If the IDF were wicked then the IDF should be targeted; not random, peaceful civilians. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause of self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos

BTW
The cruel irony of Hamas’s onslaught, which alongside the scale of bloodshed, shocked Israelis with the barbarity of the terror group’s torture and documented sexual abuse, was that many of the civilians Hamas slaughtered and kidnapped were precisely the loudest voices for peace with Palestinians.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/peace-activists-in-a-traumatized-israel-remain-hopeful-for-a-two-state-solution/

11 March 2024. I think, subject to correction, that Hamas still holds more than one hundred Israeli hostages. If I'm Netanyahu or any other Israeli I keep it simple: no relief until and unless all hostages released/accounted for. And if they're murdered, then everything is off the table. Meanwhile I go after Hamas as hard as I can wherever found, and I make it clear to Palestinians that they do not have to die, but they will if they choose to be in the line of fire. Hostages first. If not that then nothing else makes sense.

Yup. Netanyahu co-opting persecution of Jews cheapens it horribly.

The degree of personal brutality exceeds anything the IDF has ever considered. Hamas is much, much more brutal then the IDF — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, too bad Hamas hasn’t learned to kill tens of thousands of people the right way.

Anyway, the Israeli terrorists have now killed over 30,000 people, mostly women and children. With more to come, thanks in part to apologists like we see here.

People criticize Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing for tolerating bad decisions on the Palestinian side. Don't provoke conflicts with more powerful neighbors. They should have made overtures for peace, actual education, and infrastructure, instead of building tunnels, taking hostages, radicalizing the population, and using the population as cannon fodder for martyrdom. It's fckn crazy. You can't blame all your problems on the other side. But damn, if leftists don't love to help perpetuate and disinform that narrative. Blaming Western oppression for everything is a joke. These so-called countries are all Western fictions to begin with. To then say that if it weren't for X American thing, they would be better is belied by the fact that these are countries made by the West in the first place. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon exist because of the West, let alone so-called Western "interference." Arbitrarily drawing the lines of where Western influence starts and ends is a bit like the arbitrary lines of the fictitious Middle Eastern countries. These Western-created "nations" went to shit, but it's not as simple as "because of the West," unless you want to blame WW1 and the Ottoman Empire's defeat as well. It's the culture of not live and let live. Start looking there for the root cause.

Yeah, this has it right:

What was the Mandate System of the League of Nations? The Mandate System was devised by the League of Nations after WWI as a method to maintain peace and promote self-determination in territories formerly governed by the Ottoman and German Empires. In reality, the Mandate System was an internationally sanctioned form of colonialism that granted control over much of Africa, the Middle East, and the South Pacific to European powers. — Mandate System

Oh, the West didn't allow their own "Mandates" (a fckn imperialistic construction "bestowed on the Middle East like a giant cookie cutter anyways), "flourish"? IT'S ALL THE WEST. THERE IS NO NON-WEST. The argument that the West "interfered" with their own created notions of "self-determinations" is a farce.

As long as you win the victimization debate, you can dupe others into believing your narrative. "Western interference" is a joke because the whole Middle fckn East is made out of Western interference. How about, don't govern by oppression and terrorism; that's a good way to start. But yeah, you can blame Netanyahu all you like for whatever cultural ills you want. It's the leftist playbook propped up. Why are there no threads on Syria and all the other dysfunctional countries then? Haiti? Venezuela?

This is all propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if people use this to promote their propaganda skills to disseminate stuff elsewhere, paid for by leftist propaganda orgs.

So even war on terror (i.e. against Islamic Jihadism) in the middle east was a political strategic move not just a compulsive reaction, as much as NATO expansion in Europe and inclusive economic globalization (especially addressing potential competitors like Russia and China). All of them were long-term strategies testing the US hegemonic capacity of shaping the world order through hard and soft power, even if it ultimately wasn’t planned and dosed well. Democratization (and economic growth) seemed the best way to go to normalise relations, preserve peace and quell historical grievances (as it happened for Germany and Japan) so the US, after the Cold War, in the unipolar phase, had the time window to think big and take greater risks.
Even terrorist attacks of Islamic jihadism, including the 9/11 attack, aren’t just isolated punitive operations against some past grievance, but steps toward more ambitious ideological goals

Al Qaeda was a U.S. client terrorist group created to aid the U.S. in its war on Communism. Who came back to bite its master. It was only loosely affiliated to any militant Islamist groups (I don’t want to get into this now, but rather focus on the broader geopolitical situation).

