Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

As for guarantees? Guarantees by whom? The UN which has zero credibility with the Israeli establishment, The US? hardly seen as neutral by the Palestinians.

Guarantees would be baked into any agreement. Of course that would require good will from both sides and there would need to be mediation from outside, but any solution requires that.

The rest of your post is ignorant nonsense, I'm afraid. 'ooooh Muslims'

 

[MickiQ]

Guarantees would be baked into any agreement. Of course that would require good will from both sides and there would need to be mediation from outside, but any solution requires that.

The rest of your post is ignorant nonsense, I'm afraid. 'ooooh Muslims'

Some of your arguments have been quite good but this one is just clutching at straws

 

[Gramsci]

Neither of those are comparable, NI was a truly unique situation in that membership of the EU and thus ever open borders provided the opportunity for a compromise in which both parties were able to gain almost everything they wanted without the other side giving anything up.
South Africa was a single state in which most of the population was disenfranchised, it's more like comparing it to this country around the turn of the last century where the vote was slowly extended to all.
I don't support the actions of either the Zionists or Hamas but I can understand both. The Zionists look at history and see themselves as the eternal victims (forgetting that they now have one of the most powerful militaries in the world)
Anything other than a Jewish state with a Jewish majority is an absolute non-starter. If I was a Jewish citizen living in an area that I thought might go under Palestinian control I would be dead set against it even though I would be condemning the current actions of my Govt.
The Palestinians also see themselves as the eternal victims driven from their land, If I was Palestinian I can't imagine I would want to live in a Jewish state even if I could vote.
As for guarantees? Guarantees by whom? The UN which has zero credibility with the Israeli establishment, The US? hardly seen as neutral by the Palestinians.
As for compromises well the Zionists don't want to and don't need to so why should they? Hamas don't want too either not that it matters what they want.
Beside even if a deal could be thrashed out what happens 20 years down the line when the Palestinian population is in the majority and Islamists start talking about restricting the rights of the Jews or making it compulsory for women to cover their hair in public? For all their failings Netanyahu and those around him can do simple arithmetic. In our cosy secular viewpoint we're forgetting just how much religion along with race is part of this very toxic mix.
Any hope for a peaceful solution died on October 7 (not that it wasn't pretty sickly to begin with), this ends in blood and fire.

I honestly don't know what you are on about

Where do I start?

Not all Palestinians are Islamists.

Some are Christians. Though a lot of them emigrated. Chile has large Palestinian population.

Hamas when it was founded by Muslim Brotherhood had to tone down it's more religious side ( and still does) in order to appeal to wider Palestinian population.

Who are secular.

It's appeal was that it was not corrupt/ had broad social welfare program and continued unlike the Fatah/ PA in pursuing armed struggle.

Zionism was largely secular movement with right and left wings until recently.

In actual fact it's a cosy western secular view that labels this as largely religious and thus not solve able conflict. Unlike us in West who have grown out of this.

As for compromises . Well I have posted up previously some history of Hamas. And they have in past offered compromises and been rebuffed.

To extent that even Tony Blair now thinks it was mistake not to engage with them years back.

 

[Gramsci]

And PLO signed up to Oslo and Israeli governments haven't honoured their side of it.

It's not two sides who won't compromise at all

To me it looks the Palestine side were willing to agree to two states. Even though the state they were going to get is small.

But even that was to much for Israel.

 

[Idris2002]

Was the World Series Named for a Newspaper?

Was baseball's annual championship contest, the World Series, named for the New York World newspaper?

www.snopes.com

Why do the facts hate America?

 

[Idris2002]

I've no idea if any of this is true, and I haven't watched the youtube video that the link goes to, but:

Spoiler

https://www.reddit.com/user/Ataginez/

A couple of interesting anecdotes here:
First, most of the fighting in Gaza apparently happened at night. Which wouldn't be surprising since the Israelis should have night vision superiority assuming their kit hadn't been looted. So we haven't actually seen the majority of the combats yet since almost all that has been shown are daytime clips.
Second, the Israelis are indeed trading AFV losses for troop losses - something a lot of us military analysis types suspected given the lack of screening infantry. They'd rather lose an entire tank and one or two soldiers than risk multiple infantry casualties. In this case they lost three Namers with no infantry screens.
What I did not expect was the ending - that the crew and passengers of three Namer vehicles survived the destruction of their vehicles... Because they all bailed out and ran before firing a single shot.
I mean, I suspected there were desertions and half-hearted troops. But an entire armored platoon literally just giving up and running, to the point Hamas simply got to blow up three Namers without resistance?
This is literally worse than ARVN in the days leading up to Saigon at this point. Most ARVN units at least tried to fight until the ammo ran out. Hell, this is ANA level performance.

