Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

One is the strong evangelical movement that supports Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy of the end time, which from both objective and personal experience is a very real thing.

Let us be clear--I support Israel because I hate Muslims, not out of any religious empathy towards Jews (and I'm not a Protty Evangelical either.)

[grumbler]

Just for fun I tried to find what Byers had to say on Isis, also a terrorist organization masquerading as a state the same as Hamas. I couldn't find the direct source, but according to https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=5467422&fileOId=7854976
he said, in
'Terrorism, the Use of Force and International Law after 11 September'
(2002)
 

When states 'actively support or willingly harbour' the perpetrators, the
question of attribution is considerably simplified and it has even been put
forth that in cases like these military intervention is in place

So yeah... When the victims aren't Israelis military intervention is apparently completely acceptable.

That quote is pretty old so I can't vouch for its veracity and it's from before Isis, but I have had a hard time finding a good source on his views on how Isis ought to be handled from when it was relevant.

I couldn't find anything implying that he thought fighting against Isis, even if incurring civilian casualties, was against international law.

I don't believe that Byer is arguing against Israel's use of force, per se, but against (1) collective punishment (regarding which I believe he is correct), and (2) against Israel's actions as an Occupying Power forcing Gazans to leave their homes, regarding which I believe him to be not only wrong, but obviously wrong and deliberately mis-stating what the LOAC actually says.

[Tamas]

Political move to make the republicans opposition to Ukraine look bad?

You know, because supporting genocidal proto fascists invading their neighbour in a war of conquest is otherwise fine.

I think you may be right. "Are you siding against Israel?" shan't be a good look for GOPtards even nowadays.

[viper37]

So why does Israel need billions from the US?

I don't know.  Do you think Israel is getting or about to receive billions from the US?  All I've heard about is munitions.

317.9 bilions$ adjusted for inflation, 1946-2022.  More than to any other State, but it's been longer too.

Obviously, there are strategic interests in supporting Israel.

[Sheilbh]

Don't have a Haaretz account so can't get the whole piece but if this, from Anshel Pfeffer is true it's absolutely rancid:


Separately reports Western allies are pushing Israel to delay a ground offensive while they're having quiet talks with Qatar over the release of hostages. I wouldn't be surprised if they're talking to Qatar possibly to provide Israel with a way out of a ground invasion. I've never quite understood how Qatar gets away with as much as it does and hopefully the Western partners are making it clear they're helpful on this or that's over.

Edit: (Link for people with a Haaretz account: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-17/ty-article/.premium/netanyahu-is-petrified-of-the-hostages-families-it-could-impact-his-judgment/0000018b-3e01-d5be-a7eb-befd1bc50000)

[OttoVonBismarck]

I will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.

I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.

My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.

To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Apparently 2 hostages were released

[Jacob]

So what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?

My thinking is something like this:

1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war

• What are the actual surgical and effective goals that make sense?
• He risks getting stuck in a domestically unpopular and costly quagmire.
• It may not be enough to satisfy those in Israel who desire vengeance.
• It runs the risk turning allies against Israel if it's perceived as being unreasonably bloody (lower risk than #2 below).

2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine

• Potentially it leaves Israel less vulnerable to threats from the Palestinian population and claims more ground for Israel
• It runs the risk of turning important allies against Israel if they're perceived as going too far
• Risk of a united Arab response or attack by Iran, and a wider regional conflagration (this could potentially be a plus in Bibi's eyes as strong action against Arab states/ Iran will be seen as less problematic by key allies than active genocide against Palestinians)
• Satisfies domestic desire for vengeance, but also runs the risk of a strong backlash domestically

3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions

• Runs the risk of Bibi looking weak to everyone - Hamas, Muslim states, domestic political opponents of all stripes
• May not satisfy those in Israel who desire venegance
• Runs the risk of emboldening Hamas and simmilar actors, if they're seen as "getting away with it."

Doesn't seem like a great set of options. Did I miss anything?

[OttoVonBismarck]

So what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?

My thinking is something like this:

1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war

• What are the actual surgical and effective goals that make sense?
• He risks getting stuck in a domestically unpopular and costly quagmire.
• It may not be enough to satisfy those in Israel who desire vengeance.
• It runs the risk turning allies against Israel if it's perceived as being unreasonably bloody (lower risk than #2 below).

