have to bomb something, anything´. That was followed by a lot of yelling about if ´you´re not with us you´re against us´, us here actually referring to the Bush administration and not the United States, and then thoroughly screwed the pooch with regards to Afghanistan right off the bat. All in about a span of 3 months.
So far, it looks like Bibi and his friends are first and foremost concerned with saving their jobs and advancing the agenda they had before this happened, so they want to emit a lot of tough talk and blame-shift.
If they bork the military situation to the same degree (or worse) than the Bush administration did this is going to be very very very ugly.
elm
so
I have never voted for anyone right of center, and would never vote for Bibi. So far military leaders, head of the general security service (shabak) have claimed personal responsibility for their technical failures. Finance minister Smotrich who is farther to the Right than Bibi stated that the government has failed the citizens of Israel.
That said, and despite polling showing nearly 90% wanting Bibi gone for incompetence, there is a lot of unity. The unity government itself is massive. Pro Palestinian, Left wing peace activists where the majority of who got massacred by Palestinian death squads. The politics of any Israeli didn't matter at all. Dozens of Thai and Nepalese workers were murdered. Over twenty Israel Bedouin Arabs were murdered. That changes everybody's perspective regarding Hamas.
If there is to be any peace, at any time, it first goes through hitting Hamas far harder than before. Appeasement is what got Israel a massacre.
As a personal anecdote, I have stopped arguing politics with my Right wing brother in law. He doesn't get into it with me. Israelis on the Left have been impressed by the level of volunteerism from regular Ultra Orthodox Jews, despite all the previous acrimony. The work those religious people are doing at recovering and identifying bodies of civilians is true humanitarian work. Israel is not the US, and people fail to wrap their heads around it. If a large portion of the US was made up of people who have experienced the same types of genocide and persecution, it would get closer. Elections will happen, so far the government hasn't blame shifted a thing. Bibi himself hasn't accepted any responsibility, and is rather quiet, but he's done for politically. The issue right now is fighting Hamas, because there is no accepting of further rounds of massacres from them.
Instead of worrying about what the Israelis are going to do, wouldn't it be a better use of our experts' time to try to work through what happens afterwards? How does this war end? How is peace made? How are refugees fed & housed? How is Gaze rebuilt? I use the passive voice intentionally. I'm no expert & have no idea what should be done or who should do it.
The frustration there is there is a lot of messaging that that is ALSO something that the two sides need to work out themselves and we should quietly mind our own business in the meantime.
Do you think Israel will negotiate with Hamas? I find their doing so implausible.
Hamas isn’t the counterparty for any long term deal. This was referring to Two State stuff.
Thanks for the clarification.
There's one alternative I don't see discussed much, but could end this. Hamas could surrender. Leadership in Gaza and outside (with pressure on Qatar) turn themselves in; like Japan in WW II, but before the metaphorical bomb is dropped.
I've dreamed of this possibility but feel that sadly it's a dream.
Probably right, but I'm thinking about it from the point of view of how Israel frames the conflict. Hamas is a weird hybrid of a terrorist organization and a state actor. As long as Israel frames it as terrorist, Israel's actions are seen as retaliation, especially since, as Dan says, deterrence is no longer on the table. But you can also think of Hamas as a political party that won an election in Gaza and then leveraged their leadership position so that there were no more elections - making Gaza an independent state ruled by a dictatorship.
Of course both are true, but states have lost wars, and, facing overwhelming force, have sued for peace in the past. It's one thing for Israel to justify its actions by saying "They provoked this with a heinous act; they put civilians in harm's way by embedding the military in Gaza City. So those casualties are their fault." It's another thing to add "We will respond with overwhelming force unless they surrender and meet the following conditions."
I agree with nearly all of this article. It's pretty obvious that Isreal is going to continue to go in hard in Gaza and nothing will stop it. That said I do think a US response of urging Israel to take lots of meaningful steps to reduce innocent civilians suffering, and indeed that Israel not commit war crimes, would have done something to enhance its credibility with the large chunk of the world sympathetic to Palestinian suffering. Though I suspect years of backing Israel and indulgent reactions to their excesses may have made it rather too late for that.
Nothing Israel does will change the mind of antisemitic fucks around the world, such as the president of Columbia, or Putin, or the Iranians, or the Arab world. But this isn't a popularity contest, it's about handling an existential threat.
> indulgent reactions to their excesses
Well said.
I have not yet read other comments, but to me the Levy/Hassan excerpt is self-immolating when the third "context" point is limited to apartheid/occupation and says nothing about Hamas' implacable hostility to Israel's existence and indeed the presence of Jews in that location. It in essence limits the "context" from the Israeli side to a single short attack. That in my mind discredits whatever else they have to say.
I really like the concept of "ripeness" in these sorts of matters. For example some people like to bring up South Africa as a analogy to what's going on, but in a lot that doesn't really hold up. The big thing that brought both sides to the table in the early 90's in that situation was the collapse of the USSR which meant no more funding for the ANC from the Soviets and the Apartheid Regime could no longer it was a sort of necessary evil as a bulwark against communism. This things were very "ripe" for De Clerk and Mandela to cut a deal.
Likewise in Northern Ireland the situation was pretty "ripe" in the 90's as John Major was more willing to negotiate than Thatcher had been and the IRA's leadership had come to the conclusion (perhaps earlier) they couldn't win militarily and cutting a deal was the smartest move for themselves. That didn't make Good Friday inevitable, but it made it possible.
We don't really have that on either side the the IP conflict in general (both sides seem determined to dig in and fight it out even if it takes generations rather than cut a deal), and the latest round of warfare in Gaza in particular.
