Israel vs Hamas (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

Looks like the fight is on with Israeli soldiers and civilians amongst the dead already. Question becomes, how long before we get dragged into this?

Netanyahu says Israel is ‘at war’ after Hamas launches surprise attack, takes hostages | CNN

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the country was “at war” on Saturday, after Palestinian militants in Gaza fired a deadly barrage of rockets and sent gunmen into Israeli territory in a major escalation of the long running conflict between the two sides.

www.cnn.com

 

[DaveXA]

I'm wondering how long it will take for the usual suspects to call La-La & Samiam trolls for posting things that contradict the media narrative about the Isreal/Hammas war.

We were fine until you brought this up. I know for a fact that MT15 and I have our differences with them but we respect their opinion. Why? Because they've been respectful posters long before we started this discussion. We don't generally call people we disagree with trolls.

On the other hand...there are some trolls...yeah. One in particular comes to mind.

 

[UriUT]

I’m implying that the Hamas leadership is completely irredeemable. That they care nothing about minimizing civilian deaths. That’s it. Sorry if you take offense to that.

I have seen what I perceived as attempts to excuse the Hamas violence. It’s a fine line, I agree. I understand the propensity towards violence, by Hamas, but that doesn’t excuse it. Hamas slaughtered civilians because they hate Jews and want to wipe them off the face of the earth. It’s their belief system, it’s their end goal.

Israel can at least be restrained somewhat. They have been persuaded. And most of the country will not support what Bibi wants to do. Not anymore. Most Israelis don’t want to wipe Palestinians off the face of the earth. There have been outreach programs in Gaza, even by Bibi’s government. I don’t like Bibi. I don’t think he belongs in any position of power, but Israel is better than their worst representatives, IMO.

There’s a difference here. That’s my opinion and my judgement. I think the US will help restrain Israel. I think they already have and it will continue. I think Israel has already taken some measures to avoid civilian casualties and I think we will see more of them in the future now that some time has passed. Someone said as a proportion of the population the Hamas slaughter would have been the equivalent of the US seeing 27,000 men, women and children killed in one day. It was a horrendous and senseless loss of life.

At the moment, Israel's on a revenge tour. The US's role should be:
1. Make sure we don't get involved militarily and make sure 2 and 3 happens
2. Localize this war
3. Minimize casualties.
Because neither Hamas or this Israeli government are worth it.

What Friends Owe Friends

Why Washington should restrain Israeli military action in Gaza—and preserve a path to peace.

www.foreignaffairs.com

Israel’s desire to destroy Hamas once and for all is entirely understandable.
[...]
But just because an objective is understandable does not mean that pursuing it is the optimal or even advisable path, and Israel’s apparent strategy is flawed in both ends and means. Hamas is as much a network, a movement, and an ideology as it is an organization. Its leadership can be killed, but the entity or something like it will survive.

Consequences of the full scale ground assault:

The first argument against a large-scale invasion is that its costs would almost certainly outweigh any benefits. Hamas does not present good military targets, as it has deeply embedded its military infrastructure in civilian areas of Gaza. An attempt to destroy it would require a large-scale assault in a densely populated urban environment, which would prove costly for Israel and lead to civilian casualties that would generate support for Hamas among Palestinians. Israel would also suffer extensive casualties, and additional soldiers could be abducted.

Regional consequences:

Employing massive force against Gaza (as opposed to more targeted action against Hamas) would also prompt an international outcry. Further normalization with Arab governments, above all Saudi Arabia, would be stalled; Israel’s existing relationships with its Arab neighbors would be put on hold or possibly even reversed. A large, prolonged military undertaking could also lead to a wider regional war, sparked either by a conscious decision by Hezbollah (urged on by Iran) to launch rockets against Israel or by spontaneous outbreaks of violence in the West Bank aimed at Israelis or at the Arab governments (especially those in Jordan and Egypt) long at peace with Israel.

The aftermath??

