Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[Kirkhill]

Given the choice between being killed by Israel if they don't move and killed by Hamas if they do move they seem more inclined to ignore Hamas.

 

[Remius]

RCMP calls for 'vigilance,' says any threats to Jewish community will be taken seriously

Several Canadian polices forces, including in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver, say they have upped patrols in response to the Israel-Hamas war

nationalpost.com

Ripple effects closer to home.

 

[Kirkhill]

“The use of heavy machinery in residential areas is a complex matter fraught with grave consequences,” Putin said, “most importantly, the civilian casualties will be absolutely unacceptable.”

Sez the architect of Grozny.

 

[Kirkhill]

Destroyed and damaged buildings of the Islamic University CREDIT: REUTERS/Saleh Salem

Take a look at the buildings surrounding the University.

Not Grozny. Not Mariupol.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm thinking some people have a feeling of entitlement:

"Back in 2006, we had people actually asking for Air Canada points and business class,” Boehm said. “I was rather thunderstruck at the time."

Insider takes on a ‘four corners’ crisis

‘Bigger crisis, bigger challenge’: Getting Canadians out of a massive conflict zone.<br/><br/>

www.politico.com

 

[GR66]

Hamas is more than willing to kill argumentative Palestinians who disrupt them as Israelis.

I totally understand the Israeli rage and requirements to respond. I however think that in the long run, unless they plan on totally wiping out Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, that the massive destruction via air power and artillery in Gaza is counterproductive.

Just because an area may have lost its legal protections due to use by Hamas doesn’t make it morally right to inflict mass casualties on the civilian population as well.

Frankly I think a lot of Israeli rage should also be directed internally at their government who ignore all the warnings about this.

I support Israel, but not to the point that I ignore excesses.

I agree 100%. I also understand the gut reaction of Israel to "take the gloves off". They're really in a true life "Kobayashi Maru" situation. With Hamas and company hiding within the civilian infrastructure you're left with two equally bad choices.

If you attack the civilian areas in order to get to the terrorists then you not only cause significant civilian casualties but you also further radicalize the population due to the indiscriminate nature of the attacks which makes a long-term political solution even less likely than it is now. You also potentially lose international support because more and more you're looking almost as bad as the other guys by knowingly killing civilians.

On the other hand, if you act morally and refrain from striking civilian targets hiding Hamas members you are choosing to incur significant short and long-term costs on your own country. In the short term you may take more military casualties by being forced to undertake difficult urban operations in enemy territory. In the longer term, because you're leaving an active and dangerous enemy intact right on your border you will have to increase your defense spending in order to try and prevent a repeat of the attack. That not only has a significant economic cost but also a social cost as the fear and paranoia about the enemy will radicalize the Israeli population which will also make a long-term political solution to the problem less likely.

I think Hamas knows this and feels they will ultimately win in the long run regardless of what Israel does.

 

[KevinB]

So in Iraq, one of the tactics used by JSOC instead of entry raids was call outs - surround the area, and call out the inhabitants.

If folks didn’t come out, well then one JDAM’d it.

I totally get that Gaza is a much larger mess than isolated villages or even areas of Sadr City - but while suppressing direct attacks one could start segmenting areas on the ground. That would have a major decrease in the civilian casualties, albeit at a great risk to the IDF troops.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Your arguments are fairly flawed. At the end of the day we moved a large group of people into the area in the late 40s who proceeded to evict the people actually living in the area based off some questionable land claim from 2000 years ago. Sounds pretty stupid when it gets phrased like that.

British policy was to throttle Jewish immigration during their Mandate, despite that, reviewing the census data, you see the population of the Mandate rose with both Jewish and Arab population growing at roughly the same rate, mainly through immigration and also because the Brits introduce basic health service that dropped the infant mortality rate significantly. One of the factors that led to the increase in population was the rebuilding of the Port of Haifa, the British brought jobs, decent civil administration and order, something the Ottomans quite failed to do. However British policy swayed between two camps, one being Zionist support and the other Arab. It was the British that allowed the Hashmites and the House of Saud to to establish control over their respective Kingdoms, although the Hashmites in Iraq failed to maintain their control of Iraq in the longterm. I am not as well read on how the French administrated their Mandate, but I suspect a similar trajectory.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree 100%. I also understand the gut reaction of Israel to "take the gloves off". They're really in a true life "Kobayashi Maru" situation. With Hamas and company hiding within the civilian infrastructure you're left with two equally bad choices.

If you attack the civilian areas in order to get to the terrorists then you not only cause significant civilian casualties but you also further radicalize the population due to the indiscriminate nature of the attacks which makes a long-term political solution even less likely than it is now. You also potentially lose international support because more and more you're looking almost as bad as the other guys by knowingly killing civilians.

On the other hand, if you act morally and refrain from striking civilian targets hiding Hamas members you are choosing to incur significant short and long-term costs on your own country. In the short term you may take more military casualties by being forced to undertake difficult urban operations in enemy territory. In the longer term, because you're leaving an active and dangerous enemy intact right on your border you will have to increase your defense spending in order to try and prevent a repeat of the attack. That not only has a significant economic cost but also a social cost as the fear and paranoia about the enemy will radicalize the Israeli population which will also make a long-term political solution to the problem less likely.

I think Hamas knows this and feels they will ultimately win in the long run regardless of what Israel does.

I don't think they can "Further radicalise the population" In Hamas eyes the population of Gaza only exists to further their aims, whether dead or alive. The non-fighters are just pawns and frankly more useful dead at the hands of the Israelis than alive and bitching about the lack of services.

