I think the above states quite obviously the reasons why Hamas made this all out attack. It was because the whole Palestinian issue was starting to be sidelined. It was because of even Saudi-Arabia was coming closer to officially normalize relations with Israel. Well, the Palestine cause is back now thank to them. — ssu

These are some reasons. There are others. I think no-one is paying attention to that, you can find it if you search.

Firstly, as in the past, 1,000 Hamas fighters were exchanged for 1 Israeli soldier. Now Hamas has taken hostages, and initially wanted some sort of swap,

Secondly, their stated goal on a TV interview is to 'weaken' Israel.

The killing of civilians? This is speculation, but I think some of the Hamas fighters (some in civilian clothes as you can see) and other 'volunteers' may have crossed the fence and with the same spirit of revenge that is in the air today, may have attacked and killed civilians. Also, some civilians may have been killed in the crossfire.

If the order was given to kill as many civilians as possible, why were some released before Hamas went back over the border? It proves someone was not following orders.

Notice no-one is protesting the killing of Israeli soldiers, some off-duty, and when a Hamas leader is killed along with his family, that is alright, but if an Israeli soldier is killed along with his family it is a horrific atrocity.

It is, as I stated, a very callous and suicidal method of operation, but then they are used to that, this was a suicide mission, after all.

The stated goal of Hamas is not peace, or a two-state solution. For some reason Israel propped them up, in their wisdom.

Why now?

Before Saturday, three quarters of Israeli troops were in the occupied West Bank due to the upsurge in Palestinian attacks over the past year, exacerbated by the ultra-nationalist Israeli Netanyahu government in the total absence of any prospect of a settlement.

The question is, who funded them, who supported them? The cold blooded planners have used them as pawns. Nothing new here.

Other views ( I don't agree with everything here, though)

https://warontherocks.com/2023/10/a-major-pivot-in-hamas-strategy/

Is Hamas smart to release hostages in dribs and drabs? I get the impression every time they do it, they put pressure on Israel for a cease fire.

More history, fwiw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEoVzKyD_IM

The claim that an insurgent group can never lose enough traction due to bad performance to be replaced is falsified by Hamas' rise itself. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That wasn't my claim.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

This is not the case, although I think it holds true in this context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why write a long post ignoring it? :brow:

Sure, if you're Stalin and willing to resort to mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide then everything is possible, I suppose.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that say, Egypt or Turkey get involved. But Hezbollah and Iran? It's looking more probable every day. And Israel would likely emerge "victorious", but they will also suffer from a very high civilian death toll, I don't see how that can be avoided if Iran and Hezbollah join.

But as this massacre continues, Egypt and Jordan and others will be heavily pressuring Israel. A very general and uninspired comment is that, after this, it seems to me that the status quo of Gaza and the West Bank may not go back to how it has been until recently.

But, in wars, almost everyone is wrong. Too many factors involved. — Manuel

My sense is indeed that Iran is heavily involved, and I don't think it's a coincidence that there are now three members of BRICS who take an adversarial stance towards the US are involved in a conflict with US proxies.

This is speculation, but I think that like Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict will turn into a similarly stand-offish "forever war" (which it basically already is) that is supposed to drain US resources and resolve, and spread the US thin.

If Israel invades Gaza, it will have taken the bait that will turn the entire Middle-East against it, and essentially ensures the forever war takes place.

The question remains what the strategic endgame of this would be. In Ukraine it is more clear, but in the case of the Israel-Hamas war it is not.

I meant that "if an alliance of Egypt and the Gulf State joined the war on behalf of "the Palestinians," they would end up occupying Gaza as part of their offensive operations. And if they did that, they would almost certainly get rid of Hamas too, since they are enemies. I don't know if they would have the same "mowing the lawn" issues. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't think they have any desire to do anything on behalf of Israel, that's for sure. Just like Egypt won't assist Israel on Nakba II and take the civilians from Gaza.

And if they come to the war on behalf of the Palestinians against Israel, that would be most unfortunate and is extremely risky. The only reason I can imagine is that Bibi goes full neocon and starts attacking everybody or goes for some kind of "final solution" in Gaza.

But I wouldn't hold my breath on the Saudis and especially the GCC to give anything else than money. I think that during the Yom Kippur war the Saudis sent few battalions to Syria, but they never fought the IDF. And for especially Egypt it's a risk. Besides, what would be the objective?

Far more likely (or smart) is simply go economically against Israel and the especially the supporters of Israel (US, UK, the West). If the Saudis can mend their relationship with Iran, why need of the US, especially if the US fully backs Israel and it becomes a huge tragedy in Gaza? Who needs then the Americans?