If this is true, then the implications for Gazans are not great. . . if Israel can't do it with its conventional forces, it may decide to unleash its unconventional forces on the strip. . .

 

[Chz]

That's a bit... I mean, even ignoring that an APC is not a tank, they will have been trained to bail and retreat when their transport is damaged/disabled. That's not desertion, it's training. Vehicles are easily replaced, trained soldiers are not.

 

[MickiQ]

I honestly don't know what you are on about

Where do I start?

Not all Palestinians are Islamists.

Some are Christians. Though a lot of them emigrated. Chile has large Palestinian population.

Hamas when it was founded by Muslim Brotherhood had to tone down it's more religious side ( and still does) in order to appeal to wider Palestinian population.

Who are secular.

It's appeal was that it was not corrupt/ had broad social welfare program and continued unlike the Fatah/ PA in pursuing armed struggle.

Zionism was largely secular movement with right and left wings until recently.

In actual fact it's a cosy western secular view that labels this as largely religious and thus not solve able conflict. Unlike us in West who have grown out of this.

As for compromises . Well I have posted up previously some history of Hamas. And they have in past offered compromises and been rebuffed.

To extent that even Tony Blair now thinks it was mistake not to engage with them years back.

I admire your optimism but your argument basically seems to boil down to "You must be wrong because I want you to be wrong", fair enough I want to be wrong too but I can see absolutely zero evidence to believe that I am.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are two ways this ends
1. The fighting continues until Hamas is destroyed (or at least Netanyahu can convince the Israeli populace they are) and what's left of the Gazans huddle in the ruins of their homes under even tighter security lockdown than before
2. The Gazan population leaves either voluntarily or driven out at gunpoint and is resettled elsewhere presumably in the rest of the Arab world (though there is the not insignificant problem that the rest of the Arab world doesn't want them)

A one state solution is not going to happen since it would soon cease to be a Jewish state and that would be totally unacceptable to the people whose opinions count (which does not include any Palestinians) and Israel has made no attempt to do more than pretend they are serious about a two state solution especially on pre-1967 borders which actually includes land that is currently part of Israel proper rather than just the West Bank/Gaza.
No Israeli political party is going to campaign on the basis of transferring Israeli citizens to live under Palestinian rule or forcing them to leave their homes.

There are rather more than 2 possible outcomes

 

[Pickman's model]

First, you've created a false dichotomy there. It isn't either Israeli or Palestinian rule. It's some hodge-potch fudge of the two, with guarantees for both sides and messy, uncomfortable compromises. We see similar in Northern Ireland.

Second, people said very similar things to this in the 1980s wrt South Africa. No way the white South Africans would ever accept majority rule, particularly rural Afrikaans farmers who feared being pushed off their land. Yet accept it they did, and the transition was peaceful.

You haven't heard of the awb, have you? Not to mention the c.20 000 people killed in violence between the anc and inkatha. Maybe 'less bloody than might have been feared'. But definitely not peaceful.

 

[MickiQ]

I've no idea if any of this is true, and I haven't watched the youtube video that the link goes to, but:

Spoiler

Reddit - Dive into anything

A couple of interesting anecdotes here:
First, most of the fighting in Gaza apparently happened at night. Which wouldn't be surprising since the Israelis should have night vision superiority assuming their kit hadn't been looted. So we haven't actually seen the majority of the combats yet since almost all that has been shown are daytime clips.
Second, the Israelis are indeed trading AFV losses for troop losses - something a lot of us military analysis types suspected given the lack of screening infantry. They'd rather lose an entire tank and one or two soldiers than risk multiple infantry casualties. In this case they lost three Namers with no infantry screens.
What I did not expect was the ending - that the crew and passengers of three Namer vehicles survived the destruction of their vehicles... Because they all bailed out and ran before firing a single shot.
I mean, I suspected there were desertions and half-hearted troops. But an entire armored platoon literally just giving up and running, to the point Hamas simply got to blow up three Namers without resistance?
This is literally worse than ARVN in the days leading up to Saigon at this point. Most ARVN units at least tried to fight until the ammo ran out. Hell, this is ANA level performance.