Israel has few if any good options. Without Egypt willing to accept non-fighting age male refugees, there is no place for them to go. One option is to starve them out and offer to allow various Islamic nations to evacuate Palestinians, except no one wants them. Palestinians have a bad habit of biting any hand that helps them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From a link in the comments attached to the link posted by @KevinB.

This is a MEMRI translation. Some may have trouble with that source.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712414720240636274

I don't think anyone has successfully shown that MEMRI mistranslated anything. At best people argue they only show the worst.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ugh. Historically in various conflicts at various scales, this is a tried and true prelude to entering an area in force and not really caring who you kill because it’s presumed anyone still there stayed by choice and is a combatant…

Again, what's the alternative? Should one generally not advise non-combatants to clear an expected battle area? And specifically, Hamas threatened to kill hostages if Israel made unannounced attacks on civilians.

 

[brihard]

Again, what's the alternative? Should one generally not advise non-combatants to clear an expected battle area? And specifically, Hamas threatened to kill hostages if Israel made unannounced attacks on civilians.

I’m not proposing an alternative. I’m not qualified or sufficiently informed to. I’m just saying that a lot of what we’re seeing has historically been prelude to some pretty terrible stuff. I’m afraid a lot more people are going to die, many of them non-combatants. I don’t pretend to have solutions to a conflict like this. I don’t know if there are any.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If you attack the civilian areas in order to get to the terrorists then you not only cause significant civilian casualties but you also further radicalize the population due to the indiscriminate nature of the attacks which makes a long-term political solution even less likely than it is now. You also potentially lose international support because more and more you're looking almost as bad as the other guys by knowingly killing civilians.

Attacks on "civilian areas" are not necessarily indiscriminate. "Knowingly killing civilians" isn't a war crime. Intentionally killing them - meaning, they are the intended target, and not some military force or installation - is.

 

[QV]

I’m afraid a lot more people are going to die, many of them non-combatants. I don’t pretend to have solutions to a conflict like this. I don’t know if there are any.

There is only one solution and that is complete defeat like Germany and Japan in WWII.

Otherwise this goes on forever.

 

[Kirkhill]

So in Iraq, one of the tactics used by JSOC instead of entry raids was call outs - surround the area, and call out the inhabitants.

If folks didn’t come out, well then one JDAM’d it.

I totally get that Gaza is a much larger mess than isolated villages or even areas of Sadr City - but while suppressing direct attacks one could start segmenting areas on the ground. That would have a major decrease in the civilian casualties, albeit at a great risk to the IDF troops.

Gaza city seems to be about 6 km by 6 km

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’m not proposing an alternative. I’m not qualified or sufficiently informed to. I’m just saying that a lot of what we’re seeing has historically been prelude to some pretty terrible stuff. I’m afraid a lot more people are going to die, many of them non-combatants. I don’t pretend to have solutions to a conflict like this. I don’t know if there are any.

Agreed. It will be ugly; there are degrees of ugly, depending on how operations are conducted.

There are a lot of contributors to the events leading up to this, including Israel. There has been and will be a lot of finger-pointing, mostly at Israel. Whenever fingers are pointed, no-one should miss an opportunity to evaluate the contributions of the finger-pointers themselves and note the things they could have done and should be doing to stop adding pressure to the cooker. They may try to hide behind accusations of "whataboutism" - the universal bleat of those who want double standards; don't let them.

 

[brihard]

There is only one solution and that is complete defeat like Germany and Japan in WWII.

Otherwise this goes on forever.

Ok, what does “final defeat” look like in this context? Is it your contention that if every single person who currently identifies with Hamas is killed, that the Israel / Gaza conflict will be settled down with any degree of permanence?

I struggle to imagine how Gaza and the Palestinian people could be meaningfully defeated the way the German and Japanese nation states were in 1945. I think the enmities are dug in far more deeply than that.

How long would Israel need to completely occupy Gaza, what sort of regime would they need to impose, and how long would that need to last to achieve peace? Could Israel eventually lift its foot back off the break or would this need to be in perpetuity?

 

[Kirkhill]

Ok, what does “final defeat” look like in this context? Is it your contention that if every single person who currently identifies with Hamas is killed, that the Israel / Gaza conflict will be settled down with any degree of permanence?

I struggle to imagine how Gaza and the Palestinian people could be meaningfully defeated the way the German and Japanese nation states were in 1945. I think the enmities are dug in far more deeply than that.

How long would Israel need to completely occupy Gaza, what sort of regime would they need to impose, and how long would that need to last to achieve peace? Could Israel eventually lift its foot back off the break or would this need to be in perpetuity?

How long were Japan and Germany occupied?

 

[QV]

Ok, what does “final defeat” look like in this context? Is it your contention that if every single person who currently identifies with Hamas is killed, that the Israel / Gaza conflict will be settled down with any degree of permanence?

I struggle to imagine how Gaza and the Palestinian people could be meaningfully defeated the way the German and Japanese nation states were in 1945. I think the enmities are dug in far more deeply than that.

How long would Israel need to completely occupy Gaza, what sort of regime would they need to impose, and how long would that need to last to achieve peace? Could Israel eventually lift its foot back off the break or would this need to be in perpetuity?

Complete surrender or total destruction. Followed by a plan similar to the Marshal Plan for whatever is left.

 

[brihard]

Complete surrender or total destruction. Followed by a plan similar to the Marshal Plan for whatever is left.

Completely surrender or total destruction of what, specifically? Hamas? Palestinian nationalism? Militant Islam? The Palestinian people in Gaza as a whole?

In Japan and Germany, they were dependent largely on a conventional military and industrial base, and had a political structure that could be defeated and replaced by something else that would be able to meaningfully control the people. Is this the case in Gaza as well? I don’t know that the factors underlying Gaza’s militancy are analogous to what underlied military efforts by Japan or Germany.