Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

How many white leftists does it take to put up a projection? And what percentage of the whole group of white leftists does it make up? Whats the break even point where the number of bad white leftists makes the whole movement tainted? What about the white rightest who support Israel in the hope of Armageddon and the death of all jews? If that percentage is higher do you switch side to the evil white liberals?

Dude, do you even read my posts?

[HVC]

How many white leftists does it take to put up a projection? And what percentage of the whole group of white leftists does it make up? Whats the break even point where the number of bad white leftists makes the whole movement tainted? What about the white rightest who support Israel in the hope of Armageddon and the death of all jews? If that percentage is higher do you switch side to the evil white liberals?

Dude, do you even read my posts?

I believe I do, though it's possible I missed some nuances you wished to convey. If you could point me to where you've answered these questions previously I'll be more then happy to read your post(s) again to see where I missed them

[Solmyr]

I'm tired of playing these stupid games.  I'm tired of the bad guys winning.  Why should we let them win by committing war crimes?  Hamas delibratly works to get civilians killed, and rather than outrage, it turns people to their side.  You want to give them what they want, the Israelis out of Gaza.  Hamas manipulation is working.

So basically, we should not let the guys who commit war crimes win, so we will commit war crimes to win. Great logic there.

I don't think wars should go to the side that is more willing to sacrifice their own children, I suppose we disagree here.

I'm 100% sure IDF could win without killing a lot of Gaza's civilians. It might take them a bit more more effort, which I guess they don't want to bother with.

[Razgovory]

I'm tired of playing these stupid games.  I'm tired of the bad guys winning.  Why should we let them win by committing war crimes?  Hamas delibratly works to get civilians killed, and rather than outrage, it turns people to their side.  You want to give them what they want, the Israelis out of Gaza.  Hamas manipulation is working.

So basically, we should not let the guys who commit war crimes win, so we will commit war crimes to win. Great logic there.

I don't think wars should go to the side that is more willing to sacrifice their own children, I suppose we disagree here.

I'm 100% sure IDF could win without killing a lot of Gaza's civilians. It might take them a bit more more effort, which I guess they don't want to bother with.

 

[Solmyr]

Also, please stop speaking for Jews. As Jewish myself, I find it offensive that you claim that Jews must starve and kill women and children in order to win.

[Razgovory]

The Israelis could have invested in those bullets that curve around civilians and only kill the enemy but didn't because they were just lazy.  Hell, they could have destroyed Hamas years ago, but thought it was too much work.

[Tamas]

I'm tired of playing these stupid games.  I'm tired of the bad guys winning.  Why should we let them win by committing war crimes?  Hamas delibratly works to get civilians killed, and rather than outrage, it turns people to their side.  You want to give them what they want, the Israelis out of Gaza.  Hamas manipulation is working.

So basically, we should not let the guys who commit war crimes win, so we will commit war crimes to win. Great logic there.

I don't think wars should go to the side that is more willing to sacrifice their own children, I suppose we disagree here.

I'm 100% sure IDF could win without killing a lot of Gaza's civilians. It might take them a bit more more effort, which I guess they don't want to bother with.

So, obviously Raz has worked himself up into an ugly frenzy but you reminded me of this point I wanted to make, of why I keep referencing WW2 experience.

So, there is no historic evidence that shows that a modern conflict where at least one (and in this particular case, both) side considers it a core/survival interest to triumph (rightly or wrongly is beside the point), can be resolved without excessive civilian deaths.

Moreover, we have no proof of such severe ethnic strife could be resolved without ethnic cleansing. After WW1 and WW2 especially it took forced mass migrations to resolve and prevent such conflicts and it is very unrealistic to claim that without the excessive great power military presence (particularly the Soviets)  in the region (from Poland to Romania) these would not had flared up anyway. Look at and around Hungary, it's been a 105 years and still not only the border question is (now minor) factor in radical politics in Hungary but also just now a violently anti-Hungarian candidate nearly won the Romanian presidential elections. Sure this is nowhere near Middle-East scale but, again, this is after a 100 years of stronger powers making sure these ethnicities didn't have the chance to go uppity against each other AND with mass exchange of populations between the countries.

In Bosnia, the political situation looks like fragile as ever, Kosovo seems one NATO distraction away from flaring up again, etc.

I am not saying that the logical conclusion is that the current level of horror in Gaza is the only possible way to resolve such a conflict, but it does seem like the complete breaking of one side's civilian population('s morale) IS the only way to conclusively resolve conflicts like this. There's no evidence to the contrary.

[Josquius]

But to suggest the current conflict in Gaza is a core survival interest for Israel is just no right.
This isn't the Yom Kippur War here. Israel as a whole was never in any serious danger. Had the government been competent what casualties they did suffer in the initial attack could have been slashed dramatically.
 It's a hostage rescue gone horribly wrong. On the face. More cyncially a naked power grab.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks Israel being pissed is understandable. But even then thinking their national survival is under threat would be nuts.
Still due to the brutality of the attacks and high emotions some leeway could be given at first.
But as the hours became days became weeks became months became years.... Jeez.

[Tamas]

But to suggest the current conflict in Gaza is a core survival interest for Israel is just no right.
This isn't the Yom Kippur War here. Israel as a whole was never in any serious danger. Had the government been competent what casualties they did suffer in the initial attack could have been slashed dramatically.
 It's a hostage rescue gone horribly wrong. On the face. More cyncially a naked power grab.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks Israel being pissed is understandable. But even then thinking their national survival is under threat would be nuts.
Still due to the brutality of the attacks and high emotions some leeway could be given at first.
But as the hours became days became weeks became months became years.... Jeez.

