Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

Nazis got about 40% of the vote in Germany, Hamas got about 40% of the vote in Gaza.  I know last year Hamas 53% approval rating in all of Palestine after a confrontation with Israel.  Fighting the Jews is very popular in Palestine.  Anyway, nobody said that the Nazis didn't represent Germany.

[grumbler]

I'll walk back my claim that Hamas would win a fair election in Gaza before Oct 7.  Here's a series of poll results from the Washington Institute showing Gazan opinions over time:



Source: Polls Show Majority of Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy seems to have a decent blend of leadership from across the moderate portion of the political spectrum (some serve in the GW Bush administration others in the Obama administration).  It publishes in Arabic and Persian as well as English, though its leadership is American.  Seems a legit source and its results surprised me but also changed my mind.

[crazy canuck]

I'll walk back my claim that Hamas would win a fair election in Gaza before Oct 7.  Here's a series of poll results from the Washington Institute showing Gazan opinions over time:



Source: Polls Show Majority of Gazans Were Against Breaking Ceasefire

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy seems to have a decent blend of leadership from across the moderate portion of the political spectrum (some serve in the GW Bush administration others in the Obama administration).  It publishes in Arabic and Persian as well as English, though its leadership is American.  Seems a legit source and its results surprised me but also changed my mind.

Thanks for this. That is interesting data.

[crazy canuck]

What are the key elements that make (or could make) Israeli actions a collective punishment of Palestinians as opposed to a legitimate military actions?

There are obvious reasons for Hamas - and potentially anyone supportive of Palestinian nationalism - to cast any action Israel takes at this point as "collective punishment".

Conversely, there are obvious reasons for people supportive of the Israeli state to cast their actions as not being collective punishment, while there are also elements within Israel (and their supporters) calling explicitly for what is basically just that.

But where is the line drawn, more or less? My impression is that Israel is now allowing some emergency aid in, and that the water has been turned back on. Nonetheless, the charges of "collective punishment" have not abated. If what Israel is doing is "collective punishment", what would it have to stop doing and what could it continue doing - in the current situation - for its reaction to Hamas to be not "collective punishment"?

The argument that Israel is now engaging collective punishment was made by Professor Byers.  I won't repeat what he said,  I posted both his interview and his piece in the Globe and Mail.

But among the points he made was shutting off the water supply for all of Gaza.

[Jacob]

I'm under the impression that the water supply is back on?

Israel says it is restarting water supply to Southern Gaza (Oct 15)

[viper37]

If you can have a "Israel! Stop killing innocents!" march it seems you could also have a "Hamas! Stop killing innocents!" march.

Except that's clearly pointless. They're a terrorist group controlling an open air prison and the government is already in agreement with the position that they're very naughty boys.

With Israel on the other hand they are still a democracy, they're a normalish country with a functional economy, and in theory influencable by western pressure, and western governments do give them too much leeway.

So it's pointless to protest against violent evil organisations? Gotcha'

There are often protests against Hamas.  It never ends well for the protestors.

[crazy canuck]

I'm under the impression that the water supply is back on?

Israel says it is restarting water supply to Southern Gaza (Oct 15)

I thought they had reversed that announcement.  But if it is indeed being turned back on then I withdraw my characterization of collective punishment.

The CBC this morning was reporting that the lack of fresh water was creating an untenable situation for the population within Gaza.

[Jacob]

I'm not following this closely enough to speak with any confidence, hence the question.

I'll have to agree that decision to leave 2 million people without access to clean water - especially if the decision is as simple as turning the tap on/off - seems like collective punishment in the absence of a clear military objective. At this point I don't know what that military objective is other than "Hamas is also in there somewhere" and that does not seem sufficient to me.

[HVC]

I guess it depends on whether you think getting the civilizing population to turn on the ruling class through suffering is a legitimate war tactic. Whether or not that ever really works.


