|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On November 21 2023 02:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2023 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 16:23 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 09:50 ChristianS wrote:
Okay, since I wrote my post this morning, it looks like we have a couple developments: a video apparently showing a hidden access tunnel into the hospital, and some security cam footage purporting to show hostages being taken to the hospital (they’re calling it a “terror tunnel” but I don’t think that actually means anything). I trust independent investigators are already at work verifying that’s what these videos actually are; for the moment I’ll take it at face value.
So it seems like Hamas had some secret ways to get into the hospital. They also brought hostages there, which certainly suggests they consider it a “base” of some kind. So far it doesn’t seem like much of a “main headquarters” for a military organization, although maybe now is a good time to think about what that would even mean. Decentralization is kind of a big thing for insurgent groups like Hamas; what are the odds they even *have* a big Bond villain secret headquarters anywhere in Gaza? In all likelihood they’ve got a dispersed network of small cells, each with a few hiding places and some weapons at their disposal.
To me the biggest question from the start of this is what “eliminating Hamas” would even look like. I mean, there’s a lot to criticize in Israel’s concept of just how cheap Palestinian lives are when they’re deciding what strikes are “worth it,” but fundamentally all that would have to be judged against an achievable overall objective that they just don’t seem to have. They can kill a lot of Palestinians; some percentage of those (I doubt it’s over 10%) are militants that would have taken up arms against Israel. They can track down some weapons and military infrastructure, and seize or destroy them. But at the end of the day there’s still going to be millions of Palestinians, some percentage of which will still be willing to take up arms against Israel, and those insurgents still won’t have trouble getting ahold of guns to do it with.
It’s not impossible to “win” a war of occupation but nothing we’re seeing from the IDF seems even remotely capable of achieving it. It’s just the usual escalation of cruelty that wars of occupation always promote, with no end in sight. I agree that decentralizing is 9999x more likely and I don’t think any Bond villain base” kinda thing even exists. It would be an easy target and would eliminate a huge reason Hamas chooses to use human shields to begin with. Decentralizing and spreading within easy sympathy targets is ideal in basically every way. We are seeing very clearly that from a strictly “military engagement” perspective, Hamas can be easily compared to some alt right militia group that managed to win an election. It’s not an army so much as a collection of shit heads all interested in genocide of Jews. They are getting completely clobbered. But useful idiots are still useful. That’s why Iran and others will continue to try to make sure they have what they need to engage in whatever shit head activities tickle their uneducated fancies. Right now I think “winning” should be framed as eliminating Hamas’s ability to control land and slither between hospitals. Now that I think about it, a blackberry bush is probably a perfect comparison. It’s a fool’s errand to try to wipe out all blackberries, but it’s totally achievable to carve out an area where you get rid of all of it and then take steps to make sure any little sprouts are noticed and plucked quickly before it turns into a big issue. That’s the ideal way to remove the threat of Hamas, IMO. The way IDF seems to be approaching it is: squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste and pull out all the Hamas roots (tunnels) they can along the way so that the total number of hospitals Hamas to slither around between is significantly reduced and the land they control is minimal or zero. We’ve seen Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran all express very clearly just how important the people of Gaza are and how it’s imperative they are relieved of their suffering. They sound like great candidates to help establish a new government to replace Hamas. Hamas being out of the picture will make it a lot harder for those nations to pretend they wish they could help but can’t. Here’s their chance. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of effort Arab nations with the means to help choose to help. I hope my cynicism is proven wrong. I get extremely nervous any time you decide you’ve come up with a great analogy, although in this case I’m not really sure what this blackberry business even is. Maybe you have to have experience picking blackberries? To some extent it sounds like you’re getting at a clear and hold strategy. Which, you know, is certainly how the British or US handled it whenever they had some insurgent territory they wanted to beat into submission. In this case, though, I’m not sure what the strategically important footholds would even be. You keep saying “slither between hospitals” like you think if the IDF just controls all the hospitals, there will be nowhere else to hide. But the whole point of a decentralized insurgency is to not be as predictable as to only hide in one type of building. They can hide in apartments or tunnels or the back room of a grocery store or w/e, there’s no reason they even need to poke their head out until the IDF has moved onto another area. Meanwhile the IDF strategy you’re describing is the exact opposite of clear and hold – it’s apparently to match an army around the map, fight whoever is there, and then keep marching. If Hamas is split up into thousands of little hidey-holes across the territory I don’t see how they have any chance of even killing Hamas militants preferentially over civilians in the slightest; compared to civilians Hamas fighters are much more likely to have the resources and training to hide and avoid Israeli troops and bombs indefinitely. Then after they’ve done that for a while, your best hope is that they can persuade some other Arab nation to occupy Gaza indefinitely? Why the hell would that be a good outcome? Insurgents aren’t blackberries, and they aren’t toothpaste. If they’ve got hundreds or thousands of hideouts like the one under that hospital, I don’t see how Israel has any chance of “eliminating Hamas” in a reasonable time frame. At which point what are they even accomplishing? Lotta dead civilians, lotta angry survivors who are almost certainly more receptive than ever to joining an insurgency, but other than that, seems like not a whole lot? I agree with all of your skepticism and most of your predictions. I think that’s why Israel’s actual plan is likely to just force as many people towards Egypt as possible so that Egypt can end up with a big enough Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 problem that they are forced to be a non-zero contributor to solving the problem. So long as Palestinians are only an Israel problem, neighboring Muslim nations are more than happy to kick their feet back and grab a bag of popcorn. I expect that would change if Egypt started getting wobbly again. Here maybe GH or Neb would call me overly optimistic, but I simply don’t believe Israel’s international backing is willing to tolerate that.
