Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Sheilbh]

Fair point. But an imperialist power can also be a colonizer. See North America.

To the extent the British brought in outside populations which displaced indigenous populations, I think it can fairly  be called a colonizer.

Also, Israel doesn't exist without the Balfour declaration.

Yes - I also want to say up front that this is nothing to do with Hamas' attack and I'm not doing a "what did people think decolonisation was?" bit. This is purely a historical issue I think is interesting - and could be moved into a separate thread.

I think that needs more context because while the British bringing in outside populations is one way of framing it, I think it's wrong - I think it also in a way excuses Britain's, to nick a phrase, "low dishonest" role.

I think one bit of very important context is that Britain passes its first ever anti-immigration law in the 1900s-10s, which is more or less explicitly aimed at Jews fleeing pogroms who'd been arriving in th UK. I think a few years later (I want to say under Wilson) the US passes similar legislation. Those restrictions have even stronger support after the Russian Revolution because of the (false) perception of Jews as dangerous revolutionaries which I think leads to other countries restricting Jewish migration.

There are two contradictory promises made by the Brits to both Arabs and Jews by Lawrence and Balfour. Once the Brits are running Mandatory Palestine they impose a strict quota on Jewish migration which they also make very expensive - so my understanding is that in points during the 20s the quota isn't actually hit. It is easier but perhaps more costly for Jews to migrate to Palestine than during Ottoman rule.

With the rise of the Nazis and growing Jewish fears in Europe I think those quotas are always being hit, not least because families sell everything they've got to pay the fee. But in part that is also driven by the mainland UK (and other countries) closing their doors to Jewish migration. There's an Arab revolt which causes the British to slash the quota and during this time the Royal Navy is stopping and impounding and sending back ships of Jewish migrants to Europe.

That policy continues during and after the war. Attlee and Bevin are heroes and great men with many very admirable qualities and accomplishments - they were both also anti-semites which shaped their policy in this area which is, in my view and like Partition, one of the most shameful incidents (albeit over many years) in the history of the British empire. First Jews from liberated concentration camps are kept in the same concentration camps as displaced people - obviously the British are not trying to exterminate them so there is food and medical care (it's one of the reasons rations last in the UK so long is shipments of food to Germany) etc, but still... In addition the British absolutely refuse numerous calls including from Truman - and I think the Soviets - to either lift the quota or have an emergency high quota for those displaced people. Instead - again - you have the Royal Navy stopping, impounding and returning boats full of Holocaust survivors to Europe where they will be placed in the former concentration camps while their status as "displaced people" was resolved.

That's also part of the reason most of the people attacking British forces in Mandatory Palestine post-war are Jewish groups. In addition this is when there's arguably another British betrayal (though it's not so clear as the contradictory promises to the Arabs and Jews) because the British decide they don't want an independent Palestinian state and instead throw their lot in with Jordan to rule the Arab Palestinian areas - it is, of course, Lt Gen Sir John Bagot Glubb Pasha who leads the Arab Legion (later the Jordanian Army) in the Israeli War of Independence and who occupies the West Bank for Jordan.

I say that because I think there's two sides that describing it as "British colonisation" possibly misses. One is that in the same way as enslaved people or transported prisoners to Australia are settled by Britain, but they are not "settlers" in the way that others are in, say British North America. They are not there by choice or for some opportunity. There is almost a paradox in that the people who are there most obviously as a result of "British colonisation" are perhaps least colonising. I don't think it's the same with Jews moving to Palestine pre-war but it's not totally by choice. It's not prisoners or enslaved people, but it's not people moving in the hopeful expectation of a better life either. I think the closing of doors to Jews fleeing and the rise of the Nazis created a context where if they could get the money together and get in the quota, Palestine was one of the few places where Jews could still flee.

The other bit is that for those individuals who did get to Mandatory Palestine it was simultaneously because of and in spite of British policy. I imagine every single one of those individuals would have known friends or family who were blocked from moving to Palestine because of British policy. So I don't think they would recognise themselves as there because of British colonisation (though in a way they were) - as I say, if anything, they were there (and alive) in spite of it. As I say, I think overall you look at it and can't help but feel that there would be possibly millions of European Jews who would not have been killed with other decisions and there is an incredible lack of humanity and morality in Britain's policy after the war.

