New War In Israel / Gaza

[PurpleTree]

2 minutes ago, Nabd said:

Biden needs to remind Natenyahu that they funded Hamas.

So you really think iran and israel work together?

that‘s a wild theory

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar That's not enough though. Biden needs to publically tell Israel that US support is conditional on Israel showing restraint. That's the key missing piece.

The US is gonna look so bad after the civilian death toll in Gaza shoots past 10,000.

I don't know how viable that is considering the US has to basically have unwavering support for Israel so as to not provoke other actors to join the war, including Iran.

The US has to support Israel, even if 50k Gazans will die. So even if they say it is conditional, they would in the end have to support Israel either way, which would then make their threat look empty, while having given room for other actors to feel comfortable enough to escalate the war.

 

From what I understand Israel is behaving exceptionally careful in this, contrary to how it is being reported. I do expect a large number of casualities even under optimal conditions. You also have to consider, if the US was in this position, the Gaza strip would be dust already. I wager the US has an understanding that "What needs to be done, needs to be done.".

[docs20]

 

Some of Netanyahu's view in interviews that date less than 1 year ago.

[Raze]

8 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

So you really think iran and israel work together?

that‘s a wild theory

Not a theory. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

[Vrubel]

@Raze Dude, you grotesquely misunderstand that article. The article is about something very nuanced. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Vrubel

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Scholar said:

The US has to support Israel, even if 50k Gazans will die.

That kind of approach will lead to a regional war and a decade of terrorism.

US support for Israel has to be conditional on humane warfare. Why should the US support war crimes? That is absurd.

The US goal should not be to suppprt Israel but to support rule of law and humane action.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Vrubel]

@Leo Gura It's not about how many Gazans die but about achieving tangible military goals. To be honest I think the number of 10.000 will just be reached in the coming week. 100,000s died in Syria and Yemen at the hands of fellow Arabs. There was a time when Israel released 1000 Hamas prisoners for 1 Israeli soldier, so that tells you something about the "normal" proportionality of causalities within this conflict. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Vrubel

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

20 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't know how viable that is considering the US has to basically have unwavering support for Israel so as to not provoke other actors to join the war, including Iran.

The US has to support Israel, even if 50k Gazans will die. So even if they say it is conditional, they would in the end have to support Israel either way, which would then make their threat look empty, while having given room for other actors to feel comfortable enough to escalate the war.

 

From what I understand Israel is behaving exceptionally careful in this, contrary to how it is being reported. I do expect a large number of casualities even under optimal conditions. You also have to consider, if the US was in this position, the Gaza strip would be dust already. I wager the US has an understanding that "What needs to be done, needs to be done.".

   So far, seems like the USA has to take a stronger stance and make clear to Israel that it's support is conditional, so if you do retaliate against HAMAs, keep the casualties to a minimum or suffer economic sanctions and more limits imposed by USA.

   Also, notice that your takes here are getting less and less quality over time, as you keep on fighting Leo, and you keep on arguing without making an argument for either side.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

It's not about how many Gazans die but about achieving tangible military goals.

But there is the question of how to go about reaching those goals. Going on a wild rampage is going to be counter-productive to Israel and the US. It has to be done carefully, with moderation.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Vrubel]

@Leo Gura Why do you think Israel is rampaging?  They're still warning civilians and obviously, the scale of bombardment is way bigger than in "usual rounds" because this is not a usual round. But yeah, Israelis do need to see some footage of flattened neighborhoods to get something out of their systems. Also, the pressure from America on Israel regarding civilians is not mere lip service so I don't understand why you're dismissing this. 

America explicitly saying it will condition support to Israel will be an insult to injury and an absolute humiliation for Israel. You don't want to make Israel feel like a cornered dog.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Vrubel

[thenondualtankie]

Great news, sorry if it's already been shared: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/15/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-southern-gaza-after-us-pressure

Not only the news itself, but that it came from US pressure.

[Scholar]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That kind of approach will lead to a regional war and a decade of terrorism.

US support for Israel has to be conditional on humane warfare. Why should the US support war crimes? That is absurd.

The US goal should not be to suppprt Israel but to support rule of law and humane action.

I think even without war crimes the death toll will be very high. Sure, if Israel started genociding palestinians it would be a different question, but that is not happening.

You can't just create a condition that Israel knows you cannot uphold. If it comes to a regional war, the US will get involved no matter what Israel does right now. Some war crimes will occur and the US can criticize it, however creating condition support seems exceptionally undiplomatic and kind of naive. I just don't see diplomacy working this way, it's almost a childish way of trying to have your way, which is just not how these things are ever handled, thankfully, because we know it does not work.

