A pro Isreal perspective

[Twentyfirst]

Jihadists=Zionists 

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

   This whole situation is another example of why patriarchy exists, and why there should be enforcement arms and enforcement mechanisms that protects and enables laws and rights. Since Palestine doesn't have a big enough army itself, as a result of the 80 years of skirmishes, border wars, and the few wars between Israel versus Iran, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and other regions, and the ceasefire agreements, and Israel gaining territorial defensive positions and a growing army with some support from the west, it is far more powerful than Palestine, thus it can enforce it's standards and defend it's own agenda and self determine more than Palestinians.

   This is where egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and secularism fails miserably for Palestinians, as all they're left with is HAMAs, a terrorist group, which can maintain itself because there are Zionists in power in Israel that are pushing for that ethnostate.

Where anarchy exists terrorism and might makes right flourishes.

[jaylimix]

On 11/26/2023 at 3:59 AM, Nivsch said:

6. Netanyahu indeed has not invested enough in the geopolitical tools and he actually helped hamas to grow. So yes if you mean that Israel should use more the political tools as a complement to the military force I agree.

His divide and conquer strategy of pitting Hamas against the Palestinian Authority to achieve security has failed big time.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[jaylimix]

On 11/26/2023 at 2:33 AM, BlueOak said:

Then you assume things. I wouldn't have put young mens boots on the ground in the first place, tanks in urban areas suck. Here are five better options:

1) Professional special forces soldiers with air support, covert raids to get the hostages - THEN if they must do what they are doing.

2) International coalition forces acting together, bringing in as many countries as possible, so the resulting political fallout is diminished and buffered. America is world-class at special forces raids and would have bent over backwards to help.

3) A local diplomatic effort, when it fails you can say to the surrounding countries, well we tried. They might even get one or two helping or more willing to. 

2) and 3) give you political legitimacy which means the world when you are surrounded by hostile neighbors, even just consulting them makes you seem more reasonable. Acting Unilaterally does the opposite.

4) No negoation. A slow ratcheting up of controlled pressure. Release the hostages or X happens. X happens. Then you say okay, Now Y is going to happen, you show power and control, using as much force as required and no more. This makes you seem in control and more reasonable, and also very threatening to those who cross you. Excessive uncontrolled violence just makes you seem irrational.

5) Occupation, without annihilation. Israel take the Palestinian people into their state and protect them. 

Tanks in urban areas does suck, that's why you first clear hostility with air support, move in with D9 Bulldozers (man these beasts are cool) to clear rubbles and obstacles, then you move in with the tanks, together with boots on the ground.

1. So you do support air strikes, I thought you don't.

2. This is gonna take too long, if we go with this, politicians will still be talking today, no action.

3. No, the surrounding countries are all hostile to Israel.

4. You need to move your troops in for "no negotiation" to work.

5. A logistical nightmare, setting up refugee camps, aid workers, transportation of food/medicine for 2 million people.

Edited November 28, 2023 by jaylimix

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, jaylimix said:

Tanks in urban areas does suck, that's why you first clear hostility with air support, move in with D9 Bulldozers (man these beasts are cool) to clear rubbles and obstacles, then you move in with the tanks, together with boots on the ground.

1. So you do support air strikes, I thought you don't.

2. This is gonna take too long, if we go with this, politicians will still be talking today, no action.

3. No, the surrounding countries are all hostile to Israel.

4. You need to move your troops in for "no negotiation" to work.

5. A logistical nightmare, setting up refugee camps, aid workers, transportation of food/medicine for 2 million people.

I said these were better paths to take, if you want to know what I would personally support i'll make it clear at the bottom.

1) Air strikes on top of hostages is very stupid. Air strikes with the encompassing goal to clear the area to occupy is a possible death knell to israel long term, for every reason I've given. Its certainly 100 years more violence.

2) No. It didn't take too long with Afghanistan. It would have been even quicker here as the US was there in about 3 or 4 days with its aircraft carriers.
7 October 2001 was the start date in Afghanistan. Less than a month after the tragedy that led to it, there were 9 outside countries directly involved, With a lot more supporting from afar. 10 if you include the proxy in the country itself.

Gaining diplomatic legitimacy in a crisis itself takes very little time at all, which is the important bit internationally, for now and for the future of the country.

3) That is why people make efforts to reach out to them. Otherwise, it will always be that way. Israel thinks of itself as alone and acts alone. Its understandable but unilateral action, not utilizing a giant amount of coalition resources, ultimately leads to more suffering for them. Besides which you are not doing it just for them, you are doing it to demonstrate Israel is a reasonable state at the most unreasonable of times. That you are in control, and politically seeking allies. They would have been pressured to help you, as opposed to pressured to now resist you. Sure maybe you just get the location of 3 Hamas officials and a few public messages of condemnation for terrorists, but that costs you nothing, maybe you get a heck of a lot more.

4) No you don't need young men's boots on the ground as i've just stated. This is flawed thinking when you have overwhelming air power, control over the borders, a wealth of special forces teams that could have hit them before they even knew they were there, control over aid, missile superiority, control over everything that enters that region, medical supplies, any money going in via jobs, water/power existing etc. In a crisis situation, the last thing you are supposed to do is act immediately on emotion. This is true in your personal life and it's even more true for a country. Taking the most extreme option first is irrational. Understandable emotion but irrational.

5) Yes its difficult work. Nobody said it'd be easy. None of this is easy. It'll be difficult work for 50 or 100 years but its work you wouldn't be alone in doing. Because a percentage of the Palestinian's own people would have been helping. The people earning money, the people who don't want war. Instead, if you've created just 10% more people willing to fight you, that's 200,000 more resistance fighters. You could have had that percentage at least helping you, and all the international support in the world doing so. Every large country has supported and run proxy governments before. It is possible and it does work.

So what would I support?

All of it. Why limit yourself. Why be so boxed in, and blinded to other options, that you can only try one strategy at once. This option to level Gaza was always there, it wasn't going to go away, but it was the first and only thing picked. Then a bunch of oh why don't you all support this extreme option. Which was incredibly short-sighted and limiting. It will lead to a great deal of pain and suffering for the people doing it, and alot less of the world caring (and in some cases now remotely supporting) the next response when it happens. Would i have airstriked Hamas targets outside of civilian population centers? Yes. Do I think its dumb to hit 30 civilians to get 2 Hamas fighters, when a delta force squad could have done it quietly? Yes. But instead, Israel put the blinders on, didn't consider all the international resources that were at its disposal, and now is desperately trying to argue that this was the only choice. When in reality it was one of many, and others would have come up with a lot more than this, this is just off the top of my head in a short time thinking about it.

Edited November 28, 2023 by BlueOak