Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

In reponse:
1. As Jacob points out above, it is not a conspiracy theory to point out the government's policy of downplaying security risks to Gaza to bolster their settlement policy on the West Bank nor his adherence to the policy of using Hamas to play off and weaken Fatah.  Nor it is conspiracy theory to point out the obvious and glaring fact of a massive intelligence and security failure and the PM's accountability for it.

2.  You are correct, a national crisis is not the time to look for scapegoats.  And since Netanyahu cannot stop himself from doing exactly that, causing yet more divisions in society, that is yet another reason he must go ASAP.

3. I was not aware that Netanyahu had a relationship with the US Democratic Party, shitty or otherwise, nor did that thought enter in my mind in the slightest.  My concern is hi9s complete lack of credibility on the international stage and his inability AND unwillingness to make a persuasive case for Israel's actions before the international community.  The US Democratic Party is close to the least of his problems in that respect.

1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part.  I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab.  I don't understand the intelligence failure argument.  Did he starve the Mossad of funds?  Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge?  I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure.  The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.

2. I don't know what scapegoating you are talking about me.  Please enlighten me.

3. Don't play stupid, if there's anyone it doesn't suit it's you.  Obama tried to hardball the Israelis into stopping settlements and Netanyahu spit in his face and told him we've already counted the votes and you lose.  If the US's trust in Netanyahu is not a factor, why did you start the bowling with it, in response to Shelf's newsflash?  And can you say if Israel had a trustworthy PM the Arab street would have reacted any differently to the failed rocket that hit the hospital?  Who exactly is the target audience for your hypothetical trustworthy PM?

[Jacob]

1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part.  I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab.  I don't understand the intelligence failure argument.  Did he starve the Mossad of funds?  Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge?  I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure.  The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.

1. One example: large number of troops moved away from Gaza to protect West Bank settlers in response to West Bank settlers fucking with Palestinians - as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settlers fuckery.

2. I don't know what scapegoating you are talking about me.  Please enlighten me.

2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.

3. Don't play stupid, if there's anyone it doesn't suit it's you.  Obama tried to hardball the Israelis into stopping settlements and Netanyahu spit in his face and told him we've already counted the votes and you lose.  If the US's trust in Netanyahu is not a factor, why did you start the bowling with it, in response to Shelf's newsflash?  And can you say if Israel had a trustworthy PM the Arab street would have reacted any differently to the failed rocket that hit the hospital?  Who exactly is the target audience for your hypothetical trustworthy PM?

I'll leave JR to respond because I don't understand what you're saying here.

[The Minsky Moment]

I spoke of the US trust in the Israeli goverment because sheilbh's comment was about the content of a US government communication. That was an administration communication, not a Democratic Party communication.  And although it is true Biden is a Democrat, I do not see that lack of trust as an American political party issue but as a matter of common sense assessment of the reality of the composition of the present government, their public statements, and their public positions.

But my comment about why Bibi should go, although contained in the same post, was a separate point. Whether Biden's security team trusts him is tertiary at best.  That's not why he needs to go; Israel can function just fine with some level of personal distrust with their otherwise solid US ally.  The reasons he needs to go are the reasons I gave, which has little to do with the specific dynamics of the US relationship.

[Admiral Yi]

1. One example: large number of troops moved away from Gaza to protect West Bank settlers in response to West Bank settlers fucking with Palestinians - as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settlers fuckery.

Wouldn't moving troops to the settlements do both?  Or we have credible eyewitness accounts of IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians?

As to "downplaying the risk to Gaza," isn't that just another way of phrasing the conspiracy theory?

2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.

Well that certainly sucks.

[Jacob]

Wouldn't moving troops to the settlements do both?  Or we have credible eyewitness accounts of IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians?

You know that West Bank settlements are on the opposite side of the country as Gaza, right? Moving troops to the settlements weakened protections at Gaza.

If you allow the West Bank settlers to run riot and as a consequence require a significantly increased military presence to keep them safe, and if you provide that increased military presence by withdrawing troops that previously monitored the border with Gaza, then you have weakened the protection of Israel near Gaza. That is what happened, and that is what Hamas exploited.

"IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians" is a complete non-sequiteur. IDF troops were unavailable because Nethanyahu's policy decisions - long term and short term - had led to them being deployed on the other side of the country to support his core voters picking fights with Palestinians.

As to "downplaying the risk to Gaza," isn't that just another way of phrasing the conspiracy theory?

No.

There's no conspiracy theory.

Well that certainly sucks.

It does.

[Admiral Yi]

You know that West Bank settlements are on the opposite side of the country as Gaza, right? Moving troops to the settlements weakened protections at Gaza.