Although if that was the goal, there are better methods to achieve that goal like oopsy doodling the water pipeline with missiles rather than turning off a valve, from a PR perspective.

[Admiral Yi]

Denying enemy fighters access to drinking water is a time honored military tactic.

[Jacob]

So concretely:

UNICEF says that about 120 new-borns in Gazan hospitals are at risk of dying. There is no electricity in Gaza since Israel shut off the supply. The hospital's back-up generators are about to run out of fuel.

Israel - via senior Nethanyahu advisor Mark Regev - have said that Israel is not going to let any fuel enter Gaza because they expect a significant amount of it will be stolen by Hamas and used to fuel their ongoing attacks on Israel.

Israel's concerns about supplies being stolen by Hamas are, IMO, legitimate enough. I don't see what sort of guarantees Hamas could give that could be trusted, assuming they'd even consider it. Best case scenario, I expect, involves only some of the emergency supplies being "requisitioned" by Hamas for their combat efforts. Worst case, none of the supplies reach the hospitals at all.

On the other hand, any of those newborns dying when hospital equipment runs out of power is directly attributable to Israeli actions cutting electricity and stopping fuel supplies to Gaza.

One possible way to save those babies would be to evacuate them to somewhere with the appropriate equipment - presumably a neighbouring country, if any would have them.

Which then reminds me of one of the of the Canadian victims of the Hamas terror attack. She was a grandmother and peace activist who spent her time as a volunteer driving Palestinians in critical condition from Gaza to Israel for medical treatment only available there. She was shot and killed in her home.

It's all so fucking grim.

And those Palestinian babies don't deserve to die anymore than the Israeli babies murdered by Hamas during their terror attack.

[Zoupa]

Another interesting polling regarding Palestinians and their opinions on terrorism.

Interesting difference between Gaza and West Bank.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinians-attitudes-about-terrorism

[Jacob]

Denying enemy fighters access to drinking water is a time honored military tactic.

True enough.

Is there a number of Palestinian civilians - or Palestinian children - dying from thirst and / or from disease due to the lack of potable water - that would make you question the acceptability that tactic in this specific conflict?

Granted, at this point it's warnings of impending catastrophe rather than reported deaths, but at some point the consequences will manifest and there'll be deaths from cholera, dysentery, and plain old dehydration.

I suppose the optimal approach for Israel is to soften up Hamas' resistance by denying them drinking water, but striking before the civilian death toll gets too high, and then restoring drinking water to affected civilians.

But say that goes awry a bit - for military or political or simply logistical reasons - and water is not restored before there's a significant death toll. Is there a number of children dead from lack of drinking water that would cause you to think that it was wrong to employ that time honoured military tactic in this case?

Personally my threshold is pretty damn low on that account, but I recognize that others are more willing to accept civilian and children collateral deaths in pursuit of military objectives.

That said, I also have a hard time picturing what sort of military objectives would have to be met before Israel turns the water back on again, if it goes down the route of accepting civilian deaths from lack of water.

It hasn't happened quite yet, I don't think. Maybe it's all hard-nosed negotiation tactics and posturing. Or maybe Israel will strike decisively before the lack of drinking water leads to a large number of deaths. I suppose we'll see.

I just hope it doesn't turn into a standoff over who has the greatest tolerance for a large number of Palestinian children dying from lack of drinking water.

[And for the record, I have no doubt that Hamas would cheerfully embrace killing Israeli children by depriving them of drinking water as a goal in itself, rather than as a byproduct of pursuing military objectives, were they in a position to do so]

[garbon]

Won't Israeli striking decisively end up with many civilian deaths?

[Sheilbh]

On the second point, I don't think you've addressed what I said.

I don't think I understand what you've said.

On the third point, if you look back at what you said, you use the word voluntary, which is what I addressed.  In any event, for those who advocate for the collective punishment of Palestinians, with in Gaza, there sure seems to be an undercurrent of justification, based on an assertion that Hamas is simply curing out the will of all of the people of Gaza.