I think it depends to some extent on how brazen they are about it. If they can successfully present it as the only option that they were forced into because what else could they have done they had to defend themselves, then this can still be backed internationally. But so far this isn't going very smoothly for them, the media and public opinion is pushing back on their narrative a fuckton more than they had in the past. I wouldn't have said that at the start but now both outcomes seem reasonably possible.
|
|
|
On November 21 2023 02:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2023 02:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 21 2023 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 16:23 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 09:50 ChristianS wrote:
Okay, since I wrote my post this morning, it looks like we have a couple developments: a video apparently showing a hidden access tunnel into the hospital, and some security cam footage purporting to show hostages being taken to the hospital (they’re calling it a “terror tunnel” but I don’t think that actually means anything). I trust independent investigators are already at work verifying that’s what these videos actually are; for the moment I’ll take it at face value.
So it seems like Hamas had some secret ways to get into the hospital. They also brought hostages there, which certainly suggests they consider it a “base” of some kind. So far it doesn’t seem like much of a “main headquarters” for a military organization, although maybe now is a good time to think about what that would even mean. Decentralization is kind of a big thing for insurgent groups like Hamas; what are the odds they even *have* a big Bond villain secret headquarters anywhere in Gaza? In all likelihood they’ve got a dispersed network of small cells, each with a few hiding places and some weapons at their disposal.
To me the biggest question from the start of this is what “eliminating Hamas” would even look like. I mean, there’s a lot to criticize in Israel’s concept of just how cheap Palestinian lives are when they’re deciding what strikes are “worth it,” but fundamentally all that would have to be judged against an achievable overall objective that they just don’t seem to have. They can kill a lot of Palestinians; some percentage of those (I doubt it’s over 10%) are militants that would have taken up arms against Israel. They can track down some weapons and military infrastructure, and seize or destroy them. But at the end of the day there’s still going to be millions of Palestinians, some percentage of which will still be willing to take up arms against Israel, and those insurgents still won’t have trouble getting ahold of guns to do it with.
It’s not impossible to “win” a war of occupation but nothing we’re seeing from the IDF seems even remotely capable of achieving it. It’s just the usual escalation of cruelty that wars of occupation always promote, with no end in sight. I agree that decentralizing is 9999x more likely and I don’t think any Bond villain base” kinda thing even exists. It would be an easy target and would eliminate a huge reason Hamas chooses to use human shields to begin with. Decentralizing and spreading within easy sympathy targets is ideal in basically every way. We are seeing very clearly that from a strictly “military engagement” perspective, Hamas can be easily compared to some alt right militia group that managed to win an election. It’s not an army so much as a collection of shit heads all interested in genocide of Jews. They are getting completely clobbered. But useful idiots are still useful. That’s why Iran and others will continue to try to make sure they have what they need to engage in whatever shit head activities tickle their uneducated fancies. Right now I think “winning” should be framed as eliminating Hamas’s ability to control land and slither between hospitals. Now that I think about it, a blackberry bush is probably a perfect comparison. It’s a fool’s errand to try to wipe out all blackberries, but it’s totally achievable to carve out an area where you get rid of all of it and then take steps to make sure any little sprouts are noticed and plucked quickly before it turns into a big issue. That’s the ideal way to remove the threat of Hamas, IMO. The way IDF seems to be approaching it is: squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste and pull out all the Hamas roots (tunnels) they can along the way so that the total number of hospitals Hamas to slither around between is significantly reduced and the land they control is minimal or zero. We’ve seen Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran all express very clearly just how important the people of Gaza are and how it’s imperative they are relieved of their suffering. They sound like great candidates to help establish a new government to replace Hamas. Hamas being out of the picture will make it a lot harder for those nations to pretend they wish they could help but can’t. Here’s their chance. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of effort Arab nations with the means to help choose to help. I hope my cynicism is proven wrong. I get extremely nervous any time you decide you’ve come up with a great analogy, although in this case I’m not really sure what this blackberry business even is. Maybe you have to have experience picking blackberries? To some extent it sounds like you’re getting at a clear and hold strategy. Which, you know, is certainly how the British or US handled it whenever they had some insurgent territory they wanted to beat into submission. In this case, though, I’m not sure what the strategically important footholds would even be. You keep saying “slither between hospitals” like you think if the IDF just controls all the hospitals, there will be nowhere else to hide. But the whole point of a decentralized insurgency is to not be as predictable as to only hide in one type of building. They can hide in apartments or tunnels or the back room of a grocery store or w/e, there’s no reason they even need to poke their head out until the IDF has moved onto another area. Meanwhile the IDF strategy you’re describing is the exact opposite of clear and hold – it’s apparently to match an army around the map, fight whoever is there, and then keep marching. If Hamas is split up into thousands of little hidey-holes across the territory I don’t see how they have any chance of even killing Hamas militants preferentially over civilians in the slightest; compared to civilians Hamas fighters are much more likely to have the resources and training to hide and avoid Israeli troops and bombs indefinitely. Then after they’ve done that for a while, your best hope is that they can persuade some other Arab nation to occupy Gaza indefinitely? Why the hell would that be a good outcome? Insurgents aren’t blackberries, and they aren’t toothpaste. If they’ve got hundreds or thousands of hideouts like the one under that hospital, I don’t see how Israel has any chance of “eliminating Hamas” in a reasonable time frame. At which point what are they even accomplishing? Lotta dead civilians, lotta angry survivors who are almost certainly more receptive than ever to joining an insurgency, but other than that, seems like not a whole lot? I agree with all of your skepticism and most of your predictions. I think that’s why Israel’s actual plan is likely to just force as many people towards Egypt as possible so that Egypt can end up with a big enough Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 problem that they are forced to be a non-zero contributor to solving the problem. So long as Palestinians are only an Israel problem, neighboring Muslim nations are more than happy to kick their feet back and grab a bag of popcorn. I expect that would change if Egypt started getting wobbly again. Here maybe GH or Neb would call me overly optimistic, but I simply don’t believe Israel’s international backing is willing to tolerate that. I think it depends to some extent on how brazen they are about it. If they can successfully present it as the only option that they were forced into because what else could they have done they had to defend themselves, then this can still be backed internationally. But so far this isn't going very smoothly for them, the media and public opinion is pushing back on their narrative a fuckton more than they had in the past. I wouldn't have said that at the start but now both outcomes seem reasonably possible.
I agree with this and would add that it really only comes down to the US. If the US doesn't stop aiding and abetting Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign the rest of the West isn't going to stop them.
Last I checked support for a ceasefire was ~66% for the public in the US and <10% among their representatives (1% of the Senate). So while I agree the clear public resistance has been indispensable, it still might not be enough due to the deplorable conditions of US politics.
|
On November 21 2023 02:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2023 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 16:23 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 09:50 ChristianS wrote:
Okay, since I wrote my post this morning, it looks like we have a couple developments: a video apparently showing a hidden access tunnel into the hospital, and some security cam footage purporting to show hostages being taken to the hospital (they’re calling it a “terror tunnel” but I don’t think that actually means anything). I trust independent investigators are already at work verifying that’s what these videos actually are; for the moment I’ll take it at face value.
So it seems like Hamas had some secret ways to get into the hospital. They also brought hostages there, which certainly suggests they consider it a “base” of some kind. So far it doesn’t seem like much of a “main headquarters” for a military organization, although maybe now is a good time to think about what that would even mean. Decentralization is kind of a big thing for insurgent groups like Hamas; what are the odds they even *have* a big Bond villain secret headquarters anywhere in Gaza? In all likelihood they’ve got a dispersed network of small cells, each with a few hiding places and some weapons at their disposal.
