Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

Why did no Palestinian refugees ever flee to Syria?

[Sheilbh]

People would rather admire the Palestinians from afar.  Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.

It would also be participating in ethnic cleansing.

Which is broadly where Smotrich and Ben Gvir's statements point - again the US has even more forcefully rejected this.

[Admiral Yi]

Words like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.

[Sheilbh]

Words like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.

This is the statement from the State Department - again they've repeatedly emphasised this point as have Egypt (who were reportedly sked to "resettle" Palestinians from Gaza and there have been articles in the Israeli press advocating Sinai as a "home"):

U.S. State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller on Rejection of Irresponsible Statements on Resettlement of Palestinians Outside of Gaza

The United States rejects recent statements from Israeli Ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir advocating for the resettlement of Palestinians outside of Gaza. This rhetoric is inflammatory and irresponsible. We have been told repeatedly and consistently by the Government of Israel, including by the Prime Minister, that such statements do not reflect the policy of the Israeli government. They should stop immediately.

We have been clear, consistent, and unequivocal that Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain Palestinian land, with Hamas no longer in control of its future and with no terror groups able to threaten Israel. That is the future we seek, in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians, the surrounding region, and the world.

The statements being referred to are Smotrich calling for "willful emigration" as well as "not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing". Ben Gvir has said the war presents an "opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza", which allies have called "correct, just, moral and humane". That "opportunity" is a different conflict from one against Hamas.

I agree with you that it's not helpful. But it is also important not to weasel word away from a reality, as Orwell's line has it there's a power of facing. Maybe "population transfer" is more helpful - but it is also just a euphemism. When there's "willful emigration" on one side and bombs on the other it's forced dportation not willful, language that it's in order to allow the settlement of another population which is an "opportunity" - we should call that what it is. And if a country is volunteering to "resettle" Palestinians, then they're participating. It's why this is a line the US has repeatedly said must not be crossed (as have Egypt, the most likely destination).

I'd add I also think it's insane given the extraordinary survival of Palestinian national identity (which has, if anything, strengthened in the absence of a national state) to think this would somehow solve Israel's problems. It would move it and further internationalise it.

Edit: And I'd add that I think this is the same standard that was applied in Armenia (speaking of extraordinarily resilient national identities). The Azeris were not literally forcing people out - but I think I called that ethnic cleansing for the same reason. I think Bidens team are absolutely right on this and there needs to be a very clear red line.

[Razgovory]

People would rather admire the Palestinians from afar.  Ask the Lebanese and the Jordanians what happens when you admire them close up.

It would also be participating in ethnic cleansing.

Which is broadly where Smotrich and Ben Gvir's statements point - again the US has even more forcefully rejected this.

That's kind of perverse.  "We can't let you into our country.  That would be ethnic cleansing.  You stay home, in the warzone."

[Jacob]

Words like ethnic cleansing and genocide are so unhelpful to this debate.

If the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.

[Admiral Yi]

If the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.

Disagree.  Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.

Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.

[Josquius]

If the Palestinians in Gaza are all relocated to outside of Gaza as refugees and replaced by Israeli settlements that is ethnic cleansing, by definition.

Disagree.  Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.

Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.

Whats not coercive about "get the fuck out of this area as its going to be bombed to bits"?

What is currently happening doesn't meet the criteria yet. It could well all be temporary and once Israel goes home it's back to life as normal minus several tens of thousands of dead.
But it's certainly on a path which could go in a ethnic cleansing direction if Israel chooses the evil door.

[Threviel]

https://warontherocks.com/2023/12/reversing-americas-ruinous-support-for-israels-assault-on-gaza/

Interesting editorial about how Israel mismanages the war and that the US should stop supporting them rom a reputable source.

[Iormlund]

I usually gauge criticism by the alternative paths the author proposes. In this case its an incredibly vague "A successful campaign would have been aimed at the group's main sources of political power."

What does that even mean?