Even if Israel crushed Hamas, what would follow? There is no alternative authority available to take its place. The Palestinian Authority, which oversees the West Bank, lacks legitimacy, capacity, and standing in Gaza. No Arab government is prepared to step in and take responsibility for Gaza.

Containment:

A second American goal must be to discourage any widening of the war. The biggest danger is Hezbollah, which possesses on the order of 150,000 rockets that can hit Israel, entering the fray.

An Invasion of Gaza Would Be a Disaster for Israel

America must prevail on its ally to step back from the brink.

www.foreignaffairs.com

In an overheated political environment, the loudest voices in the United States have been those urging extreme measures against Hamas. In some cases, commentators have even called for military action against Iran for its alleged sponsorship of Hamas’s operation.

But this is precisely the time that Washington must be the cooler head and save Israel from itself. The impending invasion of Gaza will be a humanitarian, moral, and strategic catastrophe.

It will not only badly harm Israel’s long-term security and inflict unfathomable human costs on Palestinians but also threaten core U.S. interests in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and in Washington’s competition with China over the Indo-Pacific order.

Gazans are aware of these facts. They do not see the call to evacuate as a humanitarian gesture. They believe that Israel’s intention is to carry out another nakba, or “catastrophe”: the forced displacement of Palestinians from Israel during the 1948 war. They do not believe—nor should they believe—that they will be allowed to return to Gaza after the fighting.

Even if Israel does succeed in toppling Hamas, it will then be faced with the challenge of governing the territory it abandoned in 2005 and then mercilessly blockaded and bombed in the intervening years. Gaza’s young population will not welcome the IDF as liberators.

And despite a unity coalition? Netanyahu didn't boot the extremist causing trouble in the West Bank and East Jerusalem from the government. (Ben-Gvir along with Netanyahu shouted "Death to Rabin" months before he was assassinated btw)

Despite overwhelming Israeli anger at Netanyahu for his government’s nearly unprecedented strategic failure, opposition leader Benny Gantz has helped solve Netanyahu’s major political problems at no evident cost by joining a national unity war cabinet without the removal of the right-wing extremists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. This decision is significant because it suggests that the provocations in the West Bank and Jerusalem, which Ben-Gvir and Smotrich spearheaded last year, will only continue in this unsettled environment. In fact, it could accelerate, as the settler movement seeks to take advantage of the moment to attempt to annex some or all of the West Bank and displace its Palestinian residents. Nothing could be more dangerous.

CRIMES ARE CRIMES​

Those urging Israel to invade Gaza with maximalist goals are pushing their ally into a strategic and political catastrophe. The potential costs are extraordinarily high, whether counted in Israeli and Palestinian deaths, the likelihood of a protracted quagmire, or mass displacement of Palestinians. The risk of the conflict spreading is also alarmingly large, particularly in the West Bank and Lebanon but potentially far wider. And the potential gains—beyond satisfying demands for revenge—are remarkably low. Not since the American invasion of Iraq has there been such clarity in advance about the fiasco to come.

Nor have the moral issues been so clear. There is no question that Hamas committed grave war crimes in its brutal attacks on Israeli citizens, and it should be held accountable. But there is also no question that the collective punishment of Gaza, through blockades and bombing and the forced displacement of its population, represents grave war crimes. Here, too, there should be accountability—or, better yet, respect for international law.

 

[MT15]

At the moment, Israel's on a revenge tour. The US's role should be:
1. Make sure we don't get involved militarily and make sure 2 and 3 happens
2. Localize this war
3. Minimize casualties.
Because neither Hamas or this Israeli government are worth it.

Agree. And to me it looks like this is what is happening.

 

[UriUT]

There will not be any good outcome in the immediate future.

Why Hamas Attacked—and Why Israel Was Taken by Surprise

A conversation with Martin Indyk.

www.foreignaffairs.com

What options exist now for the Israeli government?

Well, they’ve been through this five times before, and there’s a clear playbook. They mobilize the army, they attack from the air, they inflict damage on Gaza. They try to decapitate the Hamas leadership. And if that doesn’t work in terms of getting Hamas to stop firing rockets and enter into negotiations to release the hostages, then I think we’re looking at a full-scale Israeli invasion of Gaza.