To me the biggest question from the start of this is what “eliminating Hamas” would even look like. I mean, there’s a lot to criticize in Israel’s concept of just how cheap Palestinian lives are when they’re deciding what strikes are “worth it,” but fundamentally all that would have to be judged against an achievable overall objective that they just don’t seem to have. They can kill a lot of Palestinians; some percentage of those (I doubt it’s over 10%) are militants that would have taken up arms against Israel. They can track down some weapons and military infrastructure, and seize or destroy them. But at the end of the day there’s still going to be millions of Palestinians, some percentage of which will still be willing to take up arms against Israel, and those insurgents still won’t have trouble getting ahold of guns to do it with.
It’s not impossible to “win” a war of occupation but nothing we’re seeing from the IDF seems even remotely capable of achieving it. It’s just the usual escalation of cruelty that wars of occupation always promote, with no end in sight. I agree that decentralizing is 9999x more likely and I don’t think any Bond villain base” kinda thing even exists. It would be an easy target and would eliminate a huge reason Hamas chooses to use human shields to begin with. Decentralizing and spreading within easy sympathy targets is ideal in basically every way. We are seeing very clearly that from a strictly “military engagement” perspective, Hamas can be easily compared to some alt right militia group that managed to win an election. It’s not an army so much as a collection of shit heads all interested in genocide of Jews. They are getting completely clobbered. But useful idiots are still useful. That’s why Iran and others will continue to try to make sure they have what they need to engage in whatever shit head activities tickle their uneducated fancies. Right now I think “winning” should be framed as eliminating Hamas’s ability to control land and slither between hospitals. Now that I think about it, a blackberry bush is probably a perfect comparison. It’s a fool’s errand to try to wipe out all blackberries, but it’s totally achievable to carve out an area where you get rid of all of it and then take steps to make sure any little sprouts are noticed and plucked quickly before it turns into a big issue. That’s the ideal way to remove the threat of Hamas, IMO. The way IDF seems to be approaching it is: squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste and pull out all the Hamas roots (tunnels) they can along the way so that the total number of hospitals Hamas to slither around between is significantly reduced and the land they control is minimal or zero. We’ve seen Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran all express very clearly just how important the people of Gaza are and how it’s imperative they are relieved of their suffering. They sound like great candidates to help establish a new government to replace Hamas. Hamas being out of the picture will make it a lot harder for those nations to pretend they wish they could help but can’t. Here’s their chance. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of effort Arab nations with the means to help choose to help. I hope my cynicism is proven wrong. I get extremely nervous any time you decide you’ve come up with a great analogy, although in this case I’m not really sure what this blackberry business even is. Maybe you have to have experience picking blackberries? To some extent it sounds like you’re getting at a clear and hold strategy. Which, you know, is certainly how the British or US handled it whenever they had some insurgent territory they wanted to beat into submission. In this case, though, I’m not sure what the strategically important footholds would even be. You keep saying “slither between hospitals” like you think if the IDF just controls all the hospitals, there will be nowhere else to hide. But the whole point of a decentralized insurgency is to not be as predictable as to only hide in one type of building. They can hide in apartments or tunnels or the back room of a grocery store or w/e, there’s no reason they even need to poke their head out until the IDF has moved onto another area. Meanwhile the IDF strategy you’re describing is the exact opposite of clear and hold – it’s apparently to match an army around the map, fight whoever is there, and then keep marching. If Hamas is split up into thousands of little hidey-holes across the territory I don’t see how they have any chance of even killing Hamas militants preferentially over civilians in the slightest; compared to civilians Hamas fighters are much more likely to have the resources and training to hide and avoid Israeli troops and bombs indefinitely. Then after they’ve done that for a while, your best hope is that they can persuade some other Arab nation to occupy Gaza indefinitely? Why the hell would that be a good outcome? Insurgents aren’t blackberries, and they aren’t toothpaste. If they’ve got hundreds or thousands of hideouts like the one under that hospital, I don’t see how Israel has any chance of “eliminating Hamas” in a reasonable time frame. At which point what are they even accomplishing? Lotta dead civilians, lotta angry survivors who are almost certainly more receptive than ever to joining an insurgency, but other than that, seems like not a whole lot? I agree with all of your skepticism and most of your predictions. I think that’s why Israel’s actual plan is likely to just force as many people towards Egypt as possible so that Egypt can end up with a big enough Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 problem that they are forced to be a non-zero contributor to solving the problem. So long as Palestinians are only an Israel problem, neighboring Muslim nations are more than happy to kick their feet back and grab a bag of popcorn. I expect that would change if Egypt started getting wobbly again. It sounds to me like your analysis of Israel’s plan isn’t actually that different than GH’s. They’re just going to make life as miserable for Palestinians as they can until they die or vacate the territory. “Clear and hold” – except they’re not just clearing insurgents, they’re clearing all Palestinians, and they’re not just holding strategically important footholds, they’re holding the whole territory. In fact, the only people that *might* be able to survive a campaign like that are insurgents. Whisper communication networks, concealed tunnels, and hidden weapons stashes all sound pretty useful if you’re hoping to stay alive through an apocalypse like that.