[Threviel]

Yeah, I thought the criticism is valid, but like almost every other criticizer he fails to present a realistic alternative. Without a realistic alternative the only option I see is to support Israel.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, I thought the criticism is valid, but like almost every other criticizer he fails to present a realistic alternative. Without a realistic alternative the only option I see is to support Israel.

Although I think his point is also valid that military action needs to be in the service of an achievable political goal - and that's not clearly the case here, in part because the Israeli leadership (I think because of divisions, but also international constraints) aren't able to articulate that turning it into a bit of a movable feast.

The piece he links to is here:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/how-israel-can-win-hamas

They broadly point out that repression can work against groups like Hamas - for example Sri Lanka was successful (despite condemnation at the time) in ending the Tamil Tigers, Peru the Shining Path and Russia in crushing domestic terrorist organisations. But they argue all of those came with costs (including, in the case of Peru and Russia, to democratic governance) and that the conditions that allowed that strategy to work isn't present in Gaza.

Their alternative is below (from 15 October) - however plausible you find this:

HOW TO WIN BY NOT LOSING

Overwhelming military oppression in Gaza would backfire, stirring support for resistance and aligning Israel's adversaries against it. A more nuanced political strategy would divide them. Israeli leaders must make clear that their enemies are the 30,000 Hamas fighters in Gaza, especially the Qassam Brigades, and not the two million other residents of Gaza. To legitimize its barbarity, Hamas has claimed that every Israeli is a combatant, just as al Qaeda and ISIS did in their campaigns in the West and in the Middle East. Israel must avoid doing the same thing and make clear that it is specifically targeting Hamas.

A successful Israeli military response would use discriminate force, making it clear through both statements and actions that Israel's enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people. The Israeli government should help fleeing Gazans find somewhere to go, by either creating safe zones, helping the Egyptians to do so, or permitting regional or international actors to create a humanitarian corridor, and then allowing aid organizations to supply food and water to trapped civilians. Even in the north, they must avoid targeting Gazan hospitals from which the injured cannot be moved. Hamas will use those people as human shields—and when they do, such barbarity toward their own people will sap the group's ability to mobilize wider support. The Israel Defense Forces will be fighting street to street; Hamas will not hold them off for long regardless.

No one is asking for a new Israeli-Palestinian peace process now, but Israeli leaders must stop actively encouraging West Bank settlements to expand, a process that has gradually snuffed out any hope of a two-state solution. Israel must give the Palestinian Authority a reason to stand aside during this fight; otherwise, Israel will be flanked by fighting in both Palestinian territories. Israel must lean on its international partners to urge Iran not to encourage attacks by Hezbollah. The United States has already warned Tehran and the terrorist group not to attack Israel and has sent a carrier strike force to the region to deter them and any other parties from joining the conflict. Steps such as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's tour of six Arab countries and discussions with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas can help, but only if Israel does not further inflame its enemies with indiscriminate killing in Gaza.

Finally, the Israelis must come together politically, not just militarily. Before the attacks, Netanyahu's efforts to weaken Israel's judiciary had divided the public and produced pushback among some military reservists and even some senior members of the security establishment, arguably making the country more vulnerable to attack. Without a clear endgame, a renewed occupation of Gaza could further split the country. Netanyahu has created an emergency unity government with one of his rivals, the former army general Benny Gantz. But Netanyahu has refused to fully sideline the far-right members of his coalition, suggesting that he is still unwilling to move past the divisive politics that paralyzed Israel and possibly invited this Hamas assault. Only a truly unified political leadership will fortify Israel's democracy for the difficult military operations ahead, giving it the domestic mandate necessary to build a winning strategy and end Hamas for good.

I think the point on striking political power makes me think of Joshi's assessment which I posted earlier - at that point a couple of weeks ago Israel had had pretty limited success in actually striking the Hamas leadership (but considerably more success in killing Hamas fighters and some more success in dismantling the tunnel network in the north at least). I think they've killed a senior leader in the last few days but it is striking that broadly they're still struggling to actually get the leadership.