Now that presents two problems. One is that Israel would be fighting in densely populated areas, and the international outcry against civilian casualties that Israel would inflict with its high-tech American weapons would shift condemnation onto the United States and Israel, and put pressure on Israel to stop. The second problem is, if Israel succeeds in a full-scale war, they then own Gaza, and they have to answer the questions: How are we going to get out? When do we withdraw? Whom do we withdraw in favor of? Remember, the Israelis already withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and they do not want to go back in.

 

[UriUT]

Agree. And to me it looks like this is what is happening.

It's not a forgone conclusion. This entirely depends on Israel.

 

[MT15]

It's not a forgone conclusion. This entirely depends on Israel.

Yes, but I do think the Biden Administration has those very goals you stated. They are working hard to do all of them.

 

[DaveXA]

It's not a forgone conclusion. This entirely depends on Israel.

The lion's share, yes, but they're hardly the only actors here.

 

[MT15]

Looks like Blinken is trying very hard:

 

[SaintForLife]

Well, we’re 37 pages in, when do you think it will happen?

Here’s a hint - it won’t happen because both of them are great posters with a great history of contributing solid takes to this site.

Do with this information what you will.

Translation: We agree with them politically

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

At the moment, Israel's on a revenge tour. The US's role should be:
1. Make sure we don't get involved militarily and make sure 2 and 3 happens
2. Localize this war
3. Minimize casualties.
..........................................................................

In the area.............

US Marine rapid response force moving toward Israel as Pentagon strengthens military posture in region | CNN Politics

A US Marine rapid response force is headed to the waters off the coast of Israel and the Pentagon is preparing American troops for a potential deployment to the country, escalating the US’ show of force in the region as it works to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from widening any...

www.cnn.com

.............along with Seal Team 6, Delta Force, and two carrier groups

 

[UriUT]

Not sure where you get your news from. So, I have questions.

In my haste, I believed that you were questioning my objectivity and bias based on my news source. I didn't realize you were questioning my recollection and understanding of the Israel/Palestinian/US dynamics. Of course, my memory has been on the decline, so I did a google search to make sure.

Before Netanyahu took office, very few Israeli PM...ok none... publicly challenged or questioned a sitting president's policy. Along comes Netanyahu.

Here, the Israeli labels Obama a traitor, a betrayer. Just because he dared try to reignite the peace process by asking Netanyahu to restrict further settlement of the West Bank.

Candidly Speaking: Responding to Obama’s malicious betrayal of Israel

This will not be the first time that we overcame major challenges and emerged stronger than ever.

www.jpost.com

Is Netanyahu playing politics with speech to Congress?

Tensions escalated this week between the White House and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his upcoming speech to Congress. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner explores the controversy surrounding the address and whether it damages the U.S.-Israel relationship.

www.pbs.org

But that's not the reality is it? He expanded US aid to Israel and protected Israel from criticism in the UN.

Opinion | Israel’s Unsung Protector: Obama (Published 2016)

Of the last nine presidents, Obama is the only one who has completely shielded Israel from Security Council resolutions.

www.nytimes.com

President Obama, in contrast with his predecessors, has completely shielded Israel from such resolutions. This fact is all the more striking given that his presidency has overlapped with governments that have been among the most right-wing in Israel’s history — governments that have continually and openly defied American-led peace efforts and American policy opposing settlement expansion.

The rationale behind Mr. Obama’s United Nations policy was hinted at in 2011, when the United States vetoed a draft resolution related to Israeli settlements. In remarks explaining her vote, Susan E. Rice, then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, made clear that the administration objected to the resolution not over its substance, but over concerns that it could poison efforts to foster peace negotiations. In other words, the administration hoped that vetoing the resolution would encourage the Netanyahu government to engage more constructively in peace efforts.