If this is true, then the implications for Gazans are not great. . . if Israel can't do it with its conventional forces, it may decide to unleash its unconventional forces on the strip. . .

The IDF has a 1000 active APC's and another 5000 in storage, it can afford to loose 3, more than it afford to loose infantrymen, they have no need to defend a disabled one they can come back with a dozen more.
The Israeli aren't going to use nukes on Gaza, it's next doors and just too small. There's no way they can avoid collateral damage on their own troops and Israel itself. If they just wanted to destroy shit without regards to civilian casualties (or perhaps I should with even less regard than they are showing at the moment) they can pull their troops back and carpet bomb the place a bit more.

 

[Idris2002]

The IDF has a 1000 active APC's and another 5000 in storage, it can afford to loose 3, more than it afford to loose infantrymen, they have no need to defend a disabled one they can come back with a dozen more.
The Israeli aren't going to use nukes on Gaza, it's next doors and just too small. There's no way they can avoid collateral damage on their own troops and Israel itself. If they just wanted to destroy shit without regards to civilian casualties (or perhaps I should with even less regard than they are showing at the moment) they can pull their troops back and carpet bomb the place a bit more.

Fair points all, but doesn't Israel have the neutron bomb, famously forgiving to real estate?

 

[MickiQ]

There are rather more than 2 possible outcomes

There are lots of possible outcomes of course but I think my own two are probably the only likely ones for the forseeable, if you can think of other equally likely ones would be interested to hear them.
It's not like the decision makers are listening to the likes of you and me.

Fair points all, but doesn't Israel have the neutron bomb, famously forgiving to real estate?

Well there's probably not much real estate standing in Gaza now but doesn't get around the fact that Gaza is tiny, it's only about 10km wide at it's widest point. Doesn't matter whether its an air blast or radiation it won't stop at the border so they would have to evacuate their troops and civilian population near the border first.
But again why bother? The IAF has over 300 combat aircraft which Hamas can't defend against. The US doesn't seem to have minded the fact they've dropped something like 20,000 tons of HE on Gaza so far. Probably happy to supply them with loads more, whereas even they might get uneasy if Israel uses a nuke. Everyone seems to know Israel as nukes but pretends they don't. Once they come out and use one it's possible that some of their neighbours might get even more uneasy about it.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are lots of possible outcomes of course but I think my own two are probably the only likely ones for the forseeable, if you can think of other equally likely ones would be interested to hear them.
It's not like the decision makers are listening to the likes of you and me.

Well there's probably not much real estate standing in Gaza now but doesn't get around the fact that Gaza is tiny, it's only about 10km wide at it's widest point. Doesn't matter whether its an air blast or radiation it won't stop at the border so they would have to evacuate their troops and civilian population near the border first.
But again why bother? The IAF has over 300 combat aircraft which Hamas can't defend against. The US doesn't seem to have minded the fact they've dropped something like 20,000 tons of HE on Gaza so far. Probably happy to supply them with loads more, whereas even they might get uneasy if Israel uses a nuke. Everyone seems to know Israel as nukes but pretends they don't. Once they come out and use one it's possible that some of their neighbours might get even more uneasy about it.

What about the Netanyahu government falls having failed to achieve the unachievable? Or shit hits the fan in Lebanon, which is well on the cards? Or this awful slaughter reaps a crop of zionist soldiers rather more than the zionists like? We've heard nothing about zionist casualties for some time

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You haven't heard of the awb, have you? Not to mention the c.20 000 people killed in violence between the anc and inkatha. Maybe 'less bloody than might have been feared'. But definitely not peaceful.

Far less bloody than many people feared, which is the point, no? The transfer of power itself was bloodless between the parties directly involved.

 

[Pickman's model]

Far less bloody than many people feared, which is the point, no? The transfer of power itself was bloodless between the parties directly involved.

Apart from the c.20k killed between inkatha and the anc who were - correct me if I'm wrong - both parties directly involved

 

[teqniq]

I am completely unsurprised:

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Not paywalled at time of posting.

 

[CH1]

Neither of those are comparable, NI was a truly unique situation in that membership of the EU and thus ever open borders provided the opportunity for a compromise in which both parties were able to gain almost everything they wanted without the other side giving anything up.
South Africa was a single state in which most of the population was disenfranchised, it's more like comparing it to this country around the turn of the last century where the vote was slowly extended to all.