You partially misunderstood my point. I don't want to get into discussing whether Israel (surrounded by several countries and organisations publicly wishing for their country's destruction since 1948) is justified to fear for their national survival, as my post also mentions, that's beside the point.

Moreover, for this scenario, you only need to have one side to feel like that. And even if Israel wouldn't, the Palestinians, or at least sufficient portion of them, do, in the sense that they have been refusing compromise two-state solutions since 1948, in the hope of resolving the territorial questions with them dictating the terms the same way the Israelis are dictating now.

And, again, for my overall point, this doesn't matter. What I am saying is that it is incorrect and somewhat unfair* to say that the conflict Israel is facing can be resoled without a major impact on the Palestinian civilian population. No. The same way the Palestinian preferred outcome could not be achieved without a major impact on the Israeli civilian population. Such conflicts end (permanently) either because one side wins and then ethnically cleanses the areas in question, or a power stronger than both combatants enforces a truce by force of arms.

*: by unfair I mean that when Western countries faced similar conflicts, they couldn't find another way to victory than the one Israel is applying. In WW2 they indiscriminately bombed civilian populations to subdue the fascist nations. Violence still brutal but not that brutal failed to achieve it's aims (Vietnam etc). The only other option that "worked" was retreat like in numerous colonial independence movements. Which is an option Israel do NOT have - the UK retreating from India and other former colonies achieved peace between the ex-colony and the UK because the ex-colony's population had achieved their full aim. Israel cannot do so because an influential portion of the opposing population wants them gone not just from the post-1967 borders but beyond.

[crazy canuck]

I'm tired of playing these stupid games.  I'm tired of the bad guys winning.  Why should we let them win by committing war crimes?  Hamas delibratly works to get civilians killed, and rather than outrage, it turns people to their side.  You want to give them what they want, the Israelis out of Gaza.  Hamas manipulation is working.

So basically, we should not let the guys who commit war crimes win, so we will commit war crimes to win. Great logic there.

I don't think wars should go to the side that is more willing to sacrifice their own children, I suppose we disagree here.

I'm 100% sure IDF could win without killing a lot of Gaza's civilians. It might take them a bit more more effort, which I guess they don't want to bother with.

So, obviously Raz has worked himself up into an ugly frenzy but you reminded me of this point I wanted to make, of why I keep referencing WW2 experience.

So, there is no historic evidence that shows that a modern conflict where at least one (and in this particular case, both) side considers it a core/survival interest to triumph (rightly or wrongly is beside the point), can be resolved without excessive civilian deaths.

Moreover, we have no proof of such severe ethnic strife could be resolved without ethnic cleansing. After WW1 and WW2 especially it took forced mass migrations to resolve and prevent such conflicts and it is very unrealistic to claim that without the excessive great power military presence (particularly the Soviets)  in the region (from Poland to Romania) these would not had flared up anyway. Look at and around Hungary, it's been a 105 years and still not only the border question is (now minor) factor in radical politics in Hungary but also just now a violently anti-Hungarian candidate nearly won the Romanian presidential elections. Sure this is nowhere near Middle-East scale but, again, this is after a 100 years of stronger powers making sure these ethnicities didn't have the chance to go uppity against each other AND with mass exchange of populations between the countries.

In Bosnia, the political situation looks like fragile as ever, Kosovo seems one NATO distraction away from flaring up again, etc.

I am not saying that the logical conclusion is that the current level of horror in Gaza is the only possible way to resolve such a conflict, but it does seem like the complete breaking of one side's civilian population('s morale) IS the only way to conclusively resolve conflicts like this. There's no evidence to the contrary.

You have overstated your position. There are plenty of counter examples, including Canada, the US and Mexico.

Croatia gained it's independence and solidified its borders without "breaking", which by the way is an interesting euphemism for starving civilians, the will of Serbians.

I am sure that if you thought about it more you will think of other examples.

[Tamas]

Are you saying the US wars vs Canada and Mexico were ethnic conflicts comparable in nature to those of the 20th century? Give me a break.

[Iormlund]

That's not how it works. If one party uses their civilian population as a shield, their protection is simply removed.

The onus is not on the other party. Contrary to what many people seem to think, the laws of war were not designed to make war impossible. Nobody would have signed them otherwise.

That's not how it works. If the combatants of a side use civilians as a shield, those combatants lose their LOAC protections.  The civilians do not.

The LOAC are not designed to make war impossible (that's a strawman argument), they are designed to make the war's harmful impact on the innocent and those hors de combat as small as possible.

They do lose the protection in practice. The opposing party must follow protocol, assess proportionality and so on. But they can strike. Whereas they would not be able to do so at all all absent a military target.

[crazy canuck]

Are you saying the US wars vs Canada and Mexico were ethnic conflicts comparable in nature to those of the 20th century? Give me a break.

Are you saying WWI was an ethnic conflict comparable to the war in Gaza, give me a break.

And I noticed you didn't deal with the fact that the Croatia war of independence doesn't fit your model either.

And since you didn't bother, thinking about it a bit more I'll add another example. But I believe in you I really do think that if you think this out a bit more, you will realize that your point is overstated.

Here's another counter example, the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into its ethnic regions.  No starving of civilians required.

[Tamas]

Although WW1s aftermath created a lot of strife in my part of the world, I will give you that ww2 is a more apt example of total war by nations/ethnicities against each other)

Croatia isn't considered a core territory by Serbians so they gave up the way colonisers gave up their colonies or Russia the Warsaw pact states. It does not disprove my point.

[Iormlund]

I'm with Tamas here.

Polls consistently show that 'armed struggle' is the preferred option for Palestinians (slowly diminishing in Gaza as the war rages on).
Also, Hamas would still be the most voted party by a large difference (as of May). Both in the West Bank and Gaza.

Source: https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/997