Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Minsky Moment]

The persons judged responsible for waging aggressive war were hanged or imprisoned.

What happened to the Emperor of Japan?

He was just a puppet of the daughter-in-law elect.

Seriously, that was MacArthur's call which Truman accepted. If the Americans in their discretion wanted the Emperor dead, he would have swung with the rest.

[crazy canuck]

The persons judged responsible for waging aggressive war were hanged or imprisoned.

What happened to the Emperor of Japan?

He was just a puppet of the daughter-in-law elect.

Seriously, that was MacArthur's call which Truman accepted. If the Americans in their discretion wanted the Emperor dead, he would have swung with the rest.

That is certainly the narrative the US created.  The truth of course is that if the US had not agreed to the Japanese demand to keep the emperor, the war would not have ended.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The U.S. can't destroy the Italian mafia, hence the Italian mafia pulls the strings and runs the government.

What you're saying is the US is currently bombing Italian cities, schools, churches, hospitals and foreign workers helping the civilians?

The things I learn reading Languish!

No, for one the Italian mafia is Italian-American, I don't think they have had significant personnel ties with their counterparts on the Italian peninsula since the 1960s--and even back then it was primarily old timers still hanging around. They are all 3rd, 4th generation guys who can't speak a word of Italian.

For two, there is not an active war against them. They exist in society's underbelly.

That is the key point--terror groups in the West Bank exist in society's underbelly. Israel can certainly impose that reality on Gaza as well. The narrative that Hamas cannot be destroyed is an anti-Israeli narrative designed to paint the war and its goals as impossible--for example by presuming the goal is to destroy Hamas "to the last man", and so that the ideology and group does not exist. That is not the war goal, the war goal is for Hamas to not have military or government control over Gaza.

Underground groups don't control territory, that is a simple fact.

Israel has, broadly speaking, two options for the future of Gaza.

First is simply not going to happen, and would be difficult and expensive. This is direct Israeli control of Gaza, basically re-establishing the Israeli Military Governorate that ruled Gaza from 1967-1982, or a civilian administration as continued to rule Gaza from 1982-1994. While it is possible from a theoretical standpoint--nothing magical has changed since 1994 that has made Israeli administration impossible, they did it for 27 years after all. However, it would be seen as a huge rollback in the state of the overall Israel-Palestine issue. It would also severely strain and maybe sever Israel's relationships with a number of Arab allies that have either engaged in formal normalization or are in negotiations to do so--not least of which would likely include Egypt. It would also be strongly opposed by the United States and it goes without saying, the entire West.

Second is some form of non-Israeli civilian control. There's been a lot of talk about what this will look like--but I find it very unlikely any version Israel agrees to will have Hamas in control. Is it possible it will have some people who have at times had affiliation with Hamas in civil service positions? Most likely. Hamas has ran the Gaza strip since 2008, it will be all but impossible to construct a civil society solely of people who have never worked for Hamas. But "Hamas affiliated" or "adjacent" is not the same thing as being Yahya Sinwar. A dude who works at some Gazan ministry and isn't committed deeply to Hamas ideology, is not really a barrier to a stable relationship.

A dude who was down in the tunnels helping plan the October 7th attacks is a different matter.

The key strategic element of any settlement, by the way, will be IDF control of the border with Egypt. There can likely never be a peace as long as Hamas has unlimited ability to smuggle in weaponry.

[OttoVonBismarck]

That is certainly the narrative the US created.  The truth of course is that if the US had not agreed to the Japanese demand to keep the emperor, the war would not have ended.

This is a weird thing that I've seen uninformed people say before--one of the more obvious reasons it is untrue is your statement of history is factually wrong. The settlement between America and Japan gave the Emperor no formal guarantees at all. His fate was entirely at the discretion of the U.S. after the war, and as JR mentions it was primarily a push from MacArthur that made sure he was kept sacrosanct. Japan's military government, nor the Emperor himself, were given any formal promises.

There was definitely a movement among Japan's top leaders to insulate the Emperor from blame for Japan's worst actions, to try to insure that if postwar punishment came, it would fall on them instead of the Emperor.

[The Minsky Moment]

The truth of course is that if the US had not agreed to the Japanese demand to keep the emperor, the war would not have ended.

The US never agreed to such a demand. On the contrary, the US retained the right to depose the emperor, try him, or take whatever steps deemed "proper".

[crazy canuck]

The truth of course is that if the US had not agreed to the Japanese demand to keep the emperor, the war would not have ended.

The US never agreed to such a demand. On the contrary, the US retained the right to depose the emperor, try him, or take whatever steps deemed "proper".

Then haven't you just undermined your  claim that all those judged to be were punished.  Turns out the Americans, even on your version of events, kept the Emperor around for other reasons.

Or are you just going to fall back on the argument that nobody judged the emperor to be at fault?

[The Minsky Moment]

Nobody judged the emperor to be responsible for anything because he was never tried. The point is that his fate, and the fate of all Japan, was entirely and 100% at the discretion of the United States and its occupation force.