My suspicion is that this goes back to the status of Gaza and also to the over-confidence of Israel before 7 October. I think there's two sides to that one is basically the tech solution to Hamas which was Iron Dome, drones etc that gave a false sense of confidence that Hamas were nullified. But I've read that Israel was also very confident that they knew what was going on in Gaza through intelligence sources and with 7 October realised they didn't have the intelligence they thought. I think part of the challenge with killing the senior leadership is actually that Israel's intelligence in Gaza is a lot weaker than they expected - which is also why they're pushed to less discriminate methods because the information to discriminate is less or less reliable than they'd thought.

I suspect that's a consequence of not being an occupying force anymore which goes to the question of the status of Gaza. Because either Israel needs to be in a position to have sources and truly monitor what's going on in Gaza which would require long-term occupation and all of its consequences - or they need someone else who can do that for them. But I don't think you can just lean on the tech solution and I think it's probably very challenging to have that type of intelligence gathering without having some form of presence on the ground.

[Iormlund]

That piece seems to imply the IDF would still be assaulting Gaza, which is where most of the casualties come from. So I can't see that much of a real difference. You could argue the IDF should put less value on its troops and more on Palestinian civilians, but honestly that's rather naive.

As for the West Bank thing, even if the government wanted to (they don't) you don't make any concession after a massacre. That would legitimize what happened on Oct 7.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm a little skeptical that if the war keeps running as it does Hamas leaders in Gaza don't end up dead or captured. This isn't Afghanistan where they have a huge and rugged country to hide in, and nearby Pakistan to dip into if things get too tight. This is more like the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin '45 situation, there really is nowhere for them to go.

Hamas political leadership outside Gaza is obviously harder to get to, but IMO they are actually less of a concern in many respects. There is a lot of evidence that there is a major ideological rift between Hamas political leadership--largely who live outside Gaza and who have internally advocated for basically become a competitor to Fatah and even open to negotiations with Israel, and the military leadership who live inside Gaza and basically believe in apocalyptic war.

Getting the more moderate leaders who aren't part of Hamas military operations isn't actually that important.

In regards to expelling Gazans--that is obviously a nonstarter. The Times of Israel initially broke the story that elements inside of Israel's government were negotiating with countries to do this, but the Times of Israel shortly after broke another story with another Israeli government source (unnamed) who basically said that it is bullshit and just delusions by a certain faction inside the government. My guess is the Ben-Gvir and Smotrich faction really want this to happen, and everyone else in the coalition simply understands it isn't politically feasible and not a real idea.

On a meta level, I do actually support Gazan refugees being allowed to permanently emigrate from Gaza; but it is important that they want to do that versus be forced by Israel. A big criticism of the UNRWA (the refugee entity at the UN that manages refugees only for the Israel-Palestine conflict, the UNHCR manages all other refugee efforts of the UN), is that it is actually designed to keep Palestinians as "permanent refugees." Largely contributing to the "frozen conflict."

This has made it hard for Israel to "win" the conflict, but it has also doomed millions of Palestinians to not only living out their lives as poor refugees, but doomed their children to inherit that status. That is way out of line with how all other refugees are handled, who are intended to assimilate into their host countries, and whose children are generally not supposed to "inherit" refugee status when they are born in the host country.

I think there is a strong argument for opening up the normal refugee process to all Palestinians who are interested (even those in the West Bank.)

How many would actually go--knowing that it means they, in a small way on an individual level, are permanently ceding ground to Israel, is hard to say. But Palestine's conflict with Israel is their business, the international community IMO has no place forcing Palestinians to remain as permanent refugees in contravention to how virtually all other refugees handled by the UN are created.

Now, refugees handled by other entities (like say, Pakistan or Turkiye) have regularly been kept as permanent refugees as well, but most people agree that isn't a good situation.

[Jacob]

Disagree.  Ethnic cleansing requires coercion.

Calling what the Israelis are doing at this moment ethnic cleansing pre-adjudicates points which are all negotiable.

I'm not calling what they're doing now ethnic cleansing. I'm saying that if the majority of Gazans are driven from Gaza and replaced by Israeli settlers, that is ethnic cleansing.