But that didn’t happen. Mr. Netanyahu’s policies, words and actions — especially continued settlement expansion and new land confiscations — proved that Mr. Obama’s tactic had been ineffective, perhaps even counterproductive.

And I don't need to search out Netanyahu speaking before Congress despite objection from the White House? [oops I inadvertently did]

Also here:

Molad Analysis - How Netanyahu Misunderstands American Politics

During the recent American elections, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu displayed a lack of the political acumen so necessary to secure Israel's future

www.molad.org

During an election, American party lines sharpen; politicians endorse candidates and campaign for them. So that as conservative battles liberal for the White House, candidates become the literal representatives of their parties and taking sides means challenging the entire Party. In other words, the trouble with Netanyahu’s meddling wasn’t just that he bet on the wrong horse, or even that he missed his mistake when a quick survey of poll data would have told him otherwise.2 It’s that he, as the Prime Minister of a foreign power, got on the wrong side of the national Democratic Party — and neither apologized nor seemed to regret such action.

Some have made the argument that by alienating the Democratic Party, Netanyahu came close to compromising the very issues he was trying to strengthen: Israel’s long-term national security and international standing.

And the notion that the tail is somehow wagging the dog in this case just doesn't make much sense. To say the US doesn't have any leverage with Israel is huge stretch.

So I have to ask you, "Are Israeli's far right policy beneficial to the US?"
If your answer is yes, I and many real foreign policy expert would love to hear and understand it.
If no, why is the US tolerating it? Why does Israel shat on what we do and what we negotiate for our benefit thwarted and at times refer to being traitorous? The Iran nuclear deal was good for the US's policy of non-proliferation, yet he sees fit to poop on it, publicly!!! So again, is the tail wagging the dog?

 

[DaveXA]

Translation: We agree with them politically

Omg no. You're as dense as they come.

 

[UriUT]

In the area.............

US Marine rapid response force moving toward Israel as Pentagon strengthens military posture in region | CNN Politics

A US Marine rapid response force is headed to the waters off the coast of Israel and the Pentagon is preparing American troops for a potential deployment to the country, escalating the US’ show of force in the region as it works to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from widening any...

www.cnn.com

.............along with Seal Team 6, Delta Force, and two carrier groups

I don't know what you are getting at here...is this good or bad for us?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I don't know what you are getting at here...is this good or bad for us?

You don't know what I'm getting at?

You said, " Make sure we don't get involved militarily...."

Do you know what I'm getting at now?


In the area.............

US Marine rapid response force moving toward Israel as Pentagon strengthens military posture in region | CNN Politics​

A US Marine rapid response force is headed to the waters off the coast of Israel and the Pentagon is preparing American troops for a potential deployment to the country, escalating the US’ show of force in the region as it works to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from widening any...

www.cnn.com


.............along with Seal Team 6, Delta Force, and two carrier groups

 

[UriUT]

You don't know what I'm getting at?

You said, " Make sure we don't get involved militarily...."

Do you get what I'm getting at now?


In the area.............

US Marine rapid response force moving toward Israel as Pentagon strengthens military posture in region | CNN Politics​

A US Marine rapid response force is headed to the waters off the coast of Israel and the Pentagon is preparing American troops for a potential deployment to the country, escalating the US’ show of force in the region as it works to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from widening any...

www.cnn.com


.............along with Seal Team 6, Delta Force, and two carrier groups

No. Are you suggesting we already are involved?

I certainly think that can be precautionary? What am I missing?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

No. Are you suggesting we already are involved?

I certainly think that can be precautionary? What am I missing?

I'm not suggesting anything, we ARE involved militarily now, look at what we've moved into the area, and it is also precautionary.

 

[Maxp]

I see our moving carriers and other forces into the immediate area as a containment position to heavily discourage Iran and their proxies from entering the fray.

 

[UriUT]

It's both. We are most certainly involved militarily now, look at what we've moved into the area, and it is also precautionary.

You and I have different meanings of involved. I meant active conflict....fighting. If that comes about, we have bigger troubles.