If you allow the West Bank settlers to run riot and as a consequence require a significantly increased military presence to keep them safe, and if you provide that increased military presence by withdrawing troops that previously monitored the border with Gaza, then you have weakened the protection of Israel near Gaza. That is what happened, and that is what Hamas exploited.

It is an irrefutable fact.  Troops that are deployed to sector A cannot also be deployed to sector B.  Troops are a finite resource therefor have to be deployed to areas of the highest priority.  It seems very natural and logical to me that if settlers are shooting up Palestinians right *now* and Hamas is not cutting baby heads right *now* that the West Bank is a higher priority.

"IDF troops laughing and smoking cigarettes while some deranged settler shoots up Palestinians" is a complete non-sequiteur. IDF troops were unavailable because Nethanyahu's policy decisions - long term and short term - had led to them being deployed on the other side of the country to support his core voters picking fights with Palestinians.

I think it sequited perfectly with your comment "as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settler asshattery."  Because if they put out their cigarettes and told a settler to chill out, or put him jail, or shot him, they are doing exactly what you said they are not doing.

No.

There's no conspiracy theory.

I guess that's settled then.

[Admiral Yi]

Something doesn't make sense to me.

Were these IDF troops moved to the WB before or after the Hamas attack?  If before, there was a sudden spate of settler on Palestinian violence just before the Hamas attack?

After makes more sense.  Before seems random.

[Jacob]

It is an irrefutable fact.  Troops that are deployed to sector A cannot also be deployed to sector B.  Troops are a finite resource therefor have to be deployed to areas of the highest priority.  It seems very natural and logical to me that if settlers are shooting up Palestinians right *now* and Hamas is not cutting baby heads right *now* that the West Bank is a higher priority.

Indeed.

And since it's Nethanyahu's government policies that led to situation in the West Bank, it seems pretty natural to blame him for the consequences.

I think it sequited perfectly with your comment "as opposed to attempt to rein in West Bank settler asshattery."  Because if they put out their cigarettes and told a settler to chill out, or put him jail, or shot him, they are doing exactly what you said they are not doing.

IDF troops were not in the West Bank to rein in settlers, but to protect them against the Palestinian's reactions (and to enable settlers to accelerate their shenanigans).

Reining in settlers would have been an entirely different action, done at a different time, requiring a different set of resources.

I guess that's settled then.

I'm glad you agree.

[Jacob]

Something doesn't make sense to me.

Were these IDF troops moved to the WB before or after the Hamas attack?  If before, there was a sudden spate of settler on Palestinian violence just before the Hamas attack?

After makes more sense.  Before seems random.

My understanding of the timescale is that it was extended. It was not "move troops this week" followed by "Hamas attacks".

It was months and years of allowing WB settlers to escalate, and months and years of reallocating resources from Gaza to the WB to protect the settlers (and relying on automated systems and fences to replace them at Gaza).

[Sheilbh]

1. I don't know what you mean by the downplaying part.  I understand and don't dispute the part about building up Hamas (I guess analogous to us building up the Taliban to fight Russia) but I thought this was long ago, at the time Gaza was evacuated, and not on Netanyahu's tab. 

In 2015 Smotrich the current Finance Minister said "the Palestinian Authority is a burden, and Hamas is an asset [...] it's a terrorist organization, no one will recognize it, no one will give it status at the [International Criminal Court], no one will let it put forth a resolution at the U.N. Security Council."

In 2019 at Likud meeting Netanyahu reportedly said "those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas [...] this is part of our strategy, to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria."

Throughout his recent time in office the number of Gazans getting work permits has vastly increased (this was used by Hamas in their attack), there was increased funding for Hamas and there were backchannel talks between Israel and Hamas (via the Egyptians and the Qataris. This has been part of Netanyahu's strategy for the last twenty years and it was based on a fundamental misreading of Hamas' intent and capability.

I don't understand the intelligence failure argument.  Did he starve the Mossad of funds?  Did he put his incompetent cronies in charge?  I don't think there has to be a bad actor at the heart of every intelligence failure.  The nature of intelligence is that you are trying to learn other people's secrets and sometimes they manage to keep them secret.

That there were warnings, not least by the Egyptians - but also it has emerged Islamic Jihad practicing a breakthrough near the fence which was observed by Israeli troops. There has also been reporting that Netanyahu waved away specific warnings from the heads of Shin Bet and the IDF intelligence service. I don't think it's a conspiracy - I think it's hubris. I think the assessment from Netanyahu (and others in the Israeli state) was that Hamas were incapable of an attack like 7 October. Gaza was nullified by Iron Dome. It's not conspiracy or a bad actor - it's Stalin in 1941. A combination of hubris and the fact that acknowledging the risk would undermine your entire strategy (which is challenging for any politician to do).