Again I don’t see the U.S. having any interests in the Middle East other than the supply of oil from the Arab states and protecting the Western outpost of Israel. They want to maintain the status quo in the area for these reasons. They were happy for Syria to be thrown to the wolves in the fight against Isis and now they are only maintaining a presence in those areas to prevent the rise of Isis in the region over the next period.
As such I don’t see the Middle East as an important arena of geopolitical, or hegemonic tension.
I don’t see any signs of wider conflagration, or broader hegemonic locking of horns, or WW3, resulting from this crisis. Neither the U.S. or China wanted this.

The primary geopolitical game being played currently is by Russia in Ukraine and as far as the West is concerned (geopolitically) that is going nicely in that it is keeping Russia occupied and gradually weakening her. This is also providing the incentive for Europe to re-arm and wean herself of Russian oil and gas. There is however the increased affiliation of Russia with China to consider. However I would expect this to result in a reluctance for war from this coalition once the Ukraine war has played out. This will most likely result in a new Iron curtain dividing Europe from Russia, as I predicted in the Ukraine war thread. Russia will pull back from China when they realise they would be required to sell their soul.

As I said before, why would China enter into a ground war, or dabble with proxy wars, when she is already winning the economic war?

And if they're murdered, then everything is off the table.

Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths is to many?

At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop?

At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop? — Punshhh

My guess is returning hostages is a good place to start. As long as the asymmetry is that the bigger army wants their people back, they will be able to use their capabilities in their pursuit.

Is there other means? Is the question. I personally would have liked to see moderates come together and work it out prior to this situation. The perpetual cycle of violence and entrenched hatreds disallowed this. However, since we are discussing the now and not could haves, the bigger army is simply willing to use it to get what it wants. Thus, it was a dumb idea to think that this kind of provocation, that is still ongoing with the hostages, would have worked favorably. That’s common sense. Only way it makes sense was to think it would cause a regional war against Israel. That was a blunder if that was the thought process. It would be nice if Israel had actual overtures for peaceful solutions the last 20 years. That way when Hamas inevitably tries to screw things up, Israel could say they were the ones constantly working towards a peaceful solution, and this is what they got in return. But Bibi never thinks in terms of “world sympathy”. It’s arrogance. The usual response is, “they’ll hate us no matter what we do, so world sympathy doesn’t matter anyways” adding to the cynicism of his approach.

At this point, I’d be advocating for the return of hostages as a start, post haste to end the siege.

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable?

I think you're underestimating Bibi. He does care about what happens next and what happens next is annexation. That's the goal and it has always been that; they don't care about the consequences or what anybody else thinks or believes, because the world, the UN and everybody is against them in their self-proclaimed victimhood. — Benkei

They went with the annexation of the Golan Heights, but I think the annexation of either Gaza or the West Bank will do quite much damage to the Israeli reputation. South Africa style sanctions are a possibility then, especially if large scale ethnic cleansing happens. I think the mood is already changing in the US. The actions now taken do have effects. For example prior to the war in Lebanon in the early 1980's there was lot of support for Israel in Finland and the Finns look at Israel being in a similar situation that they had been before. Then came the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, and many Finnish peacekeepers seeing how Israel conducted it's war in Lebanon.

Yet it's a possibility that Bibi and this administration could try to do this: when faced with questions of why October 7th happened and facing corruption charges even before that, it may well be that Bibi counts on getting a great victory that will make him a hero of Israel. What better way would be to finalize the Likud party's objective of an Israel from the river to the Sea and the name of "West Bank" replaced universally with "Judea and Samaria"?

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

This is a bit of hyperbole. Certainly, Gazans are at greater risk of collateral damage from the war against Hamas. You asked a question and I gave an answer.

My question wasn’t aimed at you. It was a response to what someone else said.

It looks to me though, judging from the behaviour of the Israeli administration that the lives of the Population of Gaza are expendable.

It looks to me though, judging from the behaviour of the Israeli administration that the lives of the Population of Gaza are expendable. — Punshhh

War sucks. It’s not done like this anymore- a gentleman’s war with little population involved:


But then again, the movie brought up the colonial settlers and Native Americans that were going to suffer from consequences of war, so even then…



But unfortunately, pure terrorist governments don’t want to fight like this because they’d lose. Raping, kidnapping, and beheading people as a policy of “resistance” will have consequences for the territory they do govern, as long as they hide within that population. It indeed sucks all around.

Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths are too many?
At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop? — Punshhh

One is too many. That limit being blown up on 7 Oct., let us hear no more of it.

To my way of thinking, all is or should be prioritized. Hostages first. Period. And perhaps you're green enough to believe the Israelis are in control, but I submit that Hamas is. Evidence? The hostages. But at least Hamas are keeping it simple for the moment; they have reduced their control to one switch, the hostages, and to keep that control they are willing to see destroyed the lives of the Palestinians.

