I just want to couple my last comment with Netanyahu should be booted forthwith. Obviously wouldn’t happen until after the end of the this campaign and also ti make it seem organic. But no confident vote.

Also want to remind people how they got here from when the current history began (from Wikipedia):

As the violence increased with little hope for diplomacy, in July 2000 the Camp David 2000 Summit was held which was aimed at reaching a "final status" agreement. The summit collapsed after Yasser Arafat would not accept a proposal drafted by American and Israeli negotiators. Barak was prepared to offer the entire Gaza Strip, a Palestinian capital in a part of East Jerusalem, 73% of the West Bank (excluding eastern Jerusalem) raising to 90–94% after 10–25 years, and financial reparations for Palestinian refugees for peace. Arafat turned down the offer without making a counter-offer.[75]

2000–05: Second Intifada
See also: Second Intifada, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, and Israeli West Bank barrier

The approved West Bank barrier route as of May 2005

Israeli soldiers deployed in Nablus during Operation Defensive Shield, April 2002
After the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit, which was expected to reach a final agreement on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process in July 2000,[76] the Second Intifada, a major Palestinian uprising against Israel, erupted. The outbreaks of violence began in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, made a provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa compound on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[76]

After the collapse of Barak's government, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister on February 6, 2001. Sharon invited the Israeli Labor Party into the coalition to shore up support for the disengagement plan. Due to the deterioration of the political situation, he refused to continue negotiations with the Palestinian Authority at the Taba Summit, or under any aspect of the Oslo Accords.

At the Beirut Summit in 2002, the Arab League proposed an alternative political plan aimed at ending the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Later on the proposal was formulated as a political plan widely accepted by all Arab states as well as the Arab League. As part of this plan all Arab states would normalize their relations with Israel and bring to an end to the Arab–Israeli conflict in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and West Bank (including East Jerusalem). In addition, the plan required Israel to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and, what the plan describes as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israel rejected the wording of the initiative, but official spokespersons expressed gladness about an Arab initiative for peace and Israel's normalization in the region.[citation needed]

Following a period of relative restraint on the part of Israel, after a lethal suicide attack in the Park Hotel in Netanya which happened on March 27, 2002, in which 30 Jews were murdered, Sharon ordered Operation Defensive Shield, a large-scale military operation carried out by the Israel Defense Forces between March 29 until May 10, 2002 in Palestinian cities in the West Bank. The operation contributed significantly to the reduction of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel.

As part of the efforts to fight Palestinian terrorism, in June 2002, Israel began construction of the West Bank barrier. After the barrier went up, Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks across Israel dropped by 90%.[77] However, this barrier became a major issue of contention between the two sides as 85% of the wall is within territory that is Palestinian according to the 1948 Green Line.[78]

Following the severe economic and security situation in Israel, the Likud Party headed by Ariel Sharon won the Israeli elections in January 2003 in an overwhelming victory. The elections led to a temporary truce between Israel and the Palestinians and to the Aquba summit in the May 2003 in which Sharon endorsed the Road map for peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmoud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future. Following the endorsing of the Road Map, the Quartet on the Middle East was established, consisting of representatives from the United States, Russia, EU and UN as an intermediary body of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

On March 19, 2003, Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas as the Prime Minister. The rest of Abbas's term as prime minister continued to be characterized by numerous conflicts between him and Arafat over the distribution of power between the two. The United States and Israel accused Arafat of constantly undermining Abbas and his government. Continuing violence and Israeli "target killings" of known terrorists[citation needed] forced Abbas to pledge a crackdown in order to uphold the Palestinian Authority's side of the Road map for peace. This led to a power struggle with Arafat over control of the Palestinian security services; Arafat refused to release control to Abbas, thus preventing him from using them in a crackdown on militants. Abbas resigned from the post of Prime Minister in October 2003, citing lack of support from Israel and the United States as well as "internal incitement" against his government.[79]

In the end of 2003, Sharon embarked on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. Sharon's plan has been welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel's left wing as a step towards a final peace settlement. However, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party and from other right-wing Israelis,[who?] on national security, military, and religious grounds. In January 2005, Sharon formed a national unity government that included representatives of Likud, Labor, and Meimad and Degel HaTorah as "out-of-government" supporters without any seats in the government (United Torah Judaism parties usually reject having ministerial offices as a policy). Between August 16 and 30, 2005, Sharon controversially expelled 9,480 Jewish settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank. The disengagement plan was implemented in September 2005. Following the withdrawal, the Israeli town of Sderot and other Israeli communities near the Gaza strip became subject to constant shelling and mortar bomb attacks from Gaza with only minimal[clarification needed] Israeli response.

