Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Hamilcar]

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1712439647689728487

It seems like Israel is about to show what an enraged western democracy is capable of when the gloves come off. They are really not fucking around. This was presumably a warning shot across the bow to Iran, next time they'll bomb during/after landing.

My take was that next time, they'll down the Minister's plane.

(Lockheed Martin engineers must think Christmas has come early to see their F-35s fly around with impunity and  fuck shit up)

[Threviel]

Yeah, something like that. A very very serious warning.

Russian shit couldn't handle Nato 80's handmedowns in Ukraine, Israel can presumably do almost what what they want with modern stuff.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I wonder if eventually Israel's plan would be to go in, try to kill every member of Hamas down to the last man, and then get out and seal it a little better this time around.  Sure, there is plenty of raw material in Gaza to replace Hamas, but maybe the replacements will remember how there got to be an opening that they filled, and that an opening can be created again. 

It's often said that harshly suppressing resistance just invites more of it, but I think that's true only up to a point.  Eventually the suppression just becomes too overwhelming to overcome through inspiration.  I think this is the kind of scenario of retribution rather than reoccupation that Israel can get away with, thanks primarily to the unspeakable brutality of Hamas, as long as they don't flatten too much of Gaza while digging out the Hamas fighters.

"Harsh suppression just creates more resistance" has always been false. It is an aphorism that sounds wise, but it is out of step with observed reality.

It is certainly the case that sometimes harsh suppression just increases the willingness of a civilian population to riot / rebel, sometimes to disastrous effect. But there are probably more known examples of States harshly suppressing rebels and the movements dying out. The question as to whether it is more likely to do one versus the other has to be looked at based on the specifics on the ground and the overall situation.

To tie it more to the current situation, the reason I think harsh suppression may not lead to any permanent quash of Palestinian militants is because:

1. Israel, despite the claims of its many detractors, is not going to Roman Empire or Genghis Khan style truly genocide the Palestinians (e.g. mass murder of almost all adult males, shipping women and children off in chains as slaves, leave behind a very small remnant population.)

2. Since they aren't doing 1, the population of Palestinians will still exist, and since Israel has no willingness to do anything to move the occupied peoples into some semblance of a normal life, they have little incentive to be peaceful. Most successfully crushed rebellions, at least the ones where they didn't go Option 1, the State creates conditions so the crushed people have some pathway to living a normal life where they can be comfortable and take care of their families.  Most people aren't willing to fight and lose their lives if they have a tolerable living condition and some semblance of "something to live for."

[crazy canuck]

Always been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.

[Threviel]

Yeah, if harsh suppression crates more resistance then Grozny would be a hotbed of resistance.

Traditionally western nations, well, except the Germans and Belgians, does not have the stomach to go all Roman Empire on their enemies. And I don't think the Israelis will do it either. They are in a shit strategic position where they are more or less forced to occupy Gaza, but then what?

They can't very well impose democracy on Gaza, that'll just lead to Hamas 2.0. There's no secular security organisation within Gaza that can take over, so if they want that they'll have to support Fatah and that'll just be a new shit show leading to eternal occupation.

The best option would perhaps be to ask the UN or something to take over stewardship, but I don't know about the feasibility of that and it carries the risk of an inefficient UN allowing terrorism to rise.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Always been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.

The aphorism that brutal suppression just makes the resistance strong, is what I am saying is faulty.

The reality is sometimes it makes it stronger, sometimes it doesn't. There is no wiseman absolute rule about it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, if harsh suppression crates more resistance then Grozny would be a hotbed of resistance.

Traditionally western nations, well, except the Germans and Belgians, does not have the stomach to go all Roman Empire on their enemies. And I don't think the Israelis will do it either. They are in a shit strategic position where they are more or less forced to occupy Gaza, but then what?

They can't very well impose democracy on Gaza, that'll just lead to Hamas 2.0. There's no secular security organisation within Gaza that can take over, so if they want that they'll have to support Fatah and that'll just be a new shit show leading to eternal occupation.

The best option would perhaps be to ask the UN or something to take over stewardship, but I don't know about the feasibility of that and it carries the risk of an inefficient UN allowing terrorism to rise.

Congratulations, you have discovered the conundrum of attaining peace in the Middle East 

[crazy canuck]

Always been false? The Palestinian case itself proves you're assertion is faulty.

The aphorism that brutal suppression just makes the resistance strong, is what I am saying is faulty.

The reality is sometimes it makes it stronger, sometimes it doesn't. There is no wiseman absolute rule about it.

