Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Sheilbh]

With ISIS we were supporting the Iraqi government re-assert their sovereignty in their own country; in Kuwait we were kicking out an invading and occupying force; in Germany we were the occupying force; and the civil war was forcibly re-unifying a country (with occupation that sadly failed). But the point in all cases was that the military action was able to deliver the political outcome/goal (and was a plausible route to it) and, I'd argue that generally to that objective the civilian deaths were proportionate.

What is the Israeli plan for Gaza? Because war isn't an end in itself.

The goal is to remove Hamas, which is fine. The Israeli ambassador to the UK has said is absolutely no to a two state solution or a role for the PA, so I assume we can rule that out (Iraq v ISIS or Kuwait depending on how you read the PA/Hamas). As Threviel says it seems pretty unlikely that there's any prospect of international occupation (Germany).

What's left? I think you're left with long-term Israeli occupation (which seems unlikely/impossible), basically ethnic cleansing (which Israel's international partners won't permit) or in effect permanently keeping Gaza as more or less lawless/stateless/incapable of forming something like a state (again subject to international constraints - and, I suspect, unlikely to end violence from Gaza). Long-term occupation is, I think, the most defensible and least plausible of those options.

[Admiral Yi]

We waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.

What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?

[Sheilbh]

We waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.

What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?

We would have divided them with the Soviets and imposed occupying forces and put down any ongoing resistance with differing degrees of severity. I think it's very diffierent in apan but practically in Germany's case I think the legal formal surrender by Doenitz is of 0 impact on what happens next.

This is not the first war since 1945 when you can say fighting against a non-state entity is difficult. I think away from Gaza specifically if our baseline for wars is an expectation that the enemy will unconditionally surrender on an aircraft carrier, then I think we'll keep losing them.

Edit: Incidentally this is why I think it will utlimately end up leading back to a two state solution and strengthening a form of Palestinian state to govern Gaza and suppress Hamas. It's just the long route with a lot of civilian deaths in the meantime.

[viper37]

We waged war against Germany and Japan until they surrendered, at which point they stopped fighting.

What would we have done if they had not surrendered, if they had kept fighting forever?

There were resistance movements in Germany, albeit minor, long past the official surrender by Doenitz.  Elsewhere in the occupied German territories, the war also continued for a while until the Soviets killed everyone who talked back.

Is that a plausible scenario for Palestine?  Is that the desired scenario?

It kinda looks like the movie The Patriot where they shoot unarmed soldiers who threw their weapons and they say they didn't know they would surrender because they didn't say so.

Israel is intent on taking the territory.  It does not want peace.  I don't know what kind of surrender is expected here.  People should pack and move?  Where?

[Solmyr]

Nobody (of relevance and not themselves horrid) doubts Hamas and co are evil fuckers. That's never been the debate.

Plenty of Palestinians do not see Hamas as evil fuckers.  We can see that in the survey results.

Plenty of others accept the logic that 40 years of occupation inevitably led to the October 7 attack.  Implicitly that means they are not evil fuckers.

You can, in fact, accept the logic of occupation leading to the attack, and still consider Hamas evil fuckers for how they did it. Same as you can support Israel's right to exist and still consider Bibi's government evil fuckers for what they are doing.

[Solmyr]

The head of the labor party was keen on Hamas.  Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party.  We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.

One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance  and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.

Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"?  Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent.  Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them.  You heard of her?

It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine

[The Minsky Moment]

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine

December 8, 1941
Press Release

"Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in the Pacific. I condemn the Japanese Empire's attack in the strongest possible terms. No one should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing economic coercion of Japan. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives."

How would Americans have reacted to that message in 1941?

[Grey Fox]

I don't think it's a good comparison. Imo, it would be better comparison if it was a text from September 20 1931

[Tamas]

The head of the labor party was keen on Hamas.  Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party.  We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.

One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance  and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.

Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"?  Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent.  Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them.  You heard of her?

It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine

There was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.