2005 to 2019

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, US President George Bush and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Annapolis Conference
Following the November 2004 death of long-time Fatah party PLO leader Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, Fatah member Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority in January 2005.

In 2006 Palestinian legislative elections Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, prompting the United States and many European countries to cut off all funds to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority[80] insisting that the Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace pacts.[81] Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, since Hamas never renounced its beliefs that Israel has no right to exist and that the entire State of Israel is an illegal occupation which must be wiped out. EU countries and the United States threatened an economic boycott if Hamas will not recognize Israel's existence, not renounce terrorism and shall support the peace agreements signed between the PLO and Israel in the past. Hamas officials have openly stated that the organization does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even though the organization expressed openness to hold a long-term truce. Hamas is considered by Israel and 12 other countries[82] to be a terrorist organization and therefore not entitled to participate in formal peace negotiations.

1:54
Footage of a rocket attack in Southern Israel, March 2009
In June 2006 during a well-planned operation, Hamas managed to cross the border from Gaza, attack an Israeli tank, kill two IDF soldiers and kidnap wounded Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit back into the Gaza Strip. Following the incident and in response to numerous rocket firings by Hamas from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel, fighting broke out between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip (see 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict).

In the summer of 2007 a Fatah–Hamas conflict broke out, which eventually led Hamas taking control of the Gaza strip, which in practice divided the Palestinian Authority into two. Various forces affiliated with Fatah engaged in combat with Hamas, in numerous gun battles. Most Fatah leaders escaped to Egypt and the West Bank, while some were captured and killed. Fatah remained in control of the West Bank, and President Abbas formed a new governing coalition, which some critics of Fatah said subverts the Palestinian Constitution and excludes the majority government of Hamas.


A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards southern Israel, January 2009
In November 2007, the Annapolis Conference was held. The conference marked the first time a two-state solution was articulated as the mutually agreed-upon outline for addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The conference ended with the issuing of a joint statement from all parties.

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008.[83] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[84] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported tunnel, crossing the border into the Gaza Strip from Israel on November 4,[85] which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[86] Israel accuses Hamas of violating the truce citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli cities.[87]


An explosion caused by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza during the Gaza War
The Israeli operation began with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip,[88] targeting Hamas bases, police training camps,[89] police headquarters and offices.[90] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools, were also attacked. Israel has said many of these buildings were used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets.[91] Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting previously untargeted cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod.[92] On January 3, 2009, the Israeli ground invasion began.[93][94] The operation resulted in the deaths of more than 1,300 Palestinians.[citation needed] The IDF released a report stating that the vast majority of the dead were Hamas militants.[95] The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported that 926 of the 1,417 dead had been civilians and non-combatants.[96]

From 2009 onwards, the Obama administration repeatedly pressured the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reignite the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian people.[97] During President Obama's Cairo speech on June 4, 2009 in which Obama addressed the Muslim world Obama stated, among other things, that "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." Following Obama's Cairo speech Netanyahu immediately called a special government meeting. On June 14, ten days after Obama's Cairo speech, Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed, for the first time, a "Demilitarized Palestinian State", after two months of refusing to commit to anything other than a self-ruling autonomy when coming into office. The speech was widely seen as a response to Obama's speech.[98] Netanyahu stated that he would accept a Palestinian state if Jerusalem were to remain the united capital of Israel, the Palestinians would have no army, and the Palestinians would give up their demand for a right of return. He also claimed the right for a "natural growth" in the existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank while their permanent status is up to further negotiation. In general, the address represented a complete turnaround for his previously hawkish positions against the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.[99] The overture was quickly rejected by Palestinian leaders such as Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, who called the speech "racist".[98]

On November 25, 2009, Israel imposed a 10-month construction freeze on all of its settlements in the West Bank. Israel's decision was widely seen as due to pressure from the Obama administration, which urged the sides to seize the opportunity to resume talks. In his announcement Netanyahu called the move "a painful step that will encourage the peace process" and urged the Palestinians to respond.[100] On September 2, United States launched direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Washington.

