Playing the blame game in this region can go back thousands of years. At some point folks need to look forward, not backwards. For far too long the Middle East has had the potential to ignite a much larger conflict. The current crisis is already broadening. There needs to be a peace conference involving all relevant parties. What Israel is doing now will not bring any lasting end to conflict. Regardless of the original attack by Hamas, the response by Israel is beyond the pale. The US should stop with all the lip service and push hard for a real settlement. If Netanyahu and the right wing won't participate, then cut off all military support.
By any definition inflicting over 80000 casualties and destroying 70% of the above ground infrastructure is "beyond the pale" Not to mention hindering food supplies and medical care. The IDF could have attacked the tunnels and Hamas, and have a better chance to get the hostages back with other tactics. And, sadly, other than benefiting the current Israeli government this conflict will not make Israel safer. It will take vision and leadership to gain security. It has happened before with Jordan and Egypt and was moving forward with Saudi Arabia.
“By any definition” is not really a meaningful measure though. Is there a comparable situation where a country inflicted fewer casualties while accomplishing a similar objective? I am at a loss for the different tactics the IDF could have used to destroy a force that has spent more than a decade embedding itself inside and under a civilian population, especially when that force depends on civilian casualties to pressure the “international community” into stoping Israel from destroying it.
Israel’s security requires destroying Hamas and preventing it from reconstituting.
This article provides info on how the Gaza conflict stacks up against US operations in Iraq. I would suggest that our rules of engagement played a major role in keeping the casualties down. The IDF could employ tactics to minimize damage but have chosen not to. Likely to reduce IDF ground forces casualties but it is hard to dismiss the charges that this is vengeful in purpose. And the imposition of blackouts, restrictions on food and medical support, lack of water, etc. are not justified. The recent comments by a former Chief of Staff of the IDF and current member of the Israeli cabinet support this.
In neither Raqqa nor Mosul were we fighting an enemy who had spent almost two decades integrating a military force into a civilian population the way Hamas has. The idea there is some magic set of tactics that would be able to counter this integration without causing considerable damage to the civilian population and infrastructure is fanciful. Hamas spent $$$ to build a battlefield intended to cause this type of damage
And are you seriously arguing it is Israel’s responsibility to provide power, water, and food to its enemy?
1. The majority of the enemy encountered by US forces were indigenous and could blend into the local population. 2. In any such situation there will be civilian casualties. This issue is whether you employ ROI's that minimize those casualties. 3. I disagree with your premise that Hamas designed its infrastructure to cause the damage being inflicted. I would argue that it was designed to allow Hamas to operate unobserved. 4. Yes, in this type of conflict (counter-terrorism) you do want to help the non- combatants. Considering the entire population of Gaza as the enemy is counterproductive and, frankly, just wrong.
I've appreciated the conversation in spite of our differing viewpoints. All the best.
Joe writes, "Just the day before, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the World Economic Forum at Davos that Israel cannot achieve “genuine security” without a pathway to a Palestinian state."
But Netanyahu is right. A Palestinian state won't lead to peace, because it will be taken over by ruthless people like Hamas, whose bottom line goal is not to live with Israel, but to end Israel.
If a Palestinian state were to be a true democracy, then most Palestinians would probably vote for compromise and peace. But like every other Arab country, there is no chance that a Palestinian state would be a true democracy. The West Bank is not a democracy. Gaza is not a democracy. No Arab government is a democracy.
I love President Biden and will vote for him all day long and twice on Sunday. But he's just wrong on this particular matter. On this subject, he's still living in the past. If peace wasn't already dead, Oct 7 drove the final nail in it's coffin.
I'm guessing Oct 7 was engineered in Tehran and Moscow, and if so, they played it beautifully.
The two state solution died with the second intifada and was buried on 7 Oct. There is no Palestinian leader now or on the horizon who could maintain sufficient popular support and offer Israel the kind of security guarantees Israelis would require. The only viable solution for the foreseeable future is some sort of Palestinian autonomy in a federation with another Arab state. The Arab states are largely responsible for the current situation and need to play a role in the solution.
I disagree on the viability of an independent Palestinian state, but Bibi has ruled out your plan, too. He has embraced the settler vision of complete Israeli control over all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. He does not elaborate on what would happen to the over five million Palestinians living on these lands.
A Palestinian state could be viable with enough funds from the rich Arab states. But I can't see how a Palestinian state would bring peace to the region.
The idea that a two state solution will bring peace seems to confuse Palestinian citizens, who would likely be agreeable to compromise and peace, and the leaders of a Palestinian state, those who would make the decisions.
The most likely scenario for a Palestinian state would be what we see in Gaza. The most ruthless Palestinians would kick out the more moderate Palestinians, take over the country, and continue the holy jihad against the Israelis. All Arab states are ruled by whoever has the most guns.
Especially after Oct 7, most Israelis seem to understand this, and thus are very unlikely to support any government which agrees to a Palestinian state.
President Biden keeps talking about the two state solution because he has to say something, and he can't say the truth, which is that this conflict is likely to continue until everybody on all sides loses, perhaps in a series of WMD events.
As always, we're being distracted from the forest by the trees. All such horror shows all over the world are united by one very simple factor. Violent men. We always talk endlessly about anything and everything other than the source of these problems.
I don’t think Bibi or anyone else knows. He does know the Gaza experiment failed and reasonably believes Israel cannot risk a similar situation in the West Bank. He stated Israel needs to maintain security control not total control, that may allow for a form of autonomy but not the type of free hand Hamas had in Gaza.
