Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

I believe the latest estimates in Gaza are that around 80-90% of the population are displaced. I'm not clear if the grid system is plausible in that context (especially when the grid numbers change regularly).

All the reporting I have seen is the grids don't really work. Probably a decent thing to try, but just literally not possible to implement. Yes, the IDF has grids, yes they warn on those grids.

The issue is most Palestinians don't have live, up-to-date grid maps, internet connection is spotty so they can't regularly refresh them. And for that reason most people in Gaza don't really know what grid they are in, and don't have the technological access needed to know when that grid is subject to warnings.

It is a complex technical system and people basically living in rubble eating uncooked flour and rice and the occasional can of tuna are not equipped to follow it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

There are political reasons that neither Netanyahu or his coalition can easily stake out a position on this--all of the real options create political problems for the coalition. There probably won't be real clarity until after the coalition falls apart and Israel has elections again.

The reasonable, and fairly obvious, path we are on is a long term Israeli occupation--likely one that the Israeli politicians will labor to describe in different terms.

The current coalition simply can't withdraw and leave Gaza to its own devices--that will fracture and implode them.

They also can't hand over to PA for similar reasons, and they can't openly admit they are going to do some sort of long term occupation.

That leaves the likely scenario--a form of longer term occupation that exists in a definitional gray area, likely until the coalition in Israel breaks and an election is held, most likely the parties in that election will have as a major component of their platforms a specific position on how Gaza is to be handled.

[Josquius]

I have been thinking a bit about how a reasonable individual can argue against the war. There are probably lots of ways, but this is what I've been thinking.

I argue that the extreme violence, the meditated methods of it and the form it took removes all rights of the Hamas state to exist in its present form. They need to be removed at all reasonable cost.

Yes. Really Israel should have took notice of this earlier. The looking the other way/possible support for Hamas really bit them in the arse with dire consequences.

Between those two are arguments that this should be resolved diplomatically. In real terms that means that Hamas rule will continue and that they will win a huge propaganda victory. In real terms any argument here means that you are a supporter of Hamas rule.

Depends how you define resolve diplomatically.
By now things are way too far gone down a different path of course. But if in response to the attacks Israel had took an approach of reaching out to the Palestinian authority and asking them for help with bringing back hostages, sorting out the criminals, etc.... there's definitely a way they could have smartly played it democratically in a way to have not created 'the Palestine vs. Israel situation' Israel has turned it into, and rather more of an 'evil murderous fuckers in the region vs. everyone else who is so sick of their shit', choose a side situation .
There was still going to be fighting of course, but then the choice is never diplomacy vs. action. Both need to be involved and you want to play the diplomatic angle as well as possible to make the action easier and less bloody.
With the current Israeli government of course that was never going to happen and its really going off into alternate history territory.

2. Popular revolution/democratic vote removes Hamas.

The Gazans are massively behind Hamas and support them. No popular revolution is coming.

Needs noting this is only the case due to the massive Israeli campaign against Gaza prompting rally behind the flag feelings. Previously support for Hamas was very much in the minority.

Also define popular revolution. Any solution will need to involve someone from Palestine in charge unless Israel really does plan conquest.

Not going to happen, no-one wants to touch this with a 100m pole. That would also probably mean foreign troops doing what the IDF is doing now.

That leaves us with two options. Hamas stays or IDF removes them.

Which more or less makes everyones choice a hell. Either you in practice support Hamas or you in practice support Israel. You might argue that you only want peace and love, and think of the poor children, but in practice that's a vote on Hamas as rulers of Gaza. And you might say bullshit and that nothing is black or white and I would almost always agree, but in this case it's rather more black and white than usual.

For myself I'm not overly fond of Israeli politics these last decades and would they kindly fuck off back to their own country and stop settling Palestinian lands. But there's just no way in hell I would support Hamas over them.