I have been thinking very much the same thoughts - that I see no alternative for Israel even though the path forward seems utterly disastrous. After Israel has taken its murderous revenge in Gaza, then I think the horror at what they’ve done may set in. But, maybe not, since Americans have never taken in the horror of what our country did to the people of Iraq.
Hamas started this. It doesn’t seem like anybody can stop it until exhaustion sets in.
I like how you assume Israel is more murderous than Hamas. That’s a fascinating ‘progressive’ assumption. So far Hamas has executed one of the biggest single day atrocities of all time, yet you assume Israel will do worse. Then Islamic Jihad hit a hospital with a heavy rocket equivalent to a GLRS is destructive power, murdering (according to Hamas) between 200-500 civilians. So those are two Palestinian atrocities, but you still claim Israel will do worse? On what basis, other than being fed a steady stream of pro Palestinians lies for years?
Not sure what you base your opinion on re occupation? Do you have information or just an opinion? I have just an opinion which is they don’t. It has never worked out for them in the past and I fact rarely works for anyone.
They have vast offshore gas fiends already so do t think this is a gas play
I agree with you re Netanyahu. I think he is a bad guy who promulgated a bad strategy with the settler movement on the West Bank trying to make a two state solution impossible I also agree he wanted to undermine the PLO in Gaza. Could then say We have no one to negotiate with as we don’t know who speaks for the Palestinians. Incredibly cynical and reaped poison fruit. Neither Hamas a creature of the Muslim brotherhood nor PLO have done well by the actual Palestinians. Arafat died with billions in Swiss banks and Abbas is playing catch up. Totally corrupt
Typos. Fields not fiends
Israel has lost all moral standing!
Why worry about losing any more moral authority?
They propose to burn down Newark after the 1965 riots!
The US doesn't have any leverage? Haven't we financed Israel/s military?
Good morning ?
Not really about the short term Gaza operation, but the broader ‘gotta wait for both sides to be ready’ aspect of this has been frustrating, to use a nice word. The various ‘final status’ plans since Oslo all kinds look the same and are all short of either side’s perceived BATNA. But we can just exert straight up pressure for a deal because that would be interfering. Instead, every time something flares up the local police here (Los Angeles) and everywhere else in the west go on alert. I recognize just because it is someone’s problem doesn’t mean it’s someone’s business but just so frustrating. Or just pick one of the maps and after the Gaza operation have the Ford and Eisenhower stick around to encourage folks to stick to it.
The vast majority of the concerned are not in Israel, so let me present some more context. Currently, the powers of Gaza are still shooting rockets indiscriminately at civilian populations. Schools aren't functioning properly because of this. Rockets are lethal in Israel just as much in any part of the world. Hamas and co are not done with their evil.
So in addition to those killed, there are many, many displaced from rockets and the massacre that occurred on Simchas Torah. I don't see any of the concerned coming to help. Israel has evacuated communities from the north to rocket fire and potential fighting on that front. No one seems to be coming to our aid.
There is not enough unequivocal condemnation and isolation of Hamas. Israel is still being blamed for the attacks. People are trying to claim the Palestinians are a victim of Hamas, as well. But somehow they only get condemned now, with no one working to build any form of democracy in Gaza. People express concern for Palestinians only when Israel "retaliates."
As the last few days have unfolded I keep thinking back to this NYT op ed from last weekend Israel Could Be Walking Into a Trap in Gaza https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/opinion/international-world/gaza-israel-palestinians-invasion.html?smid=nytcore-android-share), that Israel could be walking into a trap in Hamas.
Without diminishing Israel's right to self defense and justifiable horror at the attack on their country and people, isn't this exactly what Hamas would have wanted to happen in reaction? And shouldn't that give some pause to the course of action?
I'm not well schooled enough in defense and security matters to know whether there are any other means that would prove a sufficient response, but I can only hope and assume such options were considered and deemed infeasible, because the alternative here seems to be a maximal response that will threaten Israel militarily on at least two fronts (Gaza and Lebanon), possibly a third (Syria), and jeopardize any long term prospects of normalization. In other words, Hamas stands on the cusp of achieving the full-on regional conflict it's so long desired, in addition to getting to fight Israelis on its own turf. Is it really the case that this is least worst option? Because it seems pretty bad.
Excellent point. The idea that Hamas was simply seizing an opportunity to lash out and had no plan beyond a few days of mayhem seems naive to me. I don’t know what the trap is - maybe it’s just about prompting the Israelis to overreact - but they have certainly games this out and knew all along exactly what’s coming.
I'm worried - there is something we're not talking about. Today's MSM articles are full of advice on how to stand for human rights and not overreact to the Hamas attack—implying that Israel has the right to defend itself, but not too strongly.
Something wrong with the idea that you can defend yourself but don't hurt anybody. Iran and its regional terror groups want to kill Jews and destroy Israel, but we advise a need to focus on human rights and a path to peace. Nobal, but is it realistic? The Biden administration is giving Iran a pass. This approach to the Mideast conflict sounds like appeasement - we're not facing an ugly reality. How should the West deal with the ugly truth that Iran doesn't want peace?
I can't say I've read huge amounts of the MSM but I think there's a lot to be said for saying Israel is allowed to defend itself 'strongly' but must act to minimize innocent casualties rather than merely say it will. I read thousands of Palestinians are homeless and presume hundreds of houses are destroyed. I find it hard to believe Israel had intelligence that there were Hamas fighters in each house and there were unlikely to be innocent civilians in them.