That’s the gist of how I think they’ll handle it, but I think it’s an error to assume the world will just sit on their hands while this process slowly but surely takes place. As Israel continues to squeeze folks south, various organizations and nations are delivering this and that to stabilize things as needed.
UAE has stepped in and is flying 1000+ kids to hospitals for treatment as well. Stuff like that is what should have happened a long time ago but they had no incentive to do it so long as they could instead use Palestinians as an army of slaves against Jews. They don’t want Palestinians to die strictly speaking, but they love the idea of Palestinians dying along the way while killing Jews so long as the situation is mostly stable.
Once it became a humanitarian crisis, UAE was forced to do what it was always able to do by providing a better life for Palestinians and giving them a ticket out of what neighboring Arab nations essentially use as a coliseum for fighting Jews, Gaza. It’s a reminder that Palestinians are deeply harmed from many different angles and there are no “good guys” in this scenario other than the civilians who just want to live their lives. I deeply hope they can be given a path out of this inhumane coliseum. I want all of them to live happy and healthy lives and to not be stuck in an eternal war.
|
A few pages ago we were talking about why Florida was debating the war in Palestina. I just received the local municipality bulletin and apparently small town had a vote about putting out a statement "in favor of a peaceful resolution in Palestina and respect for international law". It passed. But it's obviously completely pointless. It's about as meaningful as me posting here. But yeah, politicians be politicians.
E: continuing to read, there was also a statement condemning the terrorist acts of October 7 and support for Israel. That statemebt was rejected.
So yeah, out of the 10 votes my municipality held on October 19, 3 were for utterly meaningless statements and 1 was for posthumously celebrating an author as an honorary citizen. It happens 
|
On November 21 2023 05:54 Acrofales wrote:
E: continuing to read, there was also a statement condemning the terrorist acts of October 7 and support for Israel. That statement was rejected.
It’s such a weird thing to witness and highlights how much people let identity influence the way they view any and all power dynamics. The wiggling and mental gymnastics people use to not condemn Hamas is hilarious. They can hate everything Israel does, wish for Israel to be forced to give up land and whatever else, and also condemn Hamas. The obsession with frantically piecing together a narrative for a “good guy” is so weird.
People need to feel like there is some beacon of hope and that someone is on the side of Palestinians? They just kind of autocomplete the situation and assume the underdogs are the good guys? A knee jerk inclination to support the enemy of their enemy? It’s likely a combination of all of those things, but god damn. Such a shame to see it.
|
Norway28561 Posts
The way I read that is that the statement includes 'support for Israel', and thus the current campaign in Gaza. Everybody in the west condemns the terrorist attack, but they can do so without supporting Israel's retaliation.
|
On November 21 2023 07:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The way I read that is that the statement includes 'support for Israel', and thus the current campaign in Gaza. Everybody in the west condemns the terrorist attack, but they can do so without supporting Israel's retaliation.
Oh boy do I wish you were right about everybody in the west condemning the attack. In a world where people don’t use political opinions as a replacement for an identity, that may be a more realistic fantasy.
|
Norway28561 Posts
I mean I don't mean literally every single person. But when the are enough people to reject a statement (I assume more than 50%), the reason why it was rejected is the 'support for Israel' part of the statement, not the 'condemn the terrorist act' part of it. This thread houses some reasonably far left (and anti-Israel) people, if an opinion can't be found here, it's certain to be very fringe.
I do know that in some muslim countries/communities you'll find some support for the attack. But there's not a single western country with more than 10% muslim population, and of the ones I know, I'm confident they'd be in the 'condemn the attack but don't support Israel's retaliation'-camp.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland23894 Posts
On November 21 2023 08:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean I don't mean literally every single person. But when the are enough people to reject a statement (I assume more than 50%), the reason why it was rejected is the 'support for Israel' part of the statement, not the 'condemn the terrorist act' part of it. This thread houses some reasonably far left (and anti-Israel) people, if an opinion can't be found here, it's certain to be very fringe.