I think the US is supporting Israel and supporting rule of law and humane action, Biden took the best course of diplomatic action. You also have to understand what types of incentives you create for Hamas if the conditional for winning the war becomes the participating in warcrimes.

 

Also, let's not be ridiculous, there is probably an understanding on both sides that if Israel goes too far it might lose support. I don't think this has to be said explicitly, and it could come off as pretty insulting as a result of the insinuations being made. Such a statement could also be used by Israel's enemies to bolster their cause.

Threatening to withhold your support is basically something you only do once things start hitting the fan, otherwise you just risk worsening of diplomatic relations. You can't just go "Oh and better be careful Israel, if you do too much war crime we won't help you any longer!" before any crimes were committed. Just look at how that would come off in this situation.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Scholar

[PurpleTree]

24 minutes ago, Nabd said:

I can expand on this but there is no point because most people won't be ready to accept such information 

sounds scary
What is your theory 

[Vrubel]

@Nabd Of course, Muslims don't give a shit about the wars among themselves or the concentration camps in China and the literal genocide of Muslims there. But if Israel does the slightest thing they go batshit crazy. Israel is such a convenient (political) scapegoat for Muslims. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Vrubel

[Raze]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That kind of approach will lead to a regional war and a decade of terrorism.

US support for Israel has to be conditional on humane warfare. Why should the US support war crimes? That is absurd.

The US goal should not be to suppprt Israel but to support rule of law and humane action.

US law already states it shouldn’t give aid to apartheid countries, every major humans rights organizations and even the former head of mossad said Israel is an apartheid government, yet the US still gives them enormous amounts of aid for decades. Israel can do whatever it wants and the USA will back it, AIPAC is a very powerful campaign contributor so the US politicians usually have to fall in line otherwise they’ll get outspent in elections.

[BuddhistLover]

I think the objective is suppression of Hamas military assets. Doing SEAD operations and ground defense operations can certainly limit the amount of assault on Israeli civilians. I would think that special forces and jet fighters can infiltrate the Hamas military and make quick elimination of the threat. If you use strike fighters and escort fighters this could be over really quick. Israel has air defense platforms. 

[PurpleTree]

15 minutes ago, Nabd said:

I made a long post about it here

Its not perfect and I am not claiming its the absolute truth about the situation, but I wouldnt believe anyone talking about this issue without taking into consideration that Iran actively work with Israel or at the very least they do communicate alot more than is being said on media.

So you think iran and israel are partners

but iran is close with russia, china

while their opponent u.s. and israel are like closest partners which wouldn’t really make sense

 

[Breakingthewall]

There are two things I don't understand. How is it possible that the army took 12 hours to help the kibbutz when there was telephone communication from the first moment of the attacks, and why the people of the kibbutz did not defend themselves, it is assumed that they have weapons and military training, and in the videos show Palestinians walking calmly through the gardens. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Alex M]

I've been hearing a lot of talk about the history of this conflict and the Israelis' land grabbing from the Palestinians. It was interesting to listen to the history side of things from an Israeli perspective.

 

[gambler]

1 hour ago, Nabd said:

True but a big reason for high casualties without anyone caring is that western powers would say "its a civil war, not our problem", even though it is.

While in Palestine the situation is Jews vs Muslims or Jews vs Arabs. Muslims care about the perpetrator being not a Muslim and especially a Jew is problematic, more than the US for example.

 

Regardless of whether it's true that there's a case to be made that it's about caring more about your closest in-group vs other in-groups, or in-group vs an alien out-group (which would then be a human thing rather than a "Muslim" thing), one thing remains certain: the response is appropriate. It will always remain true that showing solidarity to innocent Palestinians when they are faced with a possible catastrophe is appropriate. Next, if we assume that the disproportionate response is not because Israel was made by an international community and therefore it owes its' obedience to international laws and norms (unlike a 3rd world dictator); Israel is allied with western governments and can be pressured (unlike a China); there's no end in sight for this nearly century-old conflict and we can guess it could end with the displacement of a people (unlike in Syria where we know the war will end and that there will still be Syrians there); then the right way to approach the lack of equality of responses would be how can we get humans to feel this strongly about x, y, and z. Rather than this unspoken implication that their response lacks authenticity. That Arabs don't care about Arabs. Muslims don't care about Muslims. Because this is absolutely untrue.

Edited October 15, 2023 by gambler