I don't know where that gets you in the historical description of the Jewish population who help create Israel.

But has there been any indication of Israeli objectives and policy beyond that?

Not from what I've seen. Netanyahu had a statement about resolve and following through until "the goals" are met but it wasn't clear what those are.

Eh, based on Hamas calls for peace I think they are actually not that prepared for this stage.

Hamas own leadership claims only a small number of top military commanders knew of the attacks beforehand. That suggests the entire organization probably was not preparing for this, which is probably part of how it was never detected by Israeli intelligence.

By prepared I mean making Gaza a difficult place for Israeli forces to invade. Tunnels within Gaza, spots for traps etc which I think they will have been doing generally since the last invasion.

I'm also not so sure on their calls for peace indicating that. It might be that they're not prepared are concerned - I think it may also be spin for global consumption. Having committed the horrendous acts they did on Saturday, they will now try to position themsleves as being the reasonable party wanting peace and in the context of likely civilian casualties in Gaza will try (probably succcessfully) to turn public opinion in the rest of the world.

I also think, as with Russia, there's an element of trolling for example with Hamas "warning" civilians in Ashkelon - I don't think that is sincere I think it is both mimicking Israel's warnings to civilians and an attempt to move what is happening now from the frame of what caused it, which I think may be successful.

Difficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?

Not specifically on that, which is awful - but it may also have not all been Hamas. The initial attack and the destruction of the border fence at various points was but, from Islamic Jihad, say, weren't aware of that plan - but I imagine they had people going through the border fence once it was open (particularly once it was becoming clear that the IDF was nowhere near and wasn't responding). There were probably loads and loads of others. It's like a riot - there may be an organised core starting things but once it's going it isn't just them.

[Threviel]

Yeah, but there are logistical limitations there. Ruthless murderers, rapists and looters don't just stand arund a fence waiting for it to drop. And if, like you say, it was just some dudes taking an opportunity what does that say about the general dude in the area?

[Jacob]

Difficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?

I've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?

[crazy canuck]

Good points.

So maybe Hamas - or the decision makers within Hamas who organized the attack - thought "this will be a daring and impressive strike, and we'll get hostages that we can use for leverage" - and either they didn't appreciate how the massacre part of the action would change perception, or the massacre part weren't planned but happened somewhat spontaneously.

If so, then for Israel the main objective at this point is to draw a hard line and make the consequences so severe that Hamas or any other actors do not engage in such acts again. There doesn't really need to be any further goals or plan beyond massive reprisal on the theory that Hamas - and Palestinians in general - will learn "not to do this again" even if they build up the capability to (which Israel will do its best destroy).

Does that sound about right?

I don't follow your logic.  How does massive reprisal accomplish anything other than ensuring that there will be further reprisals against Israel well into the future. 

I understand the basic political and emotional need to lash out - but that is not what your analysis is based on.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok, but isn't that the same mechanism by which the US displaced much of its Indigenous population?

No it's not remotely the same mechanism.

Take the example of Hebron.  There is a Jewish community there now of a few hundred people in a settlement recognized by the state.  Are they colonists?  Arguably so - Hebron is part of the territories occupied in Israel in the 67 war.  But hardly "cowboys and Indians" when compared to the large urban population of Hebron.

The settlement is not the first Jewish community there though.  There was a significant Jewish presence in Hebron in the Ottoman period, tracing back for many centuries.  What happened to them?  There was a massacre in the 20s and another in the 30s.  In 1948 the Jordanians took over and forbid all Jews from the land.  Does that make the Jordanians the colonial cowboys in this scenario? 

Or does the analogy just not work because the situations are not really analogous.

[Sheilbh]

I've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?

Yeah. I've read some articles but I've avoided videos. I'm very uncomfortable with some of what's being shared.

I'm not sure. I feel like it's maybe something you should do to read and be informed even of the most upsetting facts - not least because I sort of have opinions. And maybe the traditional media doesn't fully capture the horror of the attacks, so maybe I shouldn't look away. But I also think they handle those videos and details in a better way both confirming it but also pixelating, speaking to families first etc.

Yeah, but there are logistical limitations there. Ruthless murderers, rapists and looters don't just stand arund a fence waiting for it to drop. And if, like you say, it was just some dudes taking an opportunity what does that say about the general dude in the area?