I do know that in some muslim countries/communities you'll find some support for the attack. But there's not a single western country with more than 10% muslim population, and of the ones I know, I'm confident they'd be in the 'condemn the attack but don't support Israel's retaliation'-camp.
Nothing has universal support, but I imagine it’s a pretty bloody high number that condemn those Hamas attacks.
It just gets exhausting having to do it all the time, or add a disclaimer to every single post one makes on the issue.
Especially within a thread like this, it should almost go without saying that folks condemn such atrocities, but if we’re not going the tacit benefit of the doubt most folks have also typed words to such an effect.
Personally my country is increasingly in lockstep with Israel, has been that way for some time. Which for me makes it more important to condemn Hamas atrocity, while not pivoting over to supporting Israel.
To lend one’s voice of consent at a time where bloodlust is at its absolute peak isn’t for me a particularly prudent or moral course of action. If ever a time where outsider pressure to be restrained in response is most important, it is at such a time.
|
The guy whose main issue with Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign is that the Arab states aren't doing enough to help it along is talking about how others are too tribal and too inclined to form narratives so that they get to not condemn Hamas.
That's no reason not to condemn Hamas so I will once again. Terrorism is pretty bad, it turns out.
|
|
|
On November 21 2023 12:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The guy whose main issue with Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign is that the Arab states aren't doing enough to help it along is talking about how others are too tribal and too inclined to form narratives so that they get to not condemn Hamas.
That's no reason not to condemn Hamas so I will once again. Terrorism is pretty bad, it turns out.
What, you don't like being strawmanned as a "Hamas supporter" while I support my position with zero self reflection about it... Shocking.
|
Northern Ireland23894 Posts
On November 21 2023 17:35 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2023 12:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The guy whose main issue with Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign is that the Arab states aren't doing enough to help it along is talking about how others are too tribal and too inclined to form narratives so that they get to not condemn Hamas.
That's no reason not to condemn Hamas so I will once again. Terrorism is pretty bad, it turns out. What, you don't like being strawmanned as a "Hamas supporter" while I support my position with zero self reflection about my position... Shocking.
Oh I just love it, it’s my very specific kink so I’ve almost never been as fulfilled sexually as in this recent period…
|
So is it all whataboutism cirle jerking in the end?
Well I for one, when Im talking about this issue dont think it really is. Because "whataboutism" kinda implies the thing you are talking about are somewhat equal. And I dont think the numbers, the geographical pictures, the expertise of many experts in the field, many objective facts ect. show that the Israeli people suffered to the same extent then the people of Palestine.
Now I dont really know if I like this stuff being waved aside as a whataboutism.
Im not saying this captures this conflict perfectly or precisely. It is just a picture/metaphor to kinda, vaguely show what I mean:
A six year old boy tells his child care worker that he got punched in the arm by another child. When trying to confront the other five year old child the child care worker finds him screaming in extreme agony, bleeding all over his head. The children around him tell her: The Boy that came to you, that was upset about getting punched in the arm.. kicked him in the head repeatedly with this iron rod laying there.
Several child care worker witnessing this yell out "whataboutism" and move away to attend to the child complaining about the pain in its arm.
Now this isnt whataboutism territory. It is two indiviudals in this case and you can compare a) who started it b) for what reason c) how vicious/damaging the thing was that they inflicted on each other..
I will reiterate that this is obviously not presicely how I look at this conflict. NO i am not comparing what is happening to Israel and the death people due to hamas as a mere punch in the arm. DO NOT GO THERE.
Unless stated otherwise the thing I assume is: When someone talks about the suffering of Palestines/Civs in Gaza and at the same time doesnt talk about the suffering of israeli population he is still aware that Israel citizens are suffering as well.
AND VICE VERSA
H O W E V E R.. for me it is extremely clear who is suffering more. It is very murky who is to blame for this whole conflict and in what capacity (Like if I had to use % id say it is almost 50/50 maybe slightly in favour of Palestine 45/55 Israel due to the insane power discrepancy and the fact israel is occupying large parts of Palestine and not the other way around)
So just a short question without evading (to anyone but in particular to JimmiC):
1) Who do you think suffered more in this conflict (beginning with ~1947/48) Israel or Palestine/Gaza?
2) If you would be willing to give % who is at fault for this conflict starting/ worsening/ still going on.. how would you weight them on Israel & Palestine?
|
|
|
On November 21 2023 02:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2023 02:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 21 2023 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 16:23 ChristianS wrote:On November 20 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:On November 20 2023 09:50 ChristianS wrote:
Okay, since I wrote my post this morning, it looks like we have a couple developments: a video apparently showing a hidden access tunnel into the hospital, and some security cam footage purporting to show hostages being taken to the hospital (they’re calling it a “terror tunnel” but I don’t think that actually means anything). I trust independent investigators are already at work verifying that’s what these videos actually are; for the moment I’ll take it at face value.