During September 2011 the Palestinian Authority led a diplomatic campaign aimed at getting recognition of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, by the Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly.[101] On September 23 President Mahmoud Abbas submitted a request to recognize the State of Palestine as the 194th UN member to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Security Council has yet to vote on it. The decision was labeled by the Israeli government as a unilateral step.[102]


On November 29, 2012 the UN General Assembly approves a motion granting Palestine non-member observer state status. UN observer state status voting results were:
In favour Against Abstentions Absent Non-members
In 2012, the Palestinian Authority applied for admission as a United Nations non-member state, which requires only a majority vote by the United Nations General Assembly. Hamas also backed the motion.[103] The draft resolution was passed on November 29, 2012 by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.[104][105] Regardless of the UN recognition, as of this writing, no Palestinian state exists except on a symbolic level. Israel indicated that an actual, real-world Palestinian state can only come into existence if Palestinians succeed in negotiating peace with Israel.[106]

On November 14, 2012 Israel began Operation Pillar of Defense in the Gaza Strip with the stated aims being to halt the indiscriminate rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip[107][108] and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations.[109] The operation began with the targeted killing of Ahmed Jabari, chief of Hamas military wing. The IDF stated it targeted more than 1,500 military sites in Gaza Strip, including rocket launching pads, smuggling tunnels, command centers, weapons manufacturing, and storage buildings.[110] According to Palestinians sources civilian houses were hit and[111] Gaza Health officials state that 167 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict by November 23. The Palestinian militant groups fired over 1,456[112] Iranian Fajr-5, Russian Grad rockets, Qassams and mortars into Rishon LeZion, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and other population centers; Tel Aviv was hit for the first time since the 1991 Gulf War, and rockets were aimed at Jerusalem.[113] The rockets killed four Israeli civilians—three of them in a direct hit on a home in Kiryat Malachi—two Israeli soldiers, and a number of Palestinian civilians. By November 19, over 252 Israelis were physically injured in rocket attacks.[114] Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted about 421 rockets, another 142 rockets fell on Gaza itself, 875 rockets fell in open areas, and 58 rockets hit urban areas in Israel.[110][112][115] A bomb attack against a Tel Aviv bus that wounded over 20 civilians received the "blessing" of Hamas.[116] On November 21 a ceasefire was announced after days of negotiations between Hamas and Israel mediated by Egypt.


During 2011, as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, 1,027 Palestinians and Arab-Israeli prisoners were released in exchange for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
In October 2011, a deal was reached between Israel and Hamas, by which the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would be released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinians and Arab-Israeli prisoners, 280 of whom had been sentenced to life in prison for planning and perpetrating various terror attacks against Israeli targets.[117][118] The military Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari was quoted later as confirming that the prisoners released as part of the deal were collectively responsible for the killing of 569 Israeli civilians.[119][120]

In 2014, another war between Israel and Gaza occurred resulting in over 70 Israeli casualties and over 2000 Palestinians casualties.

2020s
Main articles: 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, July 2023 Jenin incursion, and 2023 Israel–Hamas war
In 2021, yet another war between Israel and Gaza occurred resulting in over 250 casualties.[121] As the war went on, violent conflict was ignited within Israel as well.[122] Policy analysts believe that the war decreased the chances of Israeli-Palestinian bilateral talks.[123]

In November 2022, with the election of the 37th government of Israel, a coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu and notable for its inclusion of far-right politicians,[124] violence in the conflict has increased, with a rise in military actions such as the July 2023 Jenin incursion and Palestinian political violence producing the highest death toll in the conflict since 2005.[125]

On October 7, 2023 Hamas launched an large-scale offensive against Israel, during which Hamas initially fired at least 2,200 rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip, while at the same time hundreds of Palestinian militants broke through the border and entered Israel by foot and with motor vehicles, as they engaged in gun battles with the Israeli security forces, murdered Israeli civilians, took over Israeli towns and military bases, as well as kidnapped Israeli civilians and soldiers.
END QUOTE

A series of missed opportunities and stubbornness. Pride can become an ethical problem. A series of missteps towards the beginning that moved each side to the right.

If there is an official investigation, carried out by an NGO, we may get a definite answer. Or we may soon forget about as more massacres happen in Gaza. It could be that it was a misfire, but, given how many lies they've said before, it's hard to take them at their word. — Manuel

I think the accusations have already been fixed as Arab countries have already accused of Israel of being behind it and the Joe Biden has said he's convinced it was "the others", not Israel. Either party won't officially back down as they will appear weak and undetermined.

Could it have been a Hellfire? — Tzeentch

A possibility. Just as a possibility is a rocket too. Yet on the long run, already the rare occasion of there being more Israeli killed than Palestinians has turned to the ordinary situation of there being more Palestinians killed that Israelis.

Let's see what Bibi decides to do with the "evil city" and it's human animals.

I see y’all ignored my history lesson for your usual dialogue. The sideline banter is just as predictable in their camps.

Hey! I'm writing!

OK,
There are several things that you can see even from earlier history taken place.