Yeah - also other groups. From what I've read it took about six hours for the IDF to respond and Gaza's tiny so I'm not so sure the logistics was a limit.

[Barrister]

The flag store was out of Israel flags.  Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered.

[Josephus]

The Israelis will do their utmost to get the hostages out. I am hearing that the US have, or are about to deploy, special forces specializing in this very thing. It will be difficult but they'll do what they can. If there's one thing about the Israeli mentality it's they don't sacrifice their own. Last time Hamas took a hostage, a soldier named Gilad Shalit, Israel ended up trading 1,000 terrorists to get him back. That's what Hamas is counting. The more hostages they have the better bargaining position they'll be in

Plus there are Americans among the hostages too, hence U.S. involvement. If there were no hostages, Gaza would be an apocalyptic wasteland by now. It probably will end up that way.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Unfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Israelis will do their utmost to get the hostages out. I am hearing that the US have, or are about to deploy, special forces specializing in this very thing. It will be difficult but they'll do what they can. If there's one thing about the Israeli mentality it's they don't sacrifice their own. Last time Hamas took a hostage, a soldier named Gilad Shalit, Israel ended up trading 1,000 terrorists to get him back. That's what Hamas is counting. The more hostages they have the better bargaining position they'll be in

Plus there are Americans among the hostages too, hence U.S. involvement. If there were no hostages, Gaza would be an apocalyptic wasteland by now. It probably will end up that way.

The issue with this line of thinking--when Israel made that trade it was over a relatively small border skirmish in which I think 5 Israeli soldiers were taken (4 of them post-mortem, so only 1 alive.)

In the current situation Israel is clearly planning a ground invasion, and is phrasing this--and in fact has declared this, as a full war, with implications for Israel's survival as a state being referenced by Israel's leaders (obviously there is hyperbole there, but this is the language they are using.)

When the situation is at a much lower level of intensity making a hostage trade is possible, but I think Israeli war planners have largely just decided to plan as though the hostages are already dead. They certainly have teams seeing if there is a way to get them, but it won't determine their military actions.

[Threviel]

Difficult to see a group tasked with taking hostages end up decapitating babies. Could they possibly have been medicated with anxiety-lowering medication, gang war style?

I've been avoiding exploring detailed evidence of the massacres. Is the decapitation of babies an established fact or still in the category of "early reports during a conflict that may or may not turn out to be true"?

https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-says-hamas-decapitated-babies-in-israel-2023-10?r=US&IR=T

IDF found them in a Kibbutz close to the border, which fits the "dudes taking an opportunity" view which is damn dark. People waking up, eating breakfast, going about their normal day routine, getting an opportunity to kill Israelis, decapitating some babies, having a milkshake.

It's just not believable that there are so well organised groups of psychos that can do that at the drop of a hat. I choose to believe that it must have been organised, that perhaps it got out of hand, but still that it was organised.

[The Brain]

The flag store was out of Israel flags.  Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered.

I wouldn't dare display an Israeli flag in Sweden.

[Barrister]

The flag store was out of Israel flags.  Looking at Amazon, but they'd all take a week or more to get delivered.

I wouldn't dare display an Israeli flag in Sweden.

I considered that.  But anyone doesn't like it, fuck 'em.

[Jacob]

I don't follow your logic.  How does massive reprisal accomplish anything other than ensuring that there will be further reprisals against Israel well into the future.

The logic is that if Israel hits them hard enough, they'll think twice about doing it again.

Whether that logic holds up in the long term or whether it escalates the cycle of violence is another question. But the fundamental logic is one of deterrence based on overwhelming and destructive violence in response to attacks.

Personally I believe that ultimately Hamas - or successor organizations if Hamas is eradicated - are going to be willing and able to keep going in the face of anything Israel is able and willing to do.

I understand the basic political and emotional need to lash out - but that is not what your analysis is based on.

Yeah I understand the need.

Mainly I was trying to see if there's a particular logic or direction to the Israeli response. As I said, at the moment it seems to be "massive retaliation to destroy capabilities and deter future attacks".

[Jacob]

Unfortunately the decapitated babies claim has been republished in Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, and in official statements by the IDF. Whilst I have chosen not to view them, there are currently some real bad subreddits on reddit that apparently have some pictures as well.

That's fucking grim