So applying the analogy to Gaza, if we reach an outcome where Hamas surrenders unconditionally, and its fate and the entire fate of the Gaza strip are placed in the discretion of the Israeli government, then the situations would be identical.  And if in that hypothetical scenario, Israel determined that the survival of one or more Hamas leaders was in the interests of Israel, then those leaders would survive just as Hirohito did. (That seems unlikely, even in the hypothetical world as there don't seem to be any Hirohitos in the Hamas leadership structure, and because Israel does not need to build up a strong Palestinian Gaza as a bulwark against another potential threat).

[OttoVonBismarck]

At this point Sinwar is the only "big name" Hamas leader left, everyone else is just an underling at this point, and it is unlikely Israel allows Sinwar to live out the war.

[viper37]

No, for one the Italian mafia is Italian-American, I don't think they have had significant personnel ties with their counterparts on the Italian peninsula since the 1960s--and even back then it was primarily old timers still hanging around. They are all 3rd, 4th generation guys who can't speak a word of Italian.

So, the US government is bombing New York City? 

I want someone to be bombed.  The war on drugs was boring, barely anyone got bombed.

As for the ties with the Italian Mafia, no, there aren't any formal ties since way before the 1960s.  They have commercial ties only.  Even before the The Castellammarese War I don't think the ties were formal, as they were between the Canadian and American clans.

Doesn't mean that Italy isn't supporting the Italian-American mafia in their distribution of drugs and illicit criminal activities.  They often help them move drugs and money, or they will give sanctuary to some criminals.  Just like Iran is helping Hamas now.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I can tell viper is upset his boy died in Tehran yesterday, his general stupidity trying to mask the tears he is shedding for his dead Jewkilling buddy.

[crazy canuck]

Nobody judged the emperor to be responsible for anything because he was never tried. The point is that his fate, and the fate of all Japan, was entirely and 100% at the discretion of the United States and its occupation force.

So applying the analogy to Gaza, if we reach an outcome where Hamas surrenders unconditionally, and its fate and the entire fate of the Gaza strip are placed in the discretion of the Israeli government, then the situations would be identical.  And if in that hypothetical scenario, Israel determined that the survival of one or more Hamas leaders was in the interests of Israel, then those leaders would survive just as Hirohito did. (That seems unlikely, even in the hypothetical world as there don't seem to be any Hirohitos in the Hamas leadership structure, and because Israel does not need to build up a strong Palestinian Gaza as a bulwark against another potential threat).

So (an homage to BB) the US decided not to even prosecute the person in whose name the war was carried out by Japan and who supported the decisions that were made.  The point being that the claim that the US punished all who were involved is not correct because the US decided not to try all who were involved.  And that is the critical point about Gaza.  The world is nuanced.  It is not as cut and dried as your first claim suggested.  It would be politically and practically impossible to remove all remnants from Gaza.  So long as that is an Israeli requirement, this war will be unending.  And as a further practical problem, how could if ever be demonstrated that the Palestinians complied with such a requirement?

[Josquius]

Is this no money for governers thing a concern? It sounds weird and potentially a bit of a hindrance?

Though shapiro makes sense. Pennsylvsnia is the key one to lock down right?

It's a very large, very swing, state.  So no single state is essential, but PA is important.

The knock against Shapiro as I understand it though is that he is, well, Jewish.  And the activist left of the Democratic Party is very much on the pro-Palestinian side of things in the Middle East.

Now worth noting that Harris' husband is also Jewish, even though Harris herself is not.

America is a weird place. But do many really care that much about someone being Jewish?
Seems very weird to state people are pro Palestinian as meaning they're anti Jewish.
I gather his strong support for zionism is rather more of an issue.

[garbon]

Is this no money for governers thing a concern? It sounds weird and potentially a bit of a hindrance?

Though shapiro makes sense. Pennsylvsnia is the key one to lock down right?

It's a very large, very swing, state.  So no single state is essential, but PA is important.

The knock against Shapiro as I understand it though is that he is, well, Jewish.  And the activist left of the Democratic Party is very much on the pro-Palestinian side of things in the Middle East.

Now worth noting that Harris' husband is also Jewish, even though Harris herself is not.

America is a weird place. But do many really care that much about someone being Jewish?
Seems very weird to state people are pro Palestinian as meaning they're anti Jewish.
I gather his strong support for zionism is rather more of an issue.

Odd brush given Britain's own struggles.

[Josquius]

Odd brush given Britain's own struggles.

Huh?
Starmer being married to a Jewish woman has never been an issue.
Miliband being Jewish was only made a bit of an issue with the bacon sandwich silliness.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Literally no one has said there is a goal to remove everyone tangentially involved in Hamas. That would basically be a cleansing of the entire population of Gaza. Likewise no one ever suggested in WWII victory over Japan or Germany meant every man who fired a bullet in anger or politically supported the government was to be killed. CC as usual seems to have fallen down a hole of stupid nonsense to try and twist some sort of low IQ anti-American pretzel of an argument out.