1) First is that when there are peace talks, Palestinian organizations that are focused on the military struggle will make terror attacks to defuse the peace engagement. This happened when Egypt and Israel were have their peace talks. Then the Fatah made then the worst terrorist strike into Israel from Lebanon by the sea. The landed not where they intended, but did hijack several busses and fired at traffic killing several people, quite similar in the way that now Hamas has operated. This prompted Israel to make punitive strikes.

Yet it should be noted that behind these heinous attacks was then what now is the Palestine Authority. Hence militant groups can make peace approaches. Just like the previous terrorist and later prime minister Menachem Begin (who was responsible for the death of 91 British authorities in the King David hotel bombing).

2) There is the unfortunate history, which people like Bibi Netanyahu use eagerly to reason their policies. And that is when Israel has retreated from somewhere, then the gap has been filled with rocket launching terrorists. Naturally the peace with Egypt and Jordan is sidelined here. Yet Bibi argues that the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon (done by labour prime minister Ehud Barak) was a mistake as any withdrawal would be a mistake.

(Ehud Barak had a stellar career in the IDF before becoming a Prime Minister of Israel. After the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon he was defeated by Likud's Ariel Sharon.)

To think that you can - as a Zionist, Jewish independent state at the end of the 20th century - rule over another people for generations without having any consequences - it's ridiculous.

- Ehud Barak

Basically Hamas and Likud embrace and support each other. They feed on the emotions of hate, revenge and the belief of a military solution. The grim fact is that war weariness kicks in only after a lot more people have died than now. A lot more. People like Barak are pushed to the sidelines.

Basically Hamas and Likud embrace and support each other. They feed on the emotions of hate, revenge and the belief of a military solution. The grim fact is that war weariness kicks in only after a lot more people have died than now. People like Barak are pushed to the sidelines. — ssu

Indeed but my point earlier is that there was a time when there was a chance to form the two state solution and the “moderates” blew it on the Pals side. In fact, it was the kind of encouragement on the anti Israeli side, every step of the way, from the participants and side liners, that encourage this hardened no compromise situation.

Also, while I agree Likud and Hamas feed off each other, as one side justifies the other, I don’t see them as the same beasts.

There’s a reason why Ghandi and MLK were effective. Sympathy doesn’t come from violence. It gets muddled from violence. The underdog loses the very thing that makes them sympathetic. Then it’s just pick your grievance.

You have to agree that the other side exists. You have to be able to live side by side with them. You have to be able to compromise and give up something.

If it was a Hellfire it would seem to have malfunction or it was some sort of very low yield variant I am unaware of. They do make a fully kinetic, very low radius version, but I'm not aware of any sort of low yield incendiary version that would be consistent with this damage. There are cars with still mostly intact windshields parked within what would probably be the lethal radius, or at least the wounding radius of a Hellfire.

The MAC is designed to pen buildings and then detonate so that the blast can be channeled through those spaces, so it'd be a weird choice for hitting the parking lot even if it did seem consistent, which it isn't for the reach of the damage.

The damage is way too small to be even an MK-82 500lb bomb, so a rocket or missile is the right idea though. But you're right that some weapons might leave a small crater and be more consistent. The most obvious thing I can think of is something like the small unguided rockets used in earlier decades, but then you would expect many to be fired and other areas to be hit.

And the video isn't particularly consistent with something like a 70mm rocket being fired. The folks the BBC contacted thought it was consistent with a failing rocket. I'm not expert on that, but it at least didn't seem to be the other explanations, an aircraft dumping flares or a fighter using its afterburner (for an incredibly short period, at like 3,000 feet, which also makes little sense). The flares would be lit up for longer, not shoot forwards and mostly go out as they fell at a fast rate (unless they were defective flares).

Old rocket pods can be used on the F-18, and if Ukrainian MiGs can be rigged up to fire HARMs, I assume the Israelis could have them set up on fixed wing craft (they don't fly the F-18). But why they would use them when they have such a hard time hitting their targets is another question. In any event, it would be more likely to come from a helicopter.

But if it's a weapon functioning as intended, it would have to be some sort of incendiary given the damage. If the goal was to kill people in the parking lot, this wouldn't make a lot of sense, and if the goal was to hit the hospital it would also make less sense. You'd have to sort of assume that Israel preselected a very different sort of weapon to hit this target than the ones they are currently using with the intent of deniability. I just don't see that when they are already leveling buildings with weapons they are quite obviously coming from their planes and doing a blockade that is plenty easy to condemn.



NGO's have given their opinion. The BBC, ABC, CNN, each had contacted panels of experts, although they are mostly Western firms staffed by former members of Western militaries, diplomatic corps, or intelligence services.