2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine

• Potentially it leaves Israel less vulnerable to threats from the Palestinian population and claims more ground for Israel
• It runs the risk of turning important allies against Israel if they're perceived as going too far
• Risk of a united Arab response or attack by Iran, and a wider regional conflagration (this could potentially be a plus in Bibi's eyes as strong action against Arab states/ Iran will be seen as less problematic by key allies than active genocide against Palestinians)
• Satisfies domestic desire for vengeance, but also runs the risk of a strong backlash domestically

3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions

• Runs the risk of Bibi looking weak to everyone - Hamas, Muslim states, domestic political opponents of all stripes
• May not satisfy those in Israel who desire venegance
• Runs the risk of emboldening Hamas and simmilar actors, if they're seen as "getting away with it."

Doesn't seem like a great set of options. Did I miss anything?

I doubt things are being weighed this way.

[Barrister]

So what are Bibi's options, broadly speaking?

My thinking is something like this:

1) Ground Invasion - attempting to be surgical and effective, following the rules of war

2) Ground Invasion - ethnic cleansing version
Go in claiming it's version #1 above, but with the objective to make life untenable for Palestinians in Palestine

3) Ranged attacks on Hamas with very limited incursions into Gaza, potentially as a result of some sort of concessions

So I don't think #3 is being very seriously considered.  It absolutely would make Israel look weak compared to this outrage.

I don't think #2 is being considered at all.  First of all I'm not sure if this was a typo or not - you said "Palestine" not "Gaza".  I think the world would be outraged if Israel took this terrorist attack by Hamas as an opportunity to strike in Fatah-controlled West Bank.

But more than that - there is nowhere for the Gaza Palestinians to go.  Egypt won't open the border to them.  Nobody else will take them.

So you're stuck with #1 - but there are two different versions of #1.

There's 1A: Ground invasion, kill some terrorists, declare victory and leave.
-It satisfies the need to look strong, minimizes your own casualties (though they will still be high), but probably does little to prevent a further attack in the future.

Then there's 1B: ground invasion and re-occupy.
-more likely to actually prevent further terrorist attacks, but maximizes the chances of Israeli casualties.

[mongers]

Good work by the ICRC in a very difficult situation.

[Sheilbh]

I will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.

I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.

My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.

To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.

Maybe - or reduces an invasion.

I'd slightly separate it from hostages. I think the fact there are multiple dual citizens complicates just total disregard for the hostages or at least not trying to get them out. Hamas are clearly aware of that with their unilateral (according to Israel - ie no prisoner exchange) release of two American hostages today.

On the invasion my thought is if the west really put the thumbscrews on Qatar (and arguably should have done this at a far earlier stage) to basically hand over the Hamas people living there, turn off the taps etc in a way that may deliver some of Israel's objectives. It's certainly something I'd hope the western powers are looking at.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I will be beyond shocked if any level of diplomacy stops a ground invasion--frankly I'm not even convinced Biden or his administration are against a ground invasion.

I suspect they may want to try to get hostages out, but I don't see a situation where Israel suffers an attack that would be the equivalent of America suffering 30,000 dead and it just agrees to some slap on the wrist for Hamas.

My guess is at a minimum they are going in for an operation, and probably they move permanent Israeli security infrastructure inside the security barrier, and probably take control of the Rafah crossing on the Gazan side as well, so that there is no longer any border to Gaza not under absolute Israeli control.

To me that's probably the minimalist goals of Israel, and I actually doubt the U.S. thinks going back to a status quo where people agree to move on is realistic.

Maybe - or reduces an invasion.

I'd slightly separate it from hostages. I think the fact there are multiple dual citizens complicates just total disregard for the hostages or at least not trying to get them out. Hamas are clearly aware of that with their unilateral (according to Israel - ie no prisoner exchange) release of two American hostages today.

On the invasion my thought is if the west really put the thumbscrews on Qatar (and arguably should have done this at a far earlier stage) to basically hand over the Hamas people living there, turn off the taps etc in a way that may deliver some of Israel's objectives. It's certainly something I'd hope the western powers are looking at.

Qatar => gas.

[Tamas]

100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.

[Josquius]

100k pro-Palestine protest in London today. You know you are on the right side of an issue when Turkish flags are being pushed into the forefront of the protest you are attending.

Why?
Being Turkish doesn't necessarily mean being a fan of their current government.

Though I would say it's rather dumb of them. 100k in Britain sounds more impressive when the Israel fanboys can't just say "oh its all just anti semitic Muslims"

At least it's not the hammer and sickle. Those guys just don't get how counter productive they are for any cause.