Maybe Hamas believes that in some long game all will ultimately be better for them. Perhaps they dream that there will be some kind of Arab Marshall Plan to rebuild the destroyed buildings and infrastructure. But who replaces the dead, and why, exactly, did they die?

I think the truth is that the Palestinians chose, ended up with, a vicious government that did not and does not care even a little bit for the Palestinian people. With every Hamas the IDF kills, the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a favour, but of course the Palestinians themselves are paying the price of allowing Hamas and its predecessors and their ideologies to become ascendant in the first place.

If you think the Israelis have a choice, what choice is it that you think that they have?

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

"Expendable" is maybe not the right word, certainly - obviously - at risk.

"Expendable" seems to me to place power and responsibility in the wrong place, in the wrong people: the Israelis. As if the Palestinians and Hamas themselves had no choice. But imo opinion they do have choices and have made choices, and are responsible for consequences. And even now they have control - over the hostages. I have answered, now you answer: why do you think Hamas is keeping the hostages? What purpose does that serve?

But unfortunately, pure terrorist governments don’t want to fight like this because they’d lose. Raping, kidnapping, and beheading people as a policy of “resistance” will have consequences for the territory they do govern, as long as they hide within that population. It indeed sucks all around.

The Gaza issue is unique and so normal war comparisons don’t easily apply.
Gaza has been little more than a prison for many years, so a comparison would be like the inmates forming a government within the confines of their detention. You say that the terrorists hide within the population, like human shields, perhaps. This doesn’t apply because the territory is so densely populated that this can’t be avoided unless the terrorists walked out into a few areas of open land at the margins, where they would be mowed down with machine guns.

If you think the Israelis have a choice, what choice is it that you think that they have?

There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel.

There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel. — Punshhh

Ambiguity. They should provide in Israel refugee camps? Or they should provide refugee camps for refugees that are themselves in Israel?

But perhaps more significant is that you seem to feel that the Israelis should do something - and there may be lots of reasons why they "should." But the Arab neighbors appear to be completely unwilling to touch the Palestinians with even the proverbial ten-foot pole. Why do you think the Israelis "should" do something and not the Arab neighbors; and by the way, is there anything you think the Palestinians or more to the point Hamas should do?

And I think you should make unequivocally clear your own view on the hostages. Do you agree with me that the hostages must be the first order of business? Or if not, then what?

Yeah, too bad Hamas hasn’t learned to kill tens of thousands of people the right way. — Mikie

I'm convinced if it were ~80 years ago you'd have been a Hitler fanboy given your incredibly non-judgmental attitude towards the manner in which people die. It's apparently all just sorta the same to you.

You side with the team that intentionally murders the innocent. That's all I'm going to say to you.

You side with the team that intentionally murders the innocent. — BitconnectCarlos

And you side with the team that murders tens of thousands more innocents, intentionally — but they say it’s unintentional, so it’s all good.

So ask yourself who would be the Hitler apologist. Nazis were by far the greater force, but gave all kinds of justifications. According to you, if they said the magic word, “unintentional,” it’d be fine. No thanks.

Ambiguity. They should provide in Israel refugee camps? Or they should provide refugee camps for refugees that are themselves in Israel?

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

But perhaps more significant is that you seem to feel that the Israelis should do something - and there may be lots of reasons why they "should." But the Arab neighbors appear to be completely unwilling to touch the Palestinians with even the proverbial ten-foot pole. Why do you think the Israelis "should" do something and not the Arab neighbors; and by the way, is there anything you think the Palestinians or more to the point Hamas should do?

There may be numerous reasons why Palestinians aren’t in refugee camps in other Arab countries. Firstly the Palestinians say they don’t want to leave Gaza because they won’t be able to return when the fighting stops. Secondly the Israeli’s won’t let them leave. Thirdly the other Arab countries might not want to see Israel push them out of the territory and annex the land as part of Israel. To be seen as complicit in ethic cleansing.

And I think you should make unequivocally clear your own view on the hostages. Do you agree with me that the hostages must be the first order of business? Or if not, then what?

I doubt that they are the first order of business for Netanyahu. For Hamas they may be a bargaining tool. Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed.