I accept that. Your original statement was that the aphorism is always false but as noted, in the case of the Palestinians, it is entirely true and particularly in the case of Gaza.

[Josquius]

Its old.
But as done before I recommend the Peacemaker game to see if you can fix the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

http://www.peacemakergame.com/

[Threviel]

Yeah, the only real road to peace is 50 years of imposed economic prosperity, rule of law and proper schooling to get rid of the plague that is fundamentalist religion. And then perhaps democracy.

[crazy canuck]

I just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.

He feels strongly that Israel has a right to defend itself, but within the bounds of international law.

This goes to Jacob's point about there, being a very slim chance that Israel could ever hold any moral high ground.

It was also noted that the US has said that it is appropriate for Israel to respond, but the important part is how they respond. The subtlety of that statement might be lost on the cheerleaders, but it seems a clear warning to Israel to stay within the bounds of international law.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Realistically the only way to peace I can see is one side has to agree to turn the other cheek.

After Oslo and leading up to the 2nd Intifada, Israel seemed more willing to negotiate, and willing to make concessions, than ever before.

Then the 2nd Intifada happened, Sharon came to power--and while for a Likud PM he was still at least willing to try and go down the Oslo path, the country had obviously reacted to the violence by moving further right.

Since that time we have mostly just had successively more right wing Israeli governments.

The way through that would have required Israel to do something that is, frankly, nigh impossible for any country to do--to see the violence and the attacks of the 2nd Intifada and double down on the peace plan / negotiations, saying "okay this was terrible, but we have stopped the fighting again and we have to keep making this work."

Like most countries, Israel wasn't willing to become philosophical about it, they went the other way. That is writ large why the thing is so intractable, neither side is truly willing to fight hard for peace if they ever feel the other side is being unreasonable, but most likely the conflict will never have both sides being reasonable.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I just heard an interview with an international law prof, who took the position that the indiscriminate siege of Gaza is contrary to international law. He noted that Israel needs to take a proportional response, which differentiates between legitimate targets and civilians. The act of shutting off access to water and energy will kill civilians, and the Israelis know it.

He feels strongly that Israel has a right to defend itself, but within the bounds of international law.

This goes to Jacob's point about there, being a very slim chance that Israel could ever hold any moral high ground.

It was also noted that the US has said that it is appropriate for Israel to respond, but the important part is how they respond. The subtlety of that statement might be lost on the cheerleaders, but it seems a clear warning to Israel to stay within the bounds of international law.

Trying to separate the legal and the moral--I think a civilized, Western state conducting a siege should allow a humanitarian corridor.

I don't believe Israel has a legal obligation to generate electricity for its enemy in a declared war (which this is), or to ship them fuel or water. But I think there is a moral obligation to allow very basic necessities to come in through a humanitarian corridor with Egypt.

Legally, my understanding is the early 20th century laws of war largely don't address much around siege warfare--which was a well understood and accepted practice at the time. One of them did address wanton "bombardment" of cities, but it didn't apply to aerial bombardment.

Prohibitions on aerial bombardment came about in later conventions, I believe one of the APs to the GC, and AFAIk Israel, the U.S. and most other countries that "actually fight wars" never did.

There are also some prohibitions in GC AP1 about besieging civilian cities, which again--the relevant parties haven't signed (the U.S. signed it but the Senate wouldn't ratify it, Israel has not signed it, neither has India or Turkey.)

I think this is why a lot of the experts have tiptoed really carefully around the international law aspect. Usually saying things like "this isn't in line with the law", but a lot of them aren't saying Israel is breaking the law, because they know the law that prohibits this are laws Israel never agreed to sign, and customary international law hasn't evolved to the point that unsigned parts of the GC are held to be universally applied (in no small part because the U.S. is vigorously against such things, since it has a number of later GC addendums it has never agreed with.)

[crazy canuck]

The interviewer asked the prof the moral question. He asked whether given the porosity of the terrorist attack, Israel was justified in what it is now doing. The prof was quite clear that Israel as a Democracy has a higher standard to meet than a terrorist organization.

The Palestinian people are not the enemy of Israel, unless you buy into the extreme right wing view of the current Israeli government. They are attacking a terrorist organization, and in the course of doing that they are killing civilians knowingly. In any other context we would all agree that is a war crime.

[DGuller]

I just saw a story about several CEOs asking for names of Harvard students that wrote a statement blaming Israel for the Hamas attacks, openly saying that the intention was to blacklist them from employment.  For the strong supporters of "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences", are you okay with this?