Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

And actually what's really important is this: Israel may liquidate Hamas (as such), but every single bomb that drops on Gaza is acting as a recruiting bell for something even worse to be created, once Hamas are all dead.

This is the only really important point, and as usual Israel is pretending not to see it.

Fucking nightmare.

Yes. This was my question earlier. There has been no word of explanation from anyone defending Israel's right to defend itself as to how dropping bombs on Gaza is defending Israel beyond a ludicrous assertion that they are going to wipe out Hamas.

It is 'don't fuck with us or we will fuck with you'. It is 'you kill one of ours, we kill 10 of yours'.

Someone mentioned permanent war as being a possible outcome. But Israel has been in a state of permanent war for decades. I would suggest that there are those on the Israeli side , including its prime minister and president, who like it that way.

I can only conclude that they want to create a new generation that hates them. What other conclusion is there?

 

[Knotted]

From the point of view of people in Gaza, a wider conflagration is the best outcome regardless of the horrors that will bring. It's what I hope for.

 

[kabbes]

Someone mentioned permanent war as being a possible outcome. But Israel has been in a state of permanent war for decades. I would suggest that there are those on the Israeli side , including its prime minister and president, who like it that way.

That was me. But I’d suggest that there is a difference between a permanent war footing and endless battles with invading armies raging in your own cities

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is why Israel has nukes, though.

 

[kabbes]

This is why Israel has nukes, though.

That’s always been the argument for having them. But remember that Yes Minister scene? At what point are you throwing a nuke? When they cross the border? When there are skirmishes in outer urban areas? When they’re encamped near your capital? There is never an obvious point at which it is justified to respond by killing millions of civilians.

 

[Pickman's model]

From the point of view of people in Gaza, a wider conflagration is the best outcome regardless of the horrors that will bring. It's what I hope for.

The best outcome would be a change in the zionist outlook,a realisation that by ignoring international law and slaughtering palestinians they're endangering themselves more than protecting themselves

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That was me. But I’d suggest that there is a difference between a permanent war footing and endless battles with invading armies raging in your own cities

This is a 'hot' phase, certainly. But wider conflagration brings in the nuclear option. I don't trust Israel not to use it if faced with an existential threat.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The best outcome would be a change in the zionist outlook,a realisation that by ignoring international law and slaughtering palestinians they're endangering themselves more than protecting themselves

Yes I agree. And this is why the craven support from Europe and North America is so damaging.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Yes. This was my question earlier. There has been no word of explanation from anyone defending Israel's right to defend itself as to how dropping bombs on Gaza is defending Israel beyond a ludicrous assertion that they are going to wipe out Hamas.

It is 'don't fuck with us or we will fuck with you'. It is 'you kill one of ours, we kill 10 of yours'.

Someone mentioned permanent war as being a possible outcome. But Israel has been in a state of permanent war for decades. I would suggest that there are those on the Israeli side , including its prime minister and president, who like it that way.

I can only conclude that they want to create a new generation that hates them. What other conclusion is there?

Well did you see the interview with Israeli ambassador to UK where she seems to contemplate 600,000 dead?

 

[Pickman's model]

This is a 'hot' phase, certainly. But wider conflagration brings in the nuclear option. I don't trust Israel not to use it if faced with an existential threat.

Creating a wave of anti-semitism which would endanger Jews in many countries.

 

[kabbes]

This is a 'hot' phase, certainly. But wider conflagration brings in the nuclear option. I don't trust Israel not to use it if faced with an existential threat.

So if Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq etc all send battalions that make incursions into Israel, you think Israel’s response would be more to throw nuclear bombs at all those capitals? And that the rest of the world would continue to back them following that kind of globe-damaging atrocity?

 

[Mr.Bishie]

It’s a frightening scenario there’s no doubt!!

 

[Mr.Bishie]

“An Israeli military ground operation in Gaza is supported by 65 percent of the Israeli public, according to a poll by Maariv newspaper.

Twenty-one percent of Israelis oppose a land offensive. You can read here about what Israel learned from the last time it launched a ground invasion in the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, 51 percent of people want a large scale operation on the northern front with Lebanon, while 30 percent prefer a limited operation.

Eighty percent of Israelis think Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should take responsibility for the failures which led to Hamas's attack on Israeli communities on 7 October.”

MME

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So if Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq etc all send battalions that make incursions into Israel, you think Israel’s response would be more to throw nuclear bombs at all those capitals? And that the rest of the world would continue to back them following that kind of globe-damaging atrocity?

I don't know. Drop one nuke somewhere as a show of terrible force?

I take your point. Having nukes is supposed to deter those invasions in the first place. When the deterrence fails, do they use them anyway? I don't know. I don't trust them not to.

 

[Knotted]

The best outcome would be a change in the zionist outlook,a realisation that by ignoring international law and slaughtering palestinians they're endangering themselves more than protecting themselves

Any outcome that involves waiting is an horrific outcome. In Gaza they are drinking sea water out of dirty wells.

Fwiw I don't think the Israelis are motivated by Hamas or other Gaza militants, it's their other enemies including especially Iran watching them in their moment of weakness that I think they're really worried about.

 

[ska invita]

Well did you see the interview with Israeli ambassador to UK where she seems to contemplate 600,000 dead?