Again I don’t see the U.S. having any interests in the Middle East other than the supply of oil from the Arab states and protecting the Western outpost of Israel. They want to maintain the status quo in the area for these reasons. They were happy for Syria to be thrown to the wolves in the fight against Isis and now they are only maintaining a presence in those areas to prevent the rise of Isis in the region over the next period.
As such I don’t see the Middle East as an important arena of geopolitical, or hegemonic tension.
I don’t see any signs of wider conflagration, or broader hegemonic locking of horns, or WW3, resulting from this crisis. Neither the U.S. or China wanted this. — Punshhh

Maybe that depends on where and what you are looking for. As far as I’m concerned, the Middle East, Europe, the Pacific, Africa, South America are contended/contendable spheres of influence for 3 major hegemonic powers: Russia, China and the US. Controlling these areas means controlling their economic/security input and output and whatever transits through them. The Middle-East is important for commodities like oil and gas, and for international routes (commerce of goods, oil/gas supply, internet supply). Besides that region is source and exporter of Islamic Jihadism, that can spill over in other areas of interest (like Africa and Europe). That’s not all: as a hot area the middle east nurtures the international contest in military supply (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/11/fear-of-china-russia-and-iran-is-driving-weapons-sales-report) and as failed governance area criminal business thrives (https://www.arabnews.com/node/1944661). All that sounds particularly worrisome if WMDs are involved (https://thebulletin.org/2023/04/why-a-wmd-free-zone-in-the-middle-east-is-more-needed-than-ever/)
So there are several reasons why the Middle East can very much be subject to hegemonic interest and struggle, and wars in Middle East can get more news attention than the war in Ukraine (not only in the West).
Russia and China as competitors of the US (the former primarily in East Europe, the latter primarily in the Pacific) are interested in getting the US overstretched: inducing the US to divide attention and energies in multiple conflicts like in Ukraine, in Israel, in the Red Sea perfectly serves that purpose. The co-occurrence of such conflicts doesn't look casual at all, given that Iran (a regional hegemonic power strategically allied with China and Russia against the US) can very much be the liaison among the three by supporting Russia against Ukraine, Hamas in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Yemeni Houthi in the Red Sea (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2465036/middle-east, https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/sites/default/files/Iran%27s%20Proxy%20Wars_2.12.24_JC_JMB_JC_JMB_JC.pdf). The geopolitical link between what happens in Israel and the hegemonic conflict between super powers is candidly stated by involved parties:
“We want the Arab communities in the West to be active, and (we want) cooperation with superpowers like China and Russia,” the former Hamas chairman continued. “Russia has benefited from our (attack), because we distracted the U.S. from them and from Ukraine.”
“China saw (our attack) as a dazzling example. The Russians told us that what happened on October 7 would be taught in military academies,” the terrorist leader boasted.
“The Chinese are thinking of carrying out a plan in Taiwan, doing what the Al-Qassam Brigades did on October 7,” Mashal claimed, saying “The Arabs are giving the world a master class.”
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1698588842-oct-7-will-be-taught-in-military-academies-hamas-leader-boasts-of-russian-chinese-support

Russia and China do not need to get more directly/openly involved in the conflict in the middle east: indeed, they may just want to maximise the military/economic/reputational costs for the US to their benefit while minimising the costs for them, and for that it could be enough to abstain from helping to fix the middle east crisis or contribute to keep it alive (e.g. by helping Iran and other forms of triangulations).
https://www.orfonline.org/research/how-hamas-taliban-are-gaining-from-russia-chinas-growing-influence
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-dangerous-new-friends
https://theins.ru/en/society/269789

As long as the West is eroding its power of deterrence against a more assertive Rest, the question remains: how can the West, the US, Israel deter without escalating? And that’s not all, when the tide of historical circumstances will favour the Rest, we should also expect that the Rest will come back at the West (https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-09-20/china-russia-india-and-the-global-south-the-era-of-revenge.html). This explains the race for military build up also in the West (and not only, https://theowp.org/south-korea-to-increase-military-spending-and-to-set-up-a-military-unit-specializing-in-drones/, https://www.vox.com/world/2023/1/15/23555805/japans-military-buildup-us-china-north-korea) and why certain taboos are broken (https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-defense-committee-marie-agnes-strack-zimmermann-european-nuclear-weapons/, https://www.euronews.com/2023/09/01/conscription-is-seeing-a-revival-across-europe-is-that-a-good-thing).