[Sheilbh]

December 8, 1941
Press Release

"Today is devastating for all those seeking a lasting peace and respect for human rights in the Pacific. I condemn the Japanese Empire's attack in the strongest possible terms. No one should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing economic coercion of Japan. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives."

How would Americans have reacted to that message in 1941?

Sure - but it's not true to say she didn't condemn Hamas. More generally I think there's a pretty big difference between Corbyn or Melenchon (who also refused to join the march against anti-semittism) and the American left like AOC, Sanders etc.

There was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.

Yeah - Len McCluskey who is a big backer of Corbyn (they were promoting their new book of poetry). Corbyn has a history of similar attitudes and statements about the IRA too.

Ultimately I think more than anything it was national security and tolerance of anti-semitism that led to people voting against Corbyn - and imagining him as PM responding to Ukraine or Gaza makes it very hard for me to say they got that choice wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure - but it's not true to say she didn't condemn Hamas.

She condemned "Hamas' attack" but not Hamas itself.  The statement as a whole veers dangerously towards blaming the victim.  At best one could argue it is naive, but that never struck me as a deficiency of AOC.

More generally I think there's a pretty big difference between Corbyn or Melenchon (who also refused to join the march against anti-semittism) and the American left like AOC, Sanders etc.

Of course but that is setting a very low bar.

[Admiral Yi]

I suppose it could be considered a source of pride that no elected US official has joined Rashida Tlaib in chanting from the river to the sea.

[Solmyr]

The head of the labor party was keen on Hamas.  Mélenchon in France refuses to condemn Hamas along with his party.  We've had several American politicians refuse to condemn Hamas as well.

One by one
1: pure lie
2: a guy whose best showing was a lucky third in the French election refuses to condemn them?
Falls short of both being someone of relevance  and in actually supporting them.
3: again plenty of reasons why someone might not want to join the 5 minutes of hate other than thinking Hamas are swell actually. And pretty sure none of these handful of politicians are particularly prominent.

Corbyn having "friends" in Hamas is a "pure lie"?  Oh, you are sure that these American politicians who refused to denounce Hamas are not prominent.  Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was one of them.  You heard of her?

It says here "I condemn Hamas' attack in the strongest possible terms." This is from October 9th.

https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine

There was a glorious trainwreck of an "interview" with Pierce Morgan a month or so ago. Corbyn managed to make the third guy in the room, the ex-Unite leader thug look like a reasonable middle-ground kind of guy. Morgan wanted Corbyn to confirm Hamas is a terrorist organisation. He would not.

Morgan and Corbyn are both kooks who deserve each other.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Not quite sure how the IDF can remove Hamas - and I think that's being borne out.

This is a false question--and a common one. There is no real goal to remove Hamas--the goal is to deny them administrative control over Gaza. That is basically happening as we speak. In fact I question how much of Gaza Hamas still has effective administrative control over as we speak. Basically none in the north, and they are under heavy siege everywhere in the South.

It is akin to ISIS--there is no complexity in the question "can Mosul be taken from ISIS", the answer is: yes. Militaries largely exist to take and occupy land. There is zero point zero doubt the IDF can take and occupy Gaza.

Just as the removal of ISIS occupation of various cities didn't cause ISIS to cease to exist, neither does taking Gaza from Hamas--but what it does do, as it did with ISIS, is removes from its control a large swathe of territory. Terror groups that de facto control territory are far worse in most every respect than ones who only operate as underground groups.

[OttoVonBismarck]

@Threviel - I think that other argument against Israel's response is that the tens of thousands of Palestinian children do not deserve to suffer in this conflict. That they are innocent and that no level of provocation justifies making children suffer.

Essentially it is allowing Hamas' blackmail from hiding behind civilians be effective. The argument is that Hamas' atrocities do not justify harming children even if Hamas hides behind them.

If you can't kill children you can't fight wars. Which would mean the countries that don't want to kill children would cede every war, every aggression, to the countries that do.