My point was simply that the whole "we'll provoke Israel so that they kill so many civilians that the whole Arab world joins the fight," is fanciful — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, they can always hope that US & Israel will attack Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. How do think that going with the Arab street? Israel killing Palestinians, Lebanon under attack, Syria under attack... and so on.

Hasn't there been already this kind of military engagement between the US Navy and the Houthis of Yemen?

(AP) a Navy warship shot down missiles appearing to head toward Israel Thursday and American bases in Iraq and Syria were repeatedly targeted by drone attacks.

Later, a U.S. official said there had been a rocket attack early Friday morning on U.S. and coalition forces at a diplomatic support center near the Baghdad International Airport. Initial assessments indicated two rockets were fired, the official said, noting that one was intercepted by a counter-rocket system and the other struck an empty storage facility.

Do not forget that the US still has it's "War on Terror" going on in the region. Remember George Bush and 9/11 and all that? Still going on...

They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

And do you believe that Netanyahu has really a "strategic plan for a two state solution"? I think his strategic plan is to talk about a two state solution (to keep Americans happy) and make sure it never happens. This is the plan: destroy the terrorists.

It's like the EU having talks with Turkey (or whatever the name given to the state by Erdogan) about a "possible" EU membership for the country. Because the EU will never declare membership being out of the question...

I think some of the Hamas fighters (some in civilian clothes as you can see) and other 'volunteers' may have crossed the fence and with the same spirit of revenge that is in the air today, may have attacked and killed civilians. Also, some civilians may have been killed in the crossfire. — FreeEmotion

Sorry, but to kill over 1400 civilians, you really have to make the effort. It's not just civilians getting into crossfire and a conditional that "some may have".

Notice no-one is protesting the killing of Israeli soldiers, some off-duty, and when a Hamas leader is killed along with his family, that is alright, but if an Israeli soldier is killed along with his family it is a horrific atrocity. — FreeEmotion

No one is protesting Israel killing Hamas fighters either, but typically killing families of soldiers is a war crime, assuming not everybody in the family is part of the military.

The stated goal of Hamas is not peace, or a two-state solution. For some reason Israel propped them up, in their wisdom. — FreeEmotion

Yes, but that was some time ago when Israel thought it was a great "divide and conquer" strategy to have PA and Hamas fighting each other. Yet that is history now.

And do you believe that Netanyahu has really a "strategic plan for a two state solution"? I think his strategic plan is to talk about a two state solution (to keep Americans happy) and make sure it never happens. This is the plan: destroy the terrorists. — ssu

Aka "more of the same".

At what cost do we destroy terrorists?

History is replete with peace deals with the most vile dictators, terrorists (didn't we just hands Afghanistan back?) and belligerents. The idea peace isn't possible with Hamas is just a narrative people lap up because it's repeated ad nauseum and it's obvious bullshit. See: ISIL, IRA, ETA and Tamil Tigers.

Instead let's talk with the political deadweight Abbas. As if that will ever go anywhere. If you want peace, you talk to the enemy. Not a bystander.

History is replete with peace deals with the most vile dictators, terrorists (didn't we just hands Afghanistan back?) and belligerents. The idea peace isn't possible with Hamas is just a narrative people lap up because it's repeated ad nauseum and it's obvious bullshit. See: ISIL, IRA, ETA and Tamil Tigers. — Benkei

Umm, actually ISIL and Tamil Tigers actually were destroyed. There was no "peace deal" with them in the end.

Of the end of the Tamil Tigers:

The Jaffna Peninsula was captured by the Sri Lankan Army by 14 January. On 25 January 2009, SLA troops "completely captured" Mullaitivu town, the last major LTTE stronghold.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa declared military victory over the Tamil Tigers on 16 May 2009, after 26 years of conflict. The rebels offered to lay down their weapons in return for a guarantee of safety. On 17 May 2009, LTTE's head of the Department of International Relations, Selvarasa Pathmanathan conceded defeat, saying in an email statement, "this battle has reached its bitter end".

With ISIL/ISIS/IS it was basically the same. Of course anyone can pick up the crazy franchise again...hence the IS can naturally pop up again. Perhaps like Hamas can after its possible destruction, assuming it puts up a heroic fight in the eyes of the next generations of Palestinians.

Many terrorist organizations and independence movements do have met their end without a recognized peace deal.