My recollection of South Africa (from contemporary news reports) is it had "Bantustans" which were the less fertile areas not wanted by Boer/Dutch farmers.
The only Banustan which had independent wealth was Bophuthatswana which had Sun City - a sort of Las Vegas where white tourists went to gamble or see strippers etc - things banned in South Africa.
I remember much controversy about major artists performing in sun City - effectively refusing to boycott South Africa. Quote from Wiki:
The United Nations had imposed a cultural boycott on South Africa in condemnation of apartheid. To overcome this, Kerzner offered substantial financial incentives to performing artists to use Sun City as a venue. Several acts disregarded the boycott and performed at the venue, such as The Beach Boys,[1] Linda Ronstadt,[1] Cher,[1] Millie Jackson,[1] Liza Minnelli,[1] Frank Sinatra (1981),[2] Shirley Bassey (1981), Olivia Newton-John (1982), Dolly Parton (1982), Neil Sedaka (1982), Paul Anka,[2] Status Quo,[3] Rod Stewart (July 1983),[2][3] Elton John (October 1983),[2] and Boney M. (1984).[4]

British rock band Queen's series of performances at the venue in October 1984 in transgression of the boycott caused considerable controversy, prompting criticism in the British music press, a fine from the Musicians' Union and their inclusion on the United Nations' blacklisted artists. Following the criticism, Queen strongly defended their decision, saying they "play to anybody who wants to come and listen" and were "a very non-political group", but donated to a school for the deaf and blind to assert their philanthropic values.[3] In 2021, drummer Roger Taylor voiced regret for the Sun City shows, stating that "We went with the best intentions, but I still think it was kind of a mistake."[5]

Palestine is pretty much like this surely Bantustans of Gaza and the West Bank - except the constant harassment from the IDF and "white settlers" is even destroying the small Palestinian tourist industry.

 

[ska invita]

I am completely unsurprised:

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Not paywalled at time of posting.

https://archive.ph/Rd10q

Is now

 

[Gramsci]

I admire your optimism but your argument basically seems to boil down to "You must be wrong because I want you to be wrong", fair enough I want to be wrong too but I can see absolutely zero evidence to believe that I am.

No Ive given you the evidence. Im not being optimistic. I have in recent past been reading up on this and am doing more reading now.

Your coming out with pat generalisations.

 

[Gramsci]

I admire your optimism but your argument basically seems to boil down to "You must be wrong because I want you to be wrong", fair enough I want to be wrong too but I can see absolutely zero evidence to believe that I am.

And exactly what in my post was optimistic?

 

[Gramsci]

I am completely unsurprised:

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

Not paywalled at time of posting.

Coming up as paywall.

Pity as FT is usually accurate reporting.

 

[teqniq]

Coming up as paywall.

Pity as FT is usually accurate reporting.

https://archive.ph/Rd10q

Is now

see ska invita post above

 

[LDC]

I've no idea if any of this is true, and I haven't watched the youtube video that the link goes to, but:

Spoiler

Reddit - Dive into anything

A couple of interesting anecdotes here:
First, most of the fighting in Gaza apparently happened at night. Which wouldn't be surprising since the Israelis should have night vision superiority assuming their kit hadn't been looted. So we haven't actually seen the majority of the combats yet since almost all that has been shown are daytime clips.
Second, the Israelis are indeed trading AFV losses for troop losses - something a lot of us military analysis types suspected given the lack of screening infantry. They'd rather lose an entire tank and one or two soldiers than risk multiple infantry casualties. In this case they lost three Namers with no infantry screens.
What I did not expect was the ending - that the crew and passengers of three Namer vehicles survived the destruction of their vehicles... Because they all bailed out and ran before firing a single shot.
I mean, I suspected there were desertions and half-hearted troops. But an entire armored platoon literally just giving up and running, to the point Hamas simply got to blow up three Namers without resistance?
This is literally worse than ARVN in the days leading up to Saigon at this point. Most ARVN units at least tried to fight until the ammo ran out. Hell, this is ANA level performance.

If this is true, then the implications for Gazans are not great. . . if Israel can't do it with its conventional forces, it may decide to unleash its unconventional forces on the strip. . .

Assuming it's the same person, I wouldn't put too much faith in what he comes out with tbh.