I haven't seen any that don't suggest that a failing rocket would be the most obvious cause, although not the only possible cause. But note that none of them have done a ground investigation yet.

It just seems to me that, if the argument is that "the Western defense agencies and NGOs will all go to bat for Israel," and if Israel's goal was "just to kill a lot of civilians," why wouldn't they use a more effective weapon? Why not just level the place with a real bomb and then say it was a munitions explosion, cook off from some accidental detonation? Or a defective rocket setting off cook off because "you know that Hamas, they love storing munitions near hospitals and schools?"

If you knew NGOs would lie for you, then you just attack. But I find it implausible that all the NGOs contacted are being dishonest since I've met plenty of former and current US security officials who are none too fond of Israel, and I don't think Israel thinks they can get away with that either.

Just as a possibility is a rocket too. — ssu

True, but what rocket? As far as I have been able to tell the biggest one Hamas uses is the Qassam-3, which is comparable (if not essentially the same?) to a BM-21 Grad. They both use a simple and relatively small 20kg warhead.

Videos of Grad explosions are easy to find on the internet - just your run of the mill puff of smoke and dirt - not the type of fireball seen in the videos of the hospital bombing, though admittedly those are taken at night-time which might alter perception.

If it was a Hellfire it would seem to have malfunction or it was some sort of very low yield variant I am unaware of. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are a lot of variants of the Hellfire, and they were originally anti-tank missiles which were later modified for use by drones against personnel, so the warheads used are quite small. (10kg range) Though they're also modern and (obviously) a lot more sophisticated than the BM-21 Grad, which may account for the increased blast and lethality.

Supposedly the R9E and R9H variants of the AGM-114R (Hellfire II Romeo) were made with reduced explosive yield to minimize collateral damage, but I haven't been able to find proper sources for these types in particular.

But if it's a weapon functioning as intended, it would have to be some sort of incendiary since it isn't consistent with an air burst explosion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess with term 'air burst' I was pointing at the fact that the munition used may have been the type that explodes before it hits the ground and thus leaves less of an impact zone (though it increases lethality). This would explain the lack of a crater, but it would also make Israel the likely culprit since I am not aware of Hamas using that type of munitions.

I'm not sure if you believe that is inconsistent with the pictures of the damage? Or perhaps what you mean is that it can't be caused by particular airburst munitions like those that can be fired from artillery platforms (which would involve shrapnel, which wasn't found at the scene).

Just to avoid confusion, what I'm referring to is any type of munition that does not explode on impact, but on proximity with the ground.

It would have to be a low yield antipersonnel weapon that is somehow mainly an incidiary. There was a large fireball and most of the damage seems to be from fire, which isn't what you'd expect from a high explosive weapon used to target infantry. I don't know if anything like that exists for the Hellfire, but there are old Vietnam era incidiary rockets.

[img]http://

You have cars quite close to the explosion in some aftermath videos with some cracked windows and some that are still fine. So it's a weird combo of lots of fire damage but weak blast damage.

Indeed but my point earlier is that there was a time when there was a chance to form the two state solution and the “moderates” blew it on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

And I think that the time has passed. Either Hamas or Hezbollah, even both of them on the same time, don't make an existential threat to Israel. Israel has the capability to deal with them. Israel has total air superiority, an a far more capable modern combined arms army. Plus a nuclear deterrence.

Then it has unwavering support from the US. Support from other Western countries and neither Putin's Russia or China will be hostile against it.

Why would they need to take any steps towards a real two state solution? Especially when there's already over 600 000 settlers in the West Bank and after the opening of the borders in Eastern Europe, the Jewish migration from there has made them to have a comfortable Jewish majority in Israel.

There’s a reason why Ghandi and MLK were effective. Sympathy doesn’t come from violence. It gets muddled from violence. The underdog loses the very thing that makes them sympathetic. Then it’s just pick your grievance. — schopenhauer1

The pacifist approach might have worked in a different situation, but especially on the Palestinian side it has been always the militant wing that has dominated the scene. And actually the origins of the Jewish state are similar armed groups.

First and foremost, the origins aren't in political instability inside a country, but in straight forward war as the British simply left their former Mandate. This has lead to the conflict being a continuation of a war, basically. And that's the difference with the Israeli side too: it isn't a police matter, it has always been a military matter fighting the PLO and the Palestinians. In Lebanon the civil war could be ended by the opposing factions going back to negotiations and trying to cooperate in an already existing state. With the Palestinians, the state of Israel is not part of them, but an entity that the opposing side of the conflict has created. Hence there is no Ghandi or MLK figure in Palestine. It would as if there weren't any Civil Rights Movement in the US, but just the Black Panthers. And that the Blacks weren't taken here as slaves, but had existed in the US just like the few Native-Americans now.