2. Nethanyahu accused those in the military and intelligence services who were protesting his attack on the Constitution as traitors to the country whose opposition to him emboldened Hamas to make this attack.

Also the late night tweet saying: "Contrary to the false claims, under no circumstances and at no stage was I provided any warning on the intentions of Hamas to wage war. On the contrary, all the security sources, including the heads of the IDF's Intelligence Directorate and Shin Bet, assessed that Hamas was deterred. This was the assessment submitted time after time to the prime minister and the cabinet by all the sources in the defense and the intelligence community right up until the outbreak of the war."

He deleted it and then u-turned to the need for unity. I think that's one of two or three times where he's come under public pressure from Gantz etc and had to delete or withdraw remarks trying to place the blame on the security forces or opposition. This was followed by the reports I mentioned above sourced in the intelligence services that they provided specific warnings. As I say he is incapable of acting as a unifying national leader and that is really bad for Israel right now.

Disagree.  After 9/11 I had zero interest in reassessing US policy towards the Muslim world to see if there was anything we should be doing better.  I wanted to stack 'em up.  After the dust has settled and the bodies are buried is when you examine your own conscience.  Maybe that makes you the better person, but I can't ask the Israelis to be a better person than me.

This is one of the points where I think 9/11 is not a helpful comparison/frame. There is no rally round the flag effect for Netanyahu. Over 75% of Israelis want him to resign, a majority blame him. Admittedly about half say he should only resign after the war. He is not Bush. Israel is not the United States - it cannot afford to rally around bad leadership and a perceived failure of leadership on security, which is the perception of Netanyahu, is fatal because Israel cannot afford that type of risk.

My understanding of the timescale is that it was extended. It was not "move troops this week" followed by "Hamas attacks".

It's been climbing since the mid-2010s. I think in the first half of this year settler violence against Palestinians or Palsestinian property was running at about three incidents a day and, on average, one Palestinian casualty a day. It is worth saying that under the current coalition especially that is to protect settlers from retaliation more than to restrain them.

[Admiral Yi]

Indeed.

And since it's Nethanyahu's government policies that led to situation in the West Bank, it seems pretty natural to blame him for the consequences.

When I responded to Joan's post I thought he was saying something other than Netanyahu should resign because Israel's settler policy is bad.  I agree it's bad.  It's the main reason I stopped supporting Israel.  I thought there was something recent that had happened that was the driver of this call for resignation.  If what we're debating is whether Israel's long standing settler policy means Netanyahu should resign, then I will differ with you in saying the voters that gave him a majority are the ones who should resign.

IDF troops were not in the West Bank to rein in settlers, but to protect them against the Palestinian's reactions (and to enable settlers to accelerate their shenanigans).

Reining in settlers would have been an entirely different action, done at a different time, requiring a different set of resources.

I have seen at least youtube clip of Israeli uniformed personnel with weapons disputing with settlers dressed in Hassidic clothes armed with Uzis about throwing rocks at Palestinians so I know reining in settlers is at least a theoretical possibility and I can't think of any practical reason members of the IDF could not do this as well as any other uniformed, officially sanctioned Israeli.  So for me to agree with you on this I would either need visual confirmation that these redeployed troops, acting presumably under Netanyahu's orders, stood by while settlers shot up Palestinians or your word that you have seen visual evidence of these troops standing by while settlers shot up Palestinians.

I'm glad you agree.

I did not agree.  Be less glad.

[Admiral Yi]

I also want to say I think this thread is Languish's finest moment.  While the world at large is tearing each other apart we have managed to maintain a high level of civility and discourse.

[Admiral Yi]

In 2019 at Likud meeting Netanyahu reportedly said "those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money to Hamas [...] this is part of our strategy, to differentiate between the Palestinians in Gaza and the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria."

This is exactly what I would tell the world if I were Israel's PM. 

[viper37]

I don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?

Did anyone here defend the actions of ISIS?

When the few, limited actions to bomb ISIS leaders by occidental countries occurred, where they in the tune of 50-60 civilians killed to 1 ISIS leader?

I remember occidental countries mostly sitting on their arse and volunteers going to fight by themselves with Kurdish troops.

But you must have been overjoyed to see Russia's intervention in Syria.

I'm specifically talking about the 40,000 Iraqi civilians that died during the Battle of Mosul, in large part this would not have occurred if coalition forces hadn't insisted on invading and taking Mosul away from ISIS.

How many would have died if ISIS had been allowed to keep killing people?

If we refer to other conflicts, ultimately, some interventions save lives when done properly.  I'm not that familiar with Asian history, but eventually, when the Vietnamese got fed up with Pol Pot, they saved lives.