Torah Scholar makes Bold Prophecy: "No Israelis Will Die from Corona-Virus"

“The days of the Messiah are coming and no one can do anything,” the rabbi said.

www.israel365news.com

Have people given up even on the most cursory checking of sources now if it fits what they want to hear?

 

[teqniq]

Assuming it's the same person, I wouldn't put too much faith in what he comes out with tbh.

Torah Scholar makes Bold Prophecy: "No Israelis Will Die from Corona-Virus"

“The days of the Messiah are coming and no one can do anything,” the rabbi said.

www.israel365news.com

Have people given up even on the most cursory checking of sources now if it fits what they want to hear?

How about you say 'have you' rather than 'have people'. I usually fact check, particularly with a situation such as this but even so sometimes I make mistakes but I object to your insinuation that 'people' who exactly? Are not checking sources.

 

[MickiQ]

What about the Netanyahu government falls having failed to achieve the unachievable? Or shit hits the fan in Lebanon, which is well on the cards? Or this awful slaughter reaps a crop of zionist soldiers rather more than the zionists like? We've heard nothing about zionist casualties for some time

Well some simple googling puts the IDF casualties at somewhere between 300-400 they might very well be undereporting so maybe the real figure is 500-600 but it's not going to be 5000-6000 though
Even 500-600 let alone 300-400 is not a lot out of a mobilisation of 100,000's especially when it seems obvious this is a regime and a military that feels itself to be on a mission.
Plus this is after 2 months of fighting, the IDF has not and probably never will be able to totally end Hamas ability to fight but it has degraded it. IDF casualties aren't going to start rising exponentially, 2 months from now the figure will be higher but I doubt it will have doubled never mind gone up by a factor of 10 or 20.
So what if shit as you say hits the fan in Lebanon, Hezbollah can make a pain of itself and kill Israeli soldiers and civilians but it can't invade Israel or threaten its territorial integrity and any injury will be returned tenfold. As for the harm inflicted on the Lebanese well no-one cares now they won't start anytime soon.
As for the Netanyahu Govt well it won't achieve the unachievable but it doesn't have to, it merely needs to reduce as much as possible the possibility of another October 7 terrorist attack. Peace to Netanyahu is a end to terrorist attacks not a just solution. Turning Gaza into a wasteland and fully locking down the border will largely do that.

No Ive given you the evidence. Im not being optimistic. I have in recent past been reading up on this and am doing more reading now.

Your coming out with pat generalisations.

No you haven't offered any evidence, you've offered perspectives on historical events. I cast no doubt upon them but they're not relevant going forward from now any more than the various YouTube videos offering either the Israeli or Palestinian 'side' of history.

And exactly what in my post was optimistic?

And I say this with nothing but the greatness of sadness but it is your belief that there is still any possibility of some kind of solution that will be fair and equitable to the Palestinians.
I cannot see any way this will not end without the effective if not actual obliteration of the Palestinians.

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Totalitarianism

 

[Gramsci]

.

No you haven't offered any evidence, you've offered perspectives on historical events. I cast no doubt upon them but they're not relevant going forward from now any more than the various YouTube videos offering either the Israeli or Palestinian 'side' of history.

You are casting doubt on them.

First of all you start saying you cast no doubt then second half of sentence you go on about You tube videos and "side". Which is disparaging.

Unless one takes an interest in the history of this I don't see how anyone can understand it.

 

[Gramsci]

And I say this with nothing but the greatness of sadness but it is your belief that there is still any possibility of some kind of solution that will be fair and equitable to the Palestinians.
I cannot see any way this will not end without the effective if not actual obliteration of the Palestinians.

If this is your considered view why are you doing long posts here? What is the point?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

As for the Netanyahu Govt well it won't achieve the unachievable but it doesn't have to, it merely needs to reduce as much as possible the possibility of another October 7 terrorist attack. Peace to Netanyahu is a end to terrorist attacks not a just solution. Turning Gaza into a wasteland and fully locking down the border will largely do that.

You've spoken a lot of nonsense in recent posts, but do you seriously believe this, that Israel makes itself safer by behaving in this way?

Do you really not see why the opposite is true?

ETA:

And here we have an example of how you don't have a hope of understanding what is going on without knowing some history. You think Netanyahu and his government are motivated in their current actions by a desire to ensure another 7 October never happens? They might say that's why they're doing it, but do you believe them?