It would have to be a low yield antipersonnel weapon that is somehow mainly an incidiary. There was a large fireball and most of the damage seems to be from fire, which isn't what you'd expect from a high explosive weapon used to target infantry. I don't know if anything like that exists for the Hellfire, but there are old Vietnam era incidiary rockets. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I discussed with , there is a thermobaric version of the Hellfire II missile designated the AGM-114N.

Supposedly there are also versions of the Hellfire II Romeo that are have lowered explosive payloads to reduce collateral damage (presumably for use in counterinsurgency operations), but I haven't found any good sources with details about those.

While thermobaric weapons are known for their effectiveness in buildings, it's unclear to me what type of damage they would do outside of a building. (Or for example, if they were directed at a building but detonating outside - would it still produce a blastwave that travels inside?)


Still, the question perhaps isn't what exact weapon was used in this strike, but whether Hamas has weapons that show these types of characteristics.


For a BM-21 Grad type weapon (which is what I am assuming the Qassam-3 is roughly an equivalent to) the blast seems too large. Further, the most commonly used ammunition is high explosive fragmentation, but someone noted that no signs of shrapnel were found at the scene.

A malfunction seems a hard sell, given the deadliness of the blast.

For a BM-21 Grad type weapon (which is what I am assuming the Qassam-3 is roughly an equivalent to) the blast seems too large. — Tzeentch

Well, on the other hand we do have photos of actual Hamas/Hezbollah Katjusha rockets that have hit Israel:

On a side note, has anyone noticed Ursula von der Leyen's unmandated visit to Tel Aviv, where she proclaimed unwavering support for Israel amidst its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza?

The hypocrisy is of another planet, considering how readily the EU lectures other nations on human rights.

It's hard to imagine US/EU credibility sinking even further, but alas here we are.

I guess they still believe it's 1991 and they can get away with anything.

We are governed by toddlers.

On a side note, has anyone noticed Ursula von der Leyen's unmandated visit to Tel Aviv, where she proclaimed unwavering support for Israel amidst its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza? — Tzeentch

It's the brief time to go to Israel and show the support.

It's more awkward when the land operation begins and the Palestinians really start dying and then be there telling how you support Israel. After all, all those reservists need some refresher training before they can operate as a team in urban combat.

I'm still hoping they don't decide to do this. The more I consider it, the less likely it seems like they can remove Hamas this way,

A thermobaric missile is highly unlikely to have light a vehicle on fire without breaking all the windows.

She could have shown support in a more measured way, that better represents European attitudes towards the conflict and Israel's actions and policies in general.

Not to mention, this makes the entire EU look like a joke. After all, the EU loves pointing the finger at other nations when it comes to human rights and international law - but not in the case of Israel, it seems.

This is why EU leaders aren't respected abroad.

Interesting pictures by the way. The damage done at the al-Ahli hospital certainly seems within the range of what a Hamas rocket could do. It's just the death toll and the blast which seem strange to me.

According to reliable unreachable sources the rocket was made of paper mache designed to disappear by itself on impact and filled with attack propaganda butterflies that cause an international fire storm upon public release. The weapon was designed at the secret Antarctic weapons facility.

Thermobaric munitions create a pretty massive fireball.

But I guess what you are referring to is the fireball in relation to the blast wave. Which is a good point.

Some nervousness in New York

Intel bulletin says terror groups are calling on supporters to target U.S., Israeli interests amid Israel-Hamas conflict
^{— Catherine Herridge, Nicole Sganga · CBS · Oct 18, 2023}

Protesters clashing was reported earlier

Right, and a large blast wave that extends beyond it. If this was a thermobaric weapon then it didn't work correctly.

But I guess what you are referring to is the fireball in relation to the blast wave. Which is a good point. — Tzeentch

:up:

And I think that the time has passed. Either Hamas or Hezbollah, even both of them on the same time, don't make an existential threat to Israel. Israel has the capability to deal with them. Israel has total air superiority, an a far more capable modern combined arms army. Plus a nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Such a weird juxtaposition of the first sentence with the rest of the paragraph. In one fell swoop you admitted, the moderate Pals failed, and then instead of going into that phenomenon, you immediately pivoted to Israel, when the focus was on moderate Pals and their failure. As I said earlier, it is this lack of encouragement from insiders and the world community that doesn't help the already recalcitrant moderate leadership to make the compromise (a thing whereby you have to give up certain things to gain other things). That is a huge deal. Security, peace, and moving on with living everyday life was missed for perpetual grievance and war.