If France and the UK had attacked Germany as soon as they rearmed Rhenania, in contradiction of the Treaty of Versailles, some civilian lives would have been lost, but much less than what was lost later on.

Similarly, attacking Germany in 1939 led to a tremendous loss of civilian lives, but much less than letting Germany do its business, as many pro-peace wanted.

In the case of Gaza, the goals are much different.  The goals of the current government is to clean Palestine of the Palestinian elements, not just Hamas.

If the goals of WWII had been to depopulate Germany, we might have viewed the war differently.  Or maybe not.  I'm sure there would be people, still today, to proudly declare to hate all Germans, a vicious people with a vicious ideology.

Had the goals of vanquishing Hamas and only Hamas been the real objective, a government focused on security would have tackled the issue long ago instead of sending its army to protect settlers attacking Palestinian civilians in occupied territories, constantly expanding their lands at the expanse of the people living there under any pretext.  Hamas was allowed to expand its operation.  Hamas was allowed to grow.  The border was left defenseless.  1400 people paid with their lives.

If you breed pythons at home, you don't leave their cage/aquariums unguarded while you have small children playing/sleeping next to them.  You exercise caution.  You don't let the snake loose in the house while you go shopping and leave the kids at home. That's call negligence.  The snake only did what its instincts told him to do.

Hamas is what Hamas is.  Don't pretend Netanyahu didn't know the Hamas would not attack at some point.  The only surprise was that it happened on October 7th.  It could have happened in September or in November.  They let Qatari money flow for years.  They have satellite of all kinds over there to watch Hamas activities.  Egypt and the US knew something was going on, but Israel was too busy elsewhere.

If one python eats a kid, you kill that python, not all pythons in the world.


But it's ok, you got your war.  Jews all over the world have a target on their back.  Happy now? 

A synagogue was firebombed in Montreal yesterday.  A hate preacher in the city called for the killing of Jews (technically: the enemies of the Gaza people), everywhere.  Maybe someone will enter a Mosque and start shooting as a preventive measure?

FFS open you fucking eyes as to what is happening.

Was has military objectives.

The Allies entered WWII with clearly defined military objectives, and each operation had a target with a military objective.
Their goals was never to depopulate Germany to resettle it with British and French colonists.  Or to replace Italians with Greeks.

Wake-up!  That was the Nazi plan: depopulate Eastern Europe and replace the population there with their own colonists.  Somehow, that was considered evil. Even when it was not about killing them, but simply displacing them.

But today, it's considered justified when it's Israel.  And any act of resistance is considered terrorism.  Peaceful protest?  Terrorism.  Throwing rocks at a tank?  Terrorism.  Attacking armed soldiers?  Terrorism.  Real acts of terrorism, obviously, what they are.  Helping an injured civilian?  Terrorism and worthy of getting you shot by a sniper.

What's worst is that there are people voting for these kind of political parties.

[Jacob]

When I responded to Joan's post I thought he was saying something other than Netanyahu should resign because Israel's settler policy is bad.  I agree it's bad.  It's the main reason I stopped supporting Israel.  I thought there was something recent that had happened that was the driver of this call for resignation.  If what we're debating is whether Israel's long standing settler policy means Netanyahu should resign, then I will differ with you in saying the voters that gave him a majority are the ones who should resign.

...

I have seen at least youtube clip of Israeli uniformed personnel with weapons disputing with settlers dressed in Hassidic clothes armed with Uzis about throwing rocks at Palestinians so I know reining in settlers is at least a theoretical possibility and I can't think of any practical reason members of the IDF could not do this as well as any other uniformed, officially sanctioned Israeli.  So for me to agree with you on this I would either need visual confirmation that these redeployed troops, acting presumably under Netanyahu's orders, stood by while settlers shot up Palestinians or your word that you have seen visual evidence of these troops standing by while settlers shot up Palestinians.

Okay, so the argument I'm putting forward is one I've heard as coming from within Israel, from Israelis. As Sheilbh said upthread said, more than 75% of Israelis think Nethanyahu should resign. Joan has also outlined some of the criticism from within Israel.

Personally I think Nethanyahu is a slimeball, and the far right parties in his government are evil scumbags. But I don't have an opinion on whether Nethanyahu should resign. That's for Israelis to decide, using their democratic rights.

So I'm not going to convince you of anything. You can decide whether the criticism (from within Israel) is legit or whether it's a "conspiracy theory" in your eyes, and Israelis can decide whether or not - and when - to act on it.

I did not agree.  Be less glad.

I recognized your sarcasm and responded with sarcasm of my own. You failed to recognize. Point for me