So it seems like Hamas had some secret ways to get into the hospital. They also brought hostages there, which certainly suggests they consider it a “base” of some kind. So far it doesn’t seem like much of a “main headquarters” for a military organization, although maybe now is a good time to think about what that would even mean. Decentralization is kind of a big thing for insurgent groups like Hamas; what are the odds they even *have* a big Bond villain secret headquarters anywhere in Gaza? In all likelihood they’ve got a dispersed network of small cells, each with a few hiding places and some weapons at their disposal.
To me the biggest question from the start of this is what “eliminating Hamas” would even look like. I mean, there’s a lot to criticize in Israel’s concept of just how cheap Palestinian lives are when they’re deciding what strikes are “worth it,” but fundamentally all that would have to be judged against an achievable overall objective that they just don’t seem to have. They can kill a lot of Palestinians; some percentage of those (I doubt it’s over 10%) are militants that would have taken up arms against Israel. They can track down some weapons and military infrastructure, and seize or destroy them. But at the end of the day there’s still going to be millions of Palestinians, some percentage of which will still be willing to take up arms against Israel, and those insurgents still won’t have trouble getting ahold of guns to do it with.
It’s not impossible to “win” a war of occupation but nothing we’re seeing from the IDF seems even remotely capable of achieving it. It’s just the usual escalation of cruelty that wars of occupation always promote, with no end in sight. I agree that decentralizing is 9999x more likely and I don’t think any Bond villain base” kinda thing even exists. It would be an easy target and would eliminate a huge reason Hamas chooses to use human shields to begin with. Decentralizing and spreading within easy sympathy targets is ideal in basically every way. We are seeing very clearly that from a strictly “military engagement” perspective, Hamas can be easily compared to some alt right militia group that managed to win an election. It’s not an army so much as a collection of shit heads all interested in genocide of Jews. They are getting completely clobbered. But useful idiots are still useful. That’s why Iran and others will continue to try to make sure they have what they need to engage in whatever shit head activities tickle their uneducated fancies. Right now I think “winning” should be framed as eliminating Hamas’s ability to control land and slither between hospitals. Now that I think about it, a blackberry bush is probably a perfect comparison. It’s a fool’s errand to try to wipe out all blackberries, but it’s totally achievable to carve out an area where you get rid of all of it and then take steps to make sure any little sprouts are noticed and plucked quickly before it turns into a big issue. That’s the ideal way to remove the threat of Hamas, IMO. The way IDF seems to be approaching it is: squeeze Gaza like a tube of toothpaste and pull out all the Hamas roots (tunnels) they can along the way so that the total number of hospitals Hamas to slither around between is significantly reduced and the land they control is minimal or zero. We’ve seen Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran all express very clearly just how important the people of Gaza are and how it’s imperative they are relieved of their suffering. They sound like great candidates to help establish a new government to replace Hamas. Hamas being out of the picture will make it a lot harder for those nations to pretend they wish they could help but can’t. Here’s their chance. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what kind of effort Arab nations with the means to help choose to help. I hope my cynicism is proven wrong. I get extremely nervous any time you decide you’ve come up with a great analogy, although in this case I’m not really sure what this blackberry business even is. Maybe you have to have experience picking blackberries? To some extent it sounds like you’re getting at a clear and hold strategy. Which, you know, is certainly how the British or US handled it whenever they had some insurgent territory they wanted to beat into submission. In this case, though, I’m not sure what the strategically important footholds would even be. You keep saying “slither between hospitals” like you think if the IDF just controls all the hospitals, there will be nowhere else to hide. But the whole point of a decentralized insurgency is to not be as predictable as to only hide in one type of building. They can hide in apartments or tunnels or the back room of a grocery store or w/e, there’s no reason they even need to poke their head out until the IDF has moved onto another area. Meanwhile the IDF strategy you’re describing is the exact opposite of clear and hold – it’s apparently to match an army around the map, fight whoever is there, and then keep marching. If Hamas is split up into thousands of little hidey-holes across the territory I don’t see how they have any chance of even killing Hamas militants preferentially over civilians in the slightest; compared to civilians Hamas fighters are much more likely to have the resources and training to hide and avoid Israeli troops and bombs indefinitely. Then after they’ve done that for a while, your best hope is that they can persuade some other Arab nation to occupy Gaza indefinitely? Why