Why would they need to take any steps towards a real two state solution? Especially when there's already over 600 000 settlers in the West Bank and after the opening of the borders in Eastern Europe, the Jewish migration from there has made them to have a comfortable Jewish majority in Israel. — ssu

Indeed, but as that history showed, it didn't happen in a complete vacuum. Prior to the one I posted, there was also the various wars with Arab nations (not just Palestinians). It wasn't until the 90s that it became solely focused on dealing with Palestinians sans other countries (like traditional enemies like Egypt and Jordan, which had made peace agreements over time). So really, this conflict starts with Oslo Accords and the failure of those and the move to the right as a result.

The pacifist approach might have worked in a different situation, but especially on the Palestinian side it has been always the militant wing that has dominated the scene. And actually the origins of the Jewish state are similar armed groups.

First and foremost, the origins aren't in political instability inside a country, but in straight forward war as the British simply left their former Mandate. This has lead to the conflict being a continuation of a war, basically. And that's the difference with the Israeli side too: it isn't a police matter, it has always been a military matter fighting the PLO and the Palestinians. In Lebanon the civil war could be ended by the opposing factions going back to negotiations and trying to cooperate in an already existing state. With the Palestinians, the state of Israel is not part of them, but an entity that the opposing side of the conflict has created. Hence there is no Ghandi or MLK figure in Palestine. It would as if there weren't any Civil Rights Movement in the US, but just the Black Panthers. And that the Blacks weren't taken here as slaves, but had existed in the US just like the few Native-Americans now. — ssu

I mean this just seems like making excuses. There is no Hegelian-like definite pattern anyone must follow in X situation. It's not like, "In this situation non-violence can be used, and in this other it should not". And someone can come back and then say, "Fine, if non-violence is not an option because it is X situation, then Israel cannot be compared with apartheid because Palestine is seen not as part of Israel but as an opposing group run by terrorists, and therefore are taking protective measures".

All this is to say, it seems clear you have picked your side which "can never do wrong" and now everything they do is justified or must be Israel's fault.

When I joined the thread, I first engaged with @Baden but stopped when he admitted that if Hamas ran all of Israel (and thus it was effectively Palestine only), they would probably be horrific to every Jew under their control. And I am not even talking about "revenge" but just their MO.

And people blaming Islamic Jihad seem off base to me, even if it was their rocket. Whatever you think of the group, munitions malfunctions and friendly fire happen. The US has carried out air strikes on British forces in recent decades. US rotary wing assets killed many Peshmerga in an infamous incident. And US planes carried out a prolonged attack on a US convoy early in the Iraq War. Israel infamously caused heavy damage to the USS Liberty. Ukrainian AD has caused losses in Ukraine. Such events are inevitable.

Even in peace time we've had things like an A-10 firing shells into a (thankfully unoccupied) middle school. People I know who flew in Blackhawks regularly still called them the "Crashhawk." War is chaotic. Explosives are dangerous even in a civilian workplace context. Negligence is bad, but one incident doesn't represent negligence. It more justified to complain if the problem is regular, e.g., Russia's shoot downs of its own aircraft in Ukraine seems like someone should be blamed, or the incident itself involves gross negligence (e.g. the Soviet shoot down of the Korean airliner where the pilot was extremely skeptical about firing and was ordered to anyhow).

I'm still hoping they don't decide to do this. The more I consider it, the less likely it seems like they can remove Hamas this way, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Uh, call in hundreds of thousands of reservists and they just what, sit around and then go back home? And Bibi has already called it a war.

I think that we are past that. Israel has made already recon attacks. It has already pounded Gaza. Of course I could be wrong, but I think it's very likely that IDF will go into Gaza.

Perhaps they cut Gaza into two and then go through the northern part of the city, Gaza proper.

Such a weird juxtaposition of the first sentence with the rest of the paragraph. In one fell swoop you admitted, the moderate Pals failed, and then instead of going into that phenomenon, you immediately pivoted to Israel, when the focus was on moderate Pals and their failure. — schopenhauer1

When was it the failure of the moderate Palestinians? Even the moderate Palestinians have wanted for an independent country that, and what they might have accepted would be West Bank and the Gaza. But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted.

In my view, there was a time when Isreal was willing to cut a deal. Perhaps then Arafat hesitated too much. Yet then that time passed. Israel thought that perhaps the US would loose interest after the Cold War ended and had to do something with the Palestinians. Well, the Evangelicals and AIPAC never lost interest. Bibi Netanyahu became the longest serving prime minister and now is for the third time in office with new settlements going up. How viable is an independent state in the separated plots of land that basically the PA has?