Oct 23, 2023 07:35 AM IST

US President Joe Biden held a telephonic conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, with both leaders affirming the need to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian aid and relief materials into Gaza. — Hindustan Times

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-president-biden-israeli-pm-netanyahu-agree-to-continue-flow-of-humanitarian-aid-into-gaza-101698026717166.html

The statement that humanitarian aid might help Hamas terrorists is not relevant here, if these words are to be taken at face value, then 'continued flow of humanitarian aid and relief materials into Gaza' has been stated as official policy by the Israeli and US governments.

Given that statement, it means that the aid has to be flow in in sufficient quantities does everyone agree?

A ceasefire will help the trucks not get destroyed, but it would seem to be smart move if they want the relief to get through in sufficient quantities.

If they are going to 'destroy Hamas' I don't think they will mind giving them a few last meals.

Umm, actually ISIL and Tamil Tigers actually were destroyed. There was no "peace deal" with them in the end. — ssu

There were many ceasefires and peace deals. At the end, the loss of life is very tragic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

No one is protesting Israel killing Hamas fighters either, but typically killing families of soldiers is a war crime, assuming not everybody in the family is part of the military. — ssu

This is an interesting ethical problem, were it not so serious. Is war itself not a violation of human rights?

Sorry, but to kill over 1400 civilians, you really have to make the effort. It's not just civilians getting into crossfire and a conditional that "some may have — ssu

Most of the effort was directed there, however there were exceptions, that is what I am saying. Some witnesses do mention getting caught in the crossfire. Following orders allows no exceptions. I do not think the Hamas terrorists were asked to catch and release.

I find it interesting that killing an armed person in uniform in cold blood is somehow acceptable. Its curious. Is there some gentleman's agreement to kill or be killed, sounds macabre. Duels were once legal.

I don't think Iran will risk its oil tanks. If they have not done anything now I don't think they will.

And do you believe that Netanyahu has really a "strategic plan for a two state solution"? I think his strategic plan is to talk about a two state solution (to keep Americans happy) and make sure it never happens. This is the plan: destroy the terrorists. — ssu

Number one thing is immediate security as a leader. That has to be dealt with first. Then the existential issue when not at hot war.

The problem here is that if sufficient aid is not brought to Gaza, it will be a literal genocide, not a figurative use of the word.

So, what's taking so long? 700 people were killed in Gaza last night.

Total guessing but I think that Hamas committed these atrocities to shaken up the situation, put Israel in such a bind that it may be forced into some negotiations if this escalates in a big way.

But there's no way to know as of now why they did what they did. The only thing they guaranteed for certain is mass death in Gaza. The rest, we don't know. Can't continue in this exact manner for too long, I don't think. Way too many people are being killed.

I'm probably wrong here and indeed many, many thousands more will die...

Anyone have the official Israeli statement on protection of civilians? Between their statements on allowing humanitarian access to Gaza and 'we don't kill civilians' the case can be made they can plead incompetence or insanity. Maybe both.

Found this:

Herzog, however, argued that the rhetoric that civilians in Gaza were unaware of Hamas' attacks or were not involved in them is untrue, and explained the deaths of civilians as "they could have rebelled against the malicious regime that took over Gaza in a coup attempt, they could have fought against it." — AA

Either an insane or incompetent human being? Any guesses?

Another official, better this time. Did he mean minimize or maximize?

"We are in a huge effort... to minimise the civilian consequences of this conflict. But, and I say this very sadly, there will, and it is unfortunate and inevitable that this will continue to happen."

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-hamas-war-idf-says-civilian-deaths-inevitable-as-dozens-killed-in-southern-gaza-strikes-12986401

I find it interesting that killing an armed person in uniform in cold blood is somehow acceptable. Its curious. Is there some gentleman's agreement to kill or be killed, sounds macabre. Duels were once legal. — FreeEmotion

I think duels were usually not looked well upon. Totally different from how fighting well in war is respected.

But yes, war and warfare is one of the really crazy things that our societies have created. The monopoly of violence of the state in our society has comes close to this when you think about it, but warfare is really something spectacular compared to legal violence. Military men aren't psychopaths, but quite logical normal people. How we can compartmentalize issues is simply incredible.

And it's telling that in many ways we have become in many occasions far more savage again than earlier. As late as the 19th Century things were different.

(And then it's over. Russian and Finnish officers meeting after the armstice between the two countries in 1944. Note that here the Finns aren't surrendering, peace agreement was made later, yet the Finland and it's army are basically the same as before WW2 even having been on the losing side.)


In fact, the last war where both sides did extensively follow the laws of war was in the Falklands war. Either side didn't act war crimes. The only civilians killed during the Falklands war were three women who were killed when a Royal Navy shell hit the house they were sheltering in during a naval bombardment of military targets inside Stanley itself. That's not a war crime, that is what is stated to be collateral damage. The only accusations were made by Argentinians against Argentinian officers against their handling of their troops, which the Argentine court didn't see as crimes against humanity as the Argentinian military law did allow the harsh measures.