Playing the blame game in this region can go back thousands of years. At some point folks need to look forward, not backwards. For far too long the Middle East has had the potential to ignite a much larger conflict. The current crisis is already broadening. There needs to be a peace conference involving all relevant parties. What Israel is doing now will not bring any lasting end to conflict. Regardless of the original attack by Hamas, the response by Israel is beyond the pale. The US should stop with all the lip service and push hard for a real settlement. If Netanyahu and the right wing won't participate, then cut off all military support.
What about Israel’s behavior post 7 Oct is “beyond the pale?”
By any definition inflicting over 80000 casualties and destroying 70% of the above ground infrastructure is "beyond the pale" Not to mention hindering food supplies and medical care. The IDF could have attacked the tunnels and Hamas, and have a better chance to get the hostages back with other tactics. And, sadly, other than benefiting the current Israeli government this conflict will not make Israel safer. It will take vision and leadership to gain security. It has happened before with Jordan and Egypt and was moving forward with Saudi Arabia.
“By any definition” is not really a meaningful measure though. Is there a comparable situation where a country inflicted fewer casualties while accomplishing a similar objective? I am at a loss for the different tactics the IDF could have used to destroy a force that has spent more than a decade embedding itself inside and under a civilian population, especially when that force depends on civilian casualties to pressure the “international community” into stoping Israel from destroying it.
Israel’s security requires destroying Hamas and preventing it from reconstituting.
This article provides info on how the Gaza conflict stacks up against US operations in Iraq. I would suggest that our rules of engagement played a major role in keeping the casualties down. The IDF could employ tactics to minimize damage but have chosen not to. Likely to reduce IDF ground forces casualties but it is hard to dismiss the charges that this is vengeful in purpose. And the imposition of blackouts, restrictions on food and medical support, lack of water, etc. are not justified. The recent comments by a former Chief of Staff of the IDF and current member of the Israeli cabinet support this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/08/the-numbers-that-reveal-the-extent-of-the-destruction-in-gaza
In neither Raqqa nor Mosul were we fighting an enemy who had spent almost two decades integrating a military force into a civilian population the way Hamas has. The idea there is some magic set of tactics that would be able to counter this integration without causing considerable damage to the civilian population and infrastructure is fanciful. Hamas spent $$$ to build a battlefield intended to cause this type of damage
And are you seriously arguing it is Israel’s responsibility to provide power, water, and food to its enemy?
1. The majority of the enemy encountered by US forces were indigenous and could blend into the local population. 2. In any such situation there will be civilian casualties. This issue is whether you employ ROI's that minimize those casualties. 3. I disagree with your premise that Hamas designed its infrastructure to cause the damage being inflicted. I would argue that it was designed to allow Hamas to operate unobserved. 4. Yes, in this type of conflict (counter-terrorism) you do want to help the non- combatants. Considering the entire population of Gaza as the enemy is counterproductive and, frankly, just wrong.
I've appreciated the conversation in spite of our differing viewpoints. All the best.
Joe writes, "Just the day before, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the World Economic Forum at Davos that Israel cannot achieve “genuine security” without a pathway to a Palestinian state."
But Netanyahu is right. A Palestinian state won't lead to peace, because it will be taken over by ruthless people like Hamas, whose bottom line goal is not to live with Israel, but to end Israel.
If a Palestinian state were to be a true democracy, then most Palestinians would probably vote for compromise and peace. But like every other Arab country, there is no chance that a Palestinian state would be a true democracy. The West Bank is not a democracy. Gaza is not a democracy. No Arab government is a democracy.
I love President Biden and will vote for him all day long and twice on Sunday. But he's just wrong on this particular matter. On this subject, he's still living in the past. If peace wasn't already dead, Oct 7 drove the final nail in it's coffin.
I'm guessing Oct 7 was engineered in Tehran and Moscow, and if so, they played it beautifully.
The two state solution died with the second intifada and was buried on 7 Oct. There is no Palestinian leader now or on the horizon who could maintain sufficient popular support and offer Israel the kind of security guarantees Israelis would require. The only viable solution for the foreseeable future is some sort of Palestinian autonomy in a federation with another Arab state. The Arab states are largely responsible for the current situation and need to play a role in the solution.
I disagree on the viability of an independent Palestinian state, but Bibi has ruled out your plan, too. He has embraced the settler vision of complete Israeli control over all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. He does not elaborate on what would happen to the over five million Palestinians living on these lands.
A Palestinian state could be viable with enough funds from the rich Arab states. But I can't see how a Palestinian state would bring peace to the region.
The idea that a two state solution will bring peace seems to confuse Palestinian citizens, who would likely be agreeable to compromise and peace, and the leaders of a Palestinian state, those who would make the decisions.
The most likely scenario for a Palestinian state would be what we see in Gaza. The most ruthless Palestinians would kick out the more moderate Palestinians, take over the country, and continue the holy jihad against the Israelis. All Arab states are ruled by whoever has the most guns.
Especially after Oct 7, most Israelis seem to understand this, and thus are very unlikely to support any government which agrees to a Palestinian state.
President Biden keeps talking about the two state solution because he has to say something, and he can't say the truth, which is that this conflict is likely to continue until everybody on all sides loses, perhaps in a series of WMD events.
As always, we're being distracted from the forest by the trees. All such horror shows all over the world are united by one very simple factor. Violent men. We always talk endlessly about anything and everything other than the source of these problems.
I don’t think Bibi or anyone else knows. He does know the Gaza experiment failed and reasonably believes Israel cannot risk a similar situation in the West Bank. He stated Israel needs to maintain security control not total control, that may allow for a form of autonomy but not the type of free hand Hamas had in Gaza.
Who do you see governing a Palestinian state?