And there is nothing that would push Israel to commit to this anymore. Israel under sanctions? No. Is it really threatened as earlier? Actually, no. It gets enough support now from being a victim.

Even the moderate Palestinians have wanted for an independent country that, and what they might have accepted would be West Bank and the Gaza. But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted. — ssu

When was that in question by me?

But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted. — ssu

And yet, again, you make a weird juxtoposition (this time starting with how big bad Israel never wanted to accept an independent Palestine), and then go on to this admission:

In my view, there was a time when Isreal was willing to cut a deal. Perhaps then Arafat hesitated too much. Yet then that time passed. — ssu

And AGAIN, like a broken record, or reflex, you gloss over this huge part of the equation that led to so much conflict that came after, and the very thing that was supposed to be a capstone/end to the Oslo Accords and build inroads towards a final peace, without constant grievance, violence, and using the powerful tool of compromise.

And there is nothing that would push Israel to commit to this anymore. Israel under sanctions? No. Is it really threatened as earlier? Actually, no. It gets enough support that itäs — ssu

As long as you ignore that the moderate Pals failed, and this pushed Israeli sentiment towards the idea that if moderates can't make a deal, no deal can be had... Then you will miss the boat and just keep playing the broken record. You do realize your bias is very apparent. Not as bad as Benkei's who seems raving mad, and wouldn't mind a Hamas run Palestine, and ultimate death and destruction, as long as it means Palestinians "won". It's a little more moderated, but still quite blatant, the blind spot.

All this is to say, it seems clear you have picked your side which "can never do wrong" and now everything they do is justified or must be Israel's fault. — schopenhauer1

So which side you think I'm on?

As I've stated, there are the Kurds, the Basques, actually quite many people that don't have their own land. We've just witnessed one group of people having had to leave where they'd lived after a many decade conflict came to one conclusion in Nagorno Karabakh.

As long as you ignore that the moderate Pals failed, and this pushed Israeli sentiment towards the idea that if moderates can't make a deal, no deal can be had... Then you will miss the boat and just keep playing the broken record. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't even consider the PLO as "moderates", mind you. They have had their own list of terrorist actions that they have done. And btw they have fought also the Lebanese and the Jordanian Army, so not so "moderate" as you are implying.

And naturally the PLO, or now the PA, hasn't been able to control the bits they have had. Gaza is now in the hands of the Hamas. Which at least before was great for Israel. Now, not so.

Israel simply needs to have neighbors like Egypt and Jordan, which can keep the peace. So it really isn't a "bias" that I have forgotten.

I know what you are implying, but I am not sure if it's a cultural thing, but there needs to be a culture of compromise for any of it to work. I know this is crazy, but Israel in the past had been willing to compromise, but Arab neighbors and then Pals, tended to want all or nothing.

Where I would agree with you is that Netanyahu was/is ruinous and Israel needs to go to its roots in liberal compromise.

Israel in the past had been willing to compromise, but Arab neighbors and then Pals, tended to want all or nothing. — schopenhauer1

I think it's more about weakness than strength, actually. Imagine what would happen to a Lebanese government, if it tried to make peace with Israel? Not only would be the Hezbollah against it. Just look at the riots now in Beirut near the US Embassy.

The most powerful Arab nation did make it's peace with Israel. It could make this as it has actually shown it wasn't the total loser after the Six Day war, but did put up a limited operation against Israel during the Yom Kippur war.

I think it's more about weakness than strength, actually. Imagine what would happen to a Lebanese government, if it tried to make peace with Israel. Not only would be the Hezbollah against it. Just look at the riots now in Beirut near the US Embassy. — ssu

I mean, again, we can probably start talking culture here, but doesn't that support Israel's wariness of hostile neighbors? Why can't Lebanon moderate either? A bloody civil war is unwanted, but perhaps there is more tacit support than would be willing for that to happen in Lebanon. I don't know the full situation there other than Hezbollah has a large percentage of their "parliament".

The most powerful Arab nation did make it's peace with Israel. It could make this as it has actually shown it wasn't the total loser after the Six Day war, but did put up a limited operation against Israel during the Yom Kippur war. — ssu

I think once they gave up the "let's conquer our common enemy" and just focused on stability, they realized that was the best move. Of course, in order to do that, it needed to go back to the usual authoritarianism.

It seems that compromise, and moderation are not going to work when you have religious para-military style governments running a country like Lebanon.