The violent attack on Israel is far worse than the defensive reply with violence. Defense is permitted, attack is not. Killing in defense is not as bad karma as murder during an assault.

It doesn't happen very often that I feel proud of something that happens in the Netherlands, my home country.

But today I saw this appeal, made by Palestinian-Dutch actor Ramsey Nasr, and felt compelled to share it with TPF. It has subtitles.

yeah, saw it too. Very good.

So proportionality isn't a thing?

The violent attack on Israel is far worse than the defensive reply with violence. Defense is permitted, attack is not — Nicholas

I remember the good old days when 'defence' meant trying to stand your ground and chase the enemy off your territory, and attacking the ground your enemies held was called 'attack'. Life was simpler back then.

The violent attack on Israel is far worse than the defensive reply with violence. Defense is permitted, attack is not. Killing in defense is not as bad karma as murder during an assault. — Nicholas

Yes, Israel definitely does not have a history of genocidal persecution of the Palestinians. The holocaust halo doesn't grant eternal moral immunity. The end does not justify the means. The means we use dictate the ends.

So proportionality isn't a thing? — Benkei

Proportionality is generally associated with retributivism and Kant, where the objective is punishment for the sake of punishment and it should be proportionate to the offense. For example, a person who murders receives 30 years in jail while a shoplifter receives probation, regardless of whether those sentences deter or reform the offender.

Israel's primary obective would be deterrence in trying to stop the ongoing violence. I would view its proper limitation as doing that which acheives the deterrence without violating some higher right or objective.

For example, if I shoot all shoplifters, I will eliminate shoplifting entirely, but I'd be opposed to that response on deterrence grounds not because it's disproportionate to the crime, but because the goal of preserving life is greater than preserving items in people's stores. That is, it's worse to kill people who steal from stores than to allow people to steal from stores without consequence. But that has nothing to do with proportionality. Proportionality would limit the punishment to a just dessert, perhaps providing to the offender a dose of unhappiness equal to what the offender received.

Consistent with this line of thinking is that we would not hesitate to put store owners out of business who sold dangerous products, again because we value people over store items.

So,

If the objective is to deter citizens from murder, rape, and kidnapping, the response will not be limited by the concept of proportionality, but it will be limited to its effectiveness as long as it does not violate some other higher principle. So, using the Israeli example, they may do whatever they need to to protect their citizens lives as long as the rights of their citizens are not of lesser value than what they are destroying. Unless you are going to convince the Israelis that the rights of Palestinians to kill Israelis exceeds the rights of the Israelis to stop Israeli death, you are not going to convince the Israelis their response is ethically invalid, and that's because it's not ethically invalid.

On the other hand, if you could arrive at a way for the Israelis to stop the violence against them that would not entail a similarly violent counter-response, then that would be ideal. What do you propose? How would you defend your home if it were under similar attack?

Proportionality is generally associated with retributivism and Kant, ... — Hanover

Proportionality is generally associated with international humanitarian law, and it is indeed one of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law.

To show a blatant disregard of it is to commit war crimes, pure and simple.

What do you propose? How would you defend your home if it were under similar attack? — Hanover

I have to imagine that the US is under attack from a strip of land that contains eight refugee camps. I have to imagine that this ungodly situation is a result of my country's generations old efforts to run them out or annihilate them. I think the answer is to reach out with compassion to them. Start trying to undo the damage.

Maybe read some just war theory? Proportionality is already alluded to in the Melian dialogue and explicitly treated by St Augustine and with Aquinas it was firmly embedded in the just war tradition. Several centuries before Kant.

As to what Israel should do. Israel is reaping what it sowed for years. It should start with dismantling it's apartheid regime and stop it's continuous well documented human rights violations. And getting parties in power that are actually interested in a two state solution, instead of the corrupt turds they have.

It should start with dismantling it's apartheid regime and stop it's continuous well documented human rights violations. — Benkei

But Israel are God's chosen people! They are justified to do whatever they want.

Israel is reaping what it sowed for years — Benkei

And so is Gaza. According to reasoned third-party judgment, the terrorists and the IDF are both proceeding according to the above discussed ideals of world justice.

Why is it so hard to separate Hamas from the people of Gaza?

Should it not be up to the people of Gaza to reject terrorists ensconced in a maze of tunnels under the city? In all the world news I still don't hear anything of the sort anywhere. Apparently it was the Israeli babies' and old women's own fault that they were massacred by righteous Gaza freedom fighters.