(You in this case addressed to no-one in particular)

See this is the problem in the logic of so many that really frustrates me.
Seeing the only options as being do nothing and let Hamas get away with murder or do everything exactly as Israel is doing now; Any criticism of Israeli actions means you support doing nothing and are a pro-Hamas anti-semite, etc... etc....

I'm not following this war particularly closely. The whole thing is just so stupid and depressing, even taken alone let alone for how its fucking up more serious issues elsewhere, and at the best of times I'm not really into the minutia of military operations. So don't ask me for specific details here- that I'm not going to give them doesn't mean someone competent couldn't.

But there do seem to be so many ways Israel could have been far less brutal in their campaign. Less levelling of civilian areas, more allowance for humanitarian aid, taking a far more slow and steady approach to wiping out Hamas facilities, actually having a clue about what they're doing in Gaza beyond "Die Hamas Die"- that there's not been any hint about how they see things going when the campaign is done is seriously worrying.

[Sheilbh]

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.

Yeah. I think that's fair - I do think there's more to it than just removing Hamas' administrative control over Gaza. For example, as Joshi pointed out, the senior leadership has not been severely hit so far. The combat power has taken a big hit. It's more mixed on the tunnels. I think that is enough for Hamas to come back and at least challenge whoever has power in Gaza.

This leads to the point of what is Israel intending to do because it is not juust destroying Hamas' administrative - but ensuring Hamas are not able to rebuild it.

It is a complex technical system and people basically living in rubble eating uncooked flour and rice and the occasional can of tuna are not equipped to follow it.

I agree I think ultimately it's for Western consumption or to build a defensible case that you've taken all reasonable steps to avoid/mitigate civilian casualties. It's a consolation if you'll take it, not a meaningful way of reducing civilian deaths.

There are political reasons that neither Netanyahu or his coalition can easily stake out a position on this--all of the real options create political problems for the coalition. There probably won't be real clarity until after the coalition falls apart and Israel has elections again.

The reasonable, and fairly obvious, path we are on is a long term Israeli occupation--likely one that the Israeli politicians will labor to describe in different terms.

The current coalition simply can't withdraw and leave Gaza to its own devices--that will fracture and implode them.
They also can't hand over to PA for similar reasons, and they can't openly admit they are going to do some sort of long term occupation.

That leaves the likely scenario--a form of longer term occupation that exists in a definitional gray area, likely until the coalition in Israel breaks and an election is held, most likely the parties in that election will have as a major component of their platforms a specific position on how Gaza is to be handled.

Yeah there is huge demand for an election as soon as the "war" is over and the national unity coalition steps aside. The polling is that Likud's support has collapsed over 50-60% want Netanyahu gone. Add to that the anecdotal stuff of family members of victims chasing ministers out of hospitals, not wanting to speak to Netanyahu or the report that 15 of 17 wounded soldiers did not want to meet Netanyahu in a visit (which resulted in the PM's office issuing an extraordinary statement that the report was untrue and "an absolute majority" of the soldiers were pleased to see him).

Because of that I'm less sure the coalition will collapse. It's been said many times before but it feels like an election would be the end of Netanyahu's career. The golden thread running through his premiership is his will to survive and his skill at it. I think he will do whatever it takes to stay in office until an election is legally necessary - and that will mean doing whatever his coalition partners want. I suspect Israel's politics and society will become even more fractious and divided - and you're probably right that on top of that, for the short to medium term at least, that will also involve a new occupation (and I can't help but suspect that his coalition partner's price for occupation will be settlements in Gaza again).

And I think Gaza is a far more dangerous and difficult place for occupation so there will be all of the problems that led Sharon to force the settlements out. I don't think it will or can be sustainable - and practically I query how much the IDF can do if it is engaged in full occupation of two million people in Gaza and defending provocations by settlers in the West Bank. That feels potentially quite brittle and vulnerable to a surprise.

[Threviel]

See, that's a reasoned response Jos, well done. I agree with most of what you said.