In the context of a government's legitimacy - I simply mean that they do not have to use coercive power to implement their decisions as a government. It's nothing to do with the will of the people.

At this point I don't know what that military objective is other than "Hamas is also in there somewhere" and that does not seem sufficient to me.

I agree - we're almost three weeks from the attack. There is a siege and bombinbgs. Israel has said there are ground raids but otherwise the have hundreds of thousands of reservists on the border I'm still not sure what Israel's intending or how it's going to do it. My suspicion is that's because there's actually not many choices and none of them are palatable.

I think the reported dysfunction of Netanyahu trying to blame the military and big divides etc is an issue. But it goes wider than that, I heard a journalist yesterday talking about the mayor of Ashkelon which is the nearest Israeli city that was affected by the attack doing a fundraising drive because there's been no support from the central government. On the military-civil divdes:

Anshel Pfeffer אנשיל פפר
@AnshelPfeffer
Netanyahu and sources within the defense establishment are briefing against each other. Netanyahu has been doing it for 2 weeks already, trying to place the sole blame on the IDF and Shin Bet for Hamas' surprise attac. In the last 2 days he's sending, through proxies, a new line>
Netanyahu's new line attack on the generals (thru proxies) is that they don't care enough for the lives of their soldiers and they're prepared to send them into Gaza before the air-force has used bunker-busting bombs to destroy Hamas tunnels there. Now there's counter-briefing >
In the briefing from the defense establishment they're not attacking Netanyahu directly but they're saying they did as ordered, called up reserves, secured Israel's borders and prepared a force for the ground operation which has been waiting at peak-readiness for over a week now>
In other words, the generals are accusing Netanyahu (without actually naming him) of dithering, not taking responsibility and not making overdue decisions on the next stage of the war.
Both sides now trying to reduce tensions. Joint statement by Prime Minister, Defense Minister and IDF:
"We're all working together in tight and complete coordination... Netanyahu, Gallant and Halevi have full and mutual trust" incredible this needs to be said at time of war

You'd almost worry there'll be a ground attack just because in the immediate days after October 7, Israeli officials talked up a ground attack - as opposed to just saaying it was one of the options under consideration. And I think it would likely be worse if there was a ground attack which is why, despite his rhetoric, Netanyahu has always been quite reluctant to authorise that sort of operation - he has preferred bombs and siege. If that's the motivation then it's even worse.

Also I think the attack on October 7 indicates exactly the problem - for Israel to be incredibly surgical and only hit the right targets, you'd need very good intelligence of what's going on in Gaza. The indications are Israeli forces no longer have particularly good local knowledge in Gaza.

It's all so fucking grim.

And those Palestinian babies don't deserve to die anymore than the Israeli babies murdered by Hamas during their terror attack.

I agree. I can't see any particular military solution - although so far Israel's not communicated one.

Ultimately and I keep going back to it the only solution to Hamas is an alternative Palestinian interlocutor in Gaza. It is the opposite of what Netanyahu or the Israeli government has done for many years precisely because it means re-opening the idea of a two state solution. For example to bolster the Palestinian Authority as an alternative to Hamas and involve them, with the UN and regional powers (particularly a coerced Qatar), in Gaza in some way de-legitimising Hamas to reduce their political and military role.

I think that's probably the best case at the end of a ground invasion because, there's not going to end up being a pro-Israeli government in Gaza with any legitimacy at least. I think you can also get there diplomatically.

The obstacles to that, I think, are that it would be incredibly difficult for any state to not militarily respond to attacks like on October 7 (beyond the current bombings). I think there is a risk of Israel feeling like it needs to invade having talked about a ground invasion even if it's not sure what it could accomplish or how. And perhaps the biggest problem is that I think it would involve the opposite of what Netanyahu and his coalition partners have spent their time in power doing or wanting.