No, have you a link? Never mind Ive found it (she compares what they are doing now to how bombing Dresden etc was, she considers, justified)

Hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians is far from unimaginable, those deaths would most likely come from starvation, dehydration and illness, rather than being bombed and shot. Thats how the UK and US managed so expertly to get over the million killed mark in Iraq and likewise 600,000+ killed in Ethiopia this last year - from lack of "aid".

Two unimaginable weeks of siege already so far, sounds like a long time but based on announcements from Israel sounds like that's going to be just the introduction to whats to come.

 

[Pickman's model]

Any outcome that involves waiting is an horrific outcome. In Gaza they are drinking sea water out of dirty wells.

Fwiw I don't think the Israelis are motivated by Hamas or other Gaza militants, it's their other enemies including especially Iran watching them in their moment of weakness that I think they're really worried about.

Any outcome is obviously going to involve waiting.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

No, have you a link? Never mind Ive found it (she compares what they are doing now to how bombing Dresden etc was, she considers, justified)

Hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians is far from unimaginable, those deaths would most likely come from starvation, dehydration and illness, rather than being bombed and shot. Thats how the UK and US managed to get over the million killed mark in Iraq and likewise 600,000+ killed in Ethiopia this last year - from lack of "aid".

Two unimaginable weeks of siege already so far, based on announcements from Israel sounds like that's going to be just the introduction to whats to come.

Yes thanks for finding the link I was scrambling for it.

 

[dilute micro]

The best outcome would be a change in the zionist outlook,a realisation that by ignoring international law and slaughtering palestinians they're endangering themselves more than protecting themselves

What sort of change of outlook do you mean?

 

[ska invita]

What sort of change of outlook do you mean?

ffs

 

[emanymton]

So if Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq etc all send battalions that make incursions into Israel, you think Israel’s response would be more to throw nuclear bombs at all those capitals? And that the rest of the world would continue to back them following that kind of globe-damaging atrocity?

I don't see that sort of invasion happening at all.

But if it did and don't know if we can predict Israel's response as that will be heavly dependent on other factors.

Such as is the US getting directly involved at this point and is there involvement conditional on them not using nukes.

 

[Pickman's model]

What sort of change of outlook do you mean?

If you read to the end of the post you'll find out

 

[8ball]

And actually what's really important is this: Israel may liquidate Hamas (as such), but every single bomb that drops on Gaza is acting as a recruiting bell for something even worse to be created, once Hamas are all dead.

This is the only really important point, and as usual Israel is pretending not to see it.

Fucking nightmare.

I think a good portion of both Israelis and their Government actually don’t see it.

 

[The39thStep]

New benchmark for Urban

 

[Pickman's model]

New benchmark for Urban

View attachment 396188

That's not the work of reputable pollsters or they wouldn't have fucked up the 'don't know' row so

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Why is the hospital blast question urgent for some? There's a danger it will be used to bring in other players and boost the cycle of violence. There's a danger Gaza won't be left on its own to face the music. But that's fine because we all condemn Israeli violence. We're the good ones as Bassem Youssef might say. The horrors of moral narcissism.

Because even in war there are rules of engagement. Which means that when eg an apartment block is hit by an airstrike, it's a case of 'Oops! What can you do. We're fighting in an urban area. Collateral damage happens.' * shrugs shoulders *

But there's a gentleman's agreement and/or Geneva Conventions that says that hospitals, schools, places of worship, media, and UN and Red Cross facilities shouldn't be targeted.

In sort of Bloomsbury rules terms, it's seen to be hitting below the belt.

So that's why there's been so much coverage and so much speculation and analysis. Because any such attack in any conflict is perceived to be particularly heinous.

 

[kabbes]

I don't see that sort of invasion happening at all.

But if it did and don't know if we can predict Israel's response as that will be heavly dependent on other factors.

Such as is the US getting directly involved at this point and is there involvement conditional on them not using nukes.

That’s why I said that the US could go a long way to pushing Israel to stop its genocide by having a quiet word behind the scenes, that if the response to the genocide is invasion then the Israelis are on their own.

I know that’s not going to happen. But it could happen. If the US willed it.

 

[8ball]

New benchmark for Urban

View attachment 396188

I hope they didn’t literally print “don’t not” on their survey form.

 

[Pickman's model]

Because even in war there are rules of engagement. Which means that when eg an apartment block is hit by an airstrike, it's a case of 'Oops! What can you do. We're fighting in an urban area. Collateral damage happens.' * shrugs shoulders *

But there's a gentleman's agreement and/or Geneva Conventions that says that hospitals, schools, places of worship, media, and UN and Red Cross facilities shouldn't be targeted.

In sort of Bloomsbury rules terms, it's seen to be hitting below the belt.

So that's why there's been so much coverage and so much speculation and analysis. Because any such attack in any conflict is perceived to be particularly heinous.

Queensberry rules. Hitting below the belt and kicking a defenceless opponent both approved in Bloomsbury rules

 

[belboid]

That's not the work of reputable pollsters or they wouldn't have fucked up the 'don't know' row so

nah, thats the row for the Hegelians. Like a few on here, they don't not want there to be a ceasefire, but....