The primary geopolitical game being played currently is by Russia in Ukraine and as far as the West is concerned (geopolitically) that is going nicely in that it is keeping Russia occupied and gradually weakening her. This is also providing the incentive for Europe to re-arm and wean herself of Russian oil and gas. There is however the increased affiliation of Russia with China to consider. However I would expect this to result in a reluctance for war from this coalition once the Ukraine war has played out. This will most likely result in a new Iron curtain dividing Europe from Russia, as I predicted in the Ukraine war thread. Russia will pull back from China when they realise they would be required to sell their soul. — Punshhh

Even if Russia is weakening, that’s maybe true also for the West. Europe in particular is weakening economically (https://apnews.com/article/economic-growth-europe-recession-red-sea-trade-2b28c78474cf9ed2f3d28e85e9458bc9) and politically (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240223IPR18084/parliament-calls-for-action-against-the-erosion-of-eu-values-in-member-states, https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/europe-will-struggle-unite-if-ukraine-loses-2024-03-11/) in a period where political cohesion and expenditures must grow to face common security and energetic challenges. And the possibility of a European decline is ominously looming (https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2024/02/23/the-decline-of-europe-becomes-more-evident/, https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west/). Even the hegemonic power of the US is strained by national challenges and the pressure from international competitors. Besides, if the US wants Russia to be bogged down in the war in Ukraine, China may want the US to be bogged down in the war in Ukraine, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the Red Sea. Notice also that if China manages to establish a strategic alliance with Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, amongst the major oil suppliers (with the possibility of widening the strategic alliance of oil/gas exporters over Nigeria, Kuwait, Algeria, etc. maybe through the BRICS), this could be a non-negligible threat for the West (https://unherd.com/2023/07/has-the-west-lost-control-of-oil/, https://www.cointribune.com/en/saudi-arabia-and-china-sign-the-end-of-the-petrodollar/).

As I said before, why would China enter into a ground war, or dabble with proxy wars, when she is already winning the economic war? — Punshhh

A part from the fact that the Chinese economy has run into some serious troubles (https://time.com/6835935/china-debt-housing-bubble/, https://www.vox.com/world-politics/24091759/china-economic-growth-plan-xi-jinping-crisis), if you want a deeper risk analysis for hotter conflicts involving China you can find lots of interesting readings on the internet, like this one:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/04/china-war-military-taiwan-us-asia-xi-escalation-crisis/

Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed. — Punshhh

That would be a start. But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.

It all seems too simple: release the hostages, surrender criminals, try to move on to peace. Who could object to that, and why?

But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF. — tim wood

What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages?

Who could object to that, and why? — tim wood

Crucially, Netanyahu, because he doesn't want peace with the Palestinians until they're permanently displaced.

Their movement had hungered for this moment for years, but now, after Oct. 7, they felt it was just a matter of time before Jews would be living in Gaza again. "It is ours," said David Remer, 18. "[God] said it is ours."

Israel’s religious right has a clear plan for Gaza: ‘We are occupying, deporting and settling’

What a shocker.

What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages? — bert1

Well, that's a proposal; what do you propose Hamas and the Palestinians do for their part? After all, none of this horror happens but for Hamas's attack on 7 Oct.

That would be a start. But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF.

This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.

You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again?

It all seems too simple: release the hostages, surrender criminals, try to move on to peace. Who could object to that, and why?

It does all seem to simple.

The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives. — Punshhh

No less than the Palestinian population is expendable in the pursuit of Hamas’ objectives, right?

No less than the Palestinian population is expendable in the pursuit of Hamas’ objectives, right?

Yes, however this is an asymmetrical situation. Israel is an occupying force with state of the art weaponry. Hamas is a small band of terrorists with basic weaponry. Also the idea that Hamas can spare the population by handing back the hostages and surrendering, or something. Works on the assumption that Israel doesn’t have an ulterior motive, or can be sufficiently trusted.

Yes, however this is an asymmetrical situation. Israel is an occupying force with state of the art weaponry. Hamas is a small band of terrorists with basic weaponry. — Punshhh

So what? War is neither a beauty contest nor a fair play contest. War is as shitty as it can get. Precisely because there is an asymmetry of forces it's not advisable for the weaker to poke in the eye of the stronger. If the weaker does it for whatever reason then there are consequences to be payed.

Also the idea that Hamas can spare the population by handing back the hostages and surrendering, or something. Works on the assumption that Israel doesn’t have an ulterior motive, or can be sufficiently trusted. — Punshhh

Sure but the argument can be retorted: the idea that Israel can spare the Palestinian population from the consequences of the conflict and withdraw from Gaza after returning the hostages, works on the assumption that Hamas doesn’t have an ulterior motive or can be sufficiently trusted. What differs is the price to pay, given the asymmetry of forces the Palestinians are the ones to risk the most.

So if Palestinians are doomed to suffer whatever price Netanyahu is willing to inflict on them (at least until Hamas keeps hostages and Netanyahu is in power), who is going to help them? If it is the Great Satan to do it, what would be the benefit for the Great Satan?