the hell would that be a good outcome? Insurgents aren’t blackberries, and they aren’t toothpaste. If they’ve got hundreds or thousands of hideouts like the one under that hospital, I don’t see how Israel has any chance of “eliminating Hamas” in a reasonable time frame. At which point what are they even accomplishing? Lotta dead civilians, lotta angry survivors who are almost certainly more receptive than ever to joining an insurgency, but other than that, seems like not a whole lot? I agree with all of your skepticism and most of your predictions. I think that’s why Israel’s actual plan is likely to just force as many people towards Egypt as possible so that Egypt can end up with a big enough Muslim Brotherhood 2.0 problem that they are forced to be a non-zero contributor to solving the problem. So long as Palestinians are only an Israel problem, neighboring Muslim nations are more than happy to kick their feet back and grab a bag of popcorn. I expect that would change if Egypt started getting wobbly again. It sounds to me like your analysis of Israel’s plan isn’t actually that different than GH’s. They’re just going to make life as miserable for Palestinians as they can until they die or vacate the territory. “Clear and hold” – except they’re not just clearing insurgents, they’re clearing all Palestinians, and they’re not just holding strategically important footholds, they’re holding the whole territory. In fact, the only people that *might* be able to survive a campaign like that are insurgents. Whisper communication networks, concealed tunnels, and hidden weapons stashes all sound pretty useful if you’re hoping to stay alive through an apocalypse like that. Here maybe GH or Neb would call me overly optimistic, but I simply don’t believe Israel’s international backing is willing to tolerate that. Fundamentally Israel needs the US et al. to survive and keep doing this. Maybe a Trump administration would want to back a campaign like that, but for the moment I just don’t think an outcome that bloody is actually within their ability to achieve. Which means all they’ll be able to do is march around massacring civilians and shouting “Oct 7” at critics until that loses its rhetorical force enough that they’re forced to go home. Lots dead, nothing accomplished. I don’t always agree with mohdoo but what I really appreciate about him is he takes bold stabs at answers then really engages with the answers and lets the jerks comments just roll off his back like a water off a duck. What would you do? How does the world rid itself of the Hamas’s? Can it what is the cost? I totally agree this is not the way, but leaving Hamas to abuse every Palestinian and try to kill as many innocents as possible is also not the way.
I’m not sure I find the willingness to advocate war crimes and then ignore critics as admirable as you do. That’s not *always* what is happening but it is frequently where things seem to land with Mohdoo.
I think your prompt here is basically “what would a good version of this war look like?” But I’m not sure there is one within the conceivable range of possibility. I mean in the US context, look at Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam, all of which most people tend to think were mistakes in retrospect. What was the “good” version of invading Vietnam? Leaders at the time would have assured us that Viet Cong really were very bad guys, but even if that’s true it doesn’t mean there’s a good version of the war.
Of course if we’re sufficiently willing to strain reality we can imagine anything, even a “good” Iraq war. Suppose we’d had perfect intelligence of the crimes committed by each member of the regime, and we had swiftly and nonlethally seized the territory and put each of them on trial with a jury of their peers? Then quickly rebuilt the infrastructure to be as good or better than we found it, stationed peacekeepers until elections could be held, and then left? That sounds pretty good. If we also psychically replace the mind of Bush with someone like Trotsky on September 12th, 2001 and imagine him invading Iraq solely for the purpose of creating a safe haven for revolutionary socialism, we might even get GH on-board. But in the range of things the US was capable of and willing to do, there just wasn’t a good outcome to be had, despite what a bad guy Saddam was.
Bringing it back to Israel: if you find yourself wondering “how do I win a war of occupation?” frequently the more ethical answer is “don’t.” The insurgents might be bad guys, but pretty consistently you wind up killing a lot more civilians than insurgents, and the remaining civilians are more eager than ever to join the insurgents. Empires do win such wars sometimes, but it’s rarely quick or easy and even more rarely moral. The sorts of actions I could imagine actually helping Gaza instead of hurting are too far out of the range of possibility for the IDF. They either lack the capability, or the willingness, or both.
That said, Hamas is going to be a big problem for whoever ultimately tries to govern this place, and they’re going to find themselves trying to tackle a lot of the same problems eventually. But, say, a Palestinian Authority government would have some moral credibility in saying “there will be some collateral damage while we try to root out all these criminal networks; we’ll do our best to limit it, please don’t get mad and join the insurgents.” The IDF has none and plainly has no interest in building any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