The conduct of the war seems to leave a lot to be wished for, but like you I don't follow the day to day very closely, so I don't think I can point to particulars.

[OttoVonBismarck]

This leads to the point of what is Israel intending to do because it is not juust destroying Hamas' administrative - but ensuring Hamas are not able to rebuild it.

My suspicion is a large part of the next 3-6 months will be rendering the tunnels unusable in various ways. While not at all an expert analysis, my gut tells me that timeline is about how long the active phase of the "war" will go on.

Once that reaches a point of Israeli satisfaction, my guess is the occupation phase begins.

And I think Gaza is a far more dangerous and difficult place for occupation so there will be all of the problems that led Sharon to force the settlements out. I don't think it will or can be sustainable - and practically I query how much the IDF can do if it is engaged in full occupation of two million people in Gaza and defending provocations by settlers in the West Bank. That feels potentially quite brittle and vulnerable to a surprise.

Yeah, if I had to guess IDF / war cabinet is trying to game out a form of "occupation on the cheap", what that looks like I don't know.

After the Oslo Accords in '94, Israel turned over civil administration of the urban areas in the strip to the PA, and withdrew the IDF to military bases inside the strip, but at the perimeter in rural areas (e.g. they were no longer actively policing the cities.) This is likely a more sustainable form of "occupation", but of course the current Israeli coalition isn't open to PA control of the strip--so there is no party able to step into the role that Arafat's PA did in '94.

My guess is the Israeli "occupation" will be a somewhat haphazard affair they "muddle through."

I don't believe Israeli politics is going to allow a full withdrawal to the other side of the border and just pretend nothing happened like in prior wars with Hamas. But as you say, I don't see Israel wanting to reestablish the scope of the 1967-94 efforts where it ran a full military governorate and had to provide all services--police, emergency, medical, educational, defense etc to the strip.

None of the things I can think of sound like good plans, and I wonder if Israel's leaders basically know that--there is no good option, so they are just going to muddle through for a time until political realities change.

Something I don't see talked about enough is that Gaza is fucked up real bad in terms of physical infrastructure, there is going to have to be a huge humanitarian effort when the active fighting ends to rebuild to some level of habitability basically the entirety of the strip. Who is going to pay for that?

[Admiral Yi]

Do we know the way in which grid warnings are being transmitted?  I know the first set of warnings in the north were delivered by leaflet.  I agree setting up a website would be pretty boneheaded.

[Sheilbh]

Largely social media posts:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/israel-gaza-map-blocks-warning-system-contradictory/103187116

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks. 

Now I'm reconsidering my internet boneheaded position.  People still have phones.  The comments are about confusion and misinformation, not about failure to receive the message.

Though for the umpteenth time I wonder how cell phones continue to operate in war zones.

[Jacob]

They may have phones, but do the phones have coverage? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

[Admiral Yi]

They may have phones, but do the phones have coverage? I'm not sure that's a safe assumption.

Beats me.  Let's find out.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The reporting I had seen suggested poor internet connectivity on their mobile devices was a specific problem. I think they sometimes have service, they sometimes don't. I also think many of them can't reliably recharge their phones every day, so may have times when they are powered down.

[Iormlund]

Needs noting this is only the case due to the massive Israeli campaign against Gaza prompting rally behind the flag feelings. Previously support for Hamas was very much in the minority.

It's the other way around.

Support skyrocketed because Hamas successfully killed Jews. It is in fact higher in the West Bank and lower in Gaza (which is actually facing the consequences of that raid).

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNp_gyykqc

Congratulations to these protestors for their civility.

[Tamas]

A month or so ago the Guardian had a report on some (Bedouin, African, can't remember) shepherds in the West Bank being systemically bullied out by Israeli settlers. Needless to say these things are evil and will prevent any sort of peace. Also, the photos of where the speherds lived and how, made me think the closest comparison to what's happening there is what happened with the american natives and how the US settlers kept pushing them out.