How is Israel Going to Retaliate Against Hamas?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Benny Gantz is convinced that overwhelming force, with armored tank divisions, with F35's and F15's and Apache choppers, with naval missile boats, and a wide array of 155mm mobile howitzers fully loaded and dug in, but you think for a moment that violence is NOT the answer here?

Fugeddaboudit.

Watch a professional military handle things. Gaza is all mapped out, all the way back to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines (with Egypt).
ThePalestinians® are gonna come out of this just fine, and being the better for it.

Do you seriously think that the defeat of Hamas, with all the collateral damage that requires, means a happy a peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians?

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by webfusion

Benny Gantz is convinced that overwhelming force, with armored tank divisions, with F35's and F15's and Apache choppers, with naval missile boats, and a wide array of 155mm mobile howitzers fully loaded and dug in, but you think for a moment that violence is NOT the answer here?

Fugeddaboudit.

Watch a professional military handle things. Gaza is all mapped out, all the way back to the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines (with Egypt).
ThePalestinians® are gonna come out of this just fine, and being the better for it.

Well equipped and well trained armies that are designed to conduct conventional military operations routinely fail to wipe out poorly equipped forces in asymmetrical conflicts.

In a conventional military sense, Hamas cannot win. But as an origination, Israel has no way to get rid of them with weapons. This is an ideological conflict. Collateral damage inflicted on Gaza and the people in it will preserve the motivation that allows Hamas to exist in the first place.

To end Hamas permanently requires creating viable options for the people living in Gaza. The current leadership of Israel isn't able to make that happen. Past behavior suggests they won't even try. Really ending this quickly would require a common threat does not yet exist. Ending it any other way would take decades. There is a third way. But genocide probably won't work either.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you seriously think that the defeat of Hamas, with all the collateral damage that requires, means a happy a peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians?

I seriously think that a NewState of Palestine within the Gaza Strip and a salient of N.Sinai is a worthwhile goal, both to alleviate the existing humanitarian concerns of Gazans, plus absorb the millions of refugees worldwide who want to come live in their own Nation/State on the coastal Mediterranean.

[The Great Zaganza]

is a 1:10 ratio of retaliation of civilians getting killed enough of a statement, or kill we need 1:100?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Not as if Israeli children aren't being taught anti-Palestinian genocidal songs.

https://www.aljazeera.com/program/ne...ing-about-gaza

As has been noted, not anti-Palestinian, but anti-Hamas, and also not genocidal: wanting to wipe out Hamas is not an expression of genocidal intent.

Moreover, this is only some children, being taught to hate by a small, extremist group.
The antisemitic school textbook scandal, in contrast, was far more widespread: anti-Jewish indoctrination in Palestinian schools is systemic, and aimed at all Jews, not just the extremists.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Doubt

Well equipped and well trained armies that are designed to conduct conventional military operations routinely fail to wipe out poorly equipped forces in asymmetrical conflicts.

In a conventional military sense, Hamas cannot win. But as an origination, Israel has no way to get rid of them with weapons. This is an ideological conflict. Collateral damage inflicted on Gaza and the people in it will preserve the motivation that allows Hamas to exist in the first place.

To end Hamas permanently requires creating viable options for the people living in Gaza. The current leadership of Israel isn't able to make that happen. Past behavior suggests they won't even try. Really ending this quickly would require a common threat does not yet exist. Ending it any other way would take decades. There is a third way. But genocide probably won't work either.

As I've said before, I think Hamas was counting on this. They knew the IDF would retaliate in a completely disproportionate manner. They knew there would be thousands of civilian casualties. They are prolonging the suffering of their own people by hiding amongst them, and constantly delaying the release of the hostages.
Support for Hamas among Palestinians has increased massively since 7/10. Before that, Hamas was in danger of becoming an embarrassing irrelevance- and they needed to turn that around. Their attack did just that. Now they are front-page news again. Now they have increased support. Now the talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel about normalising relations, have broken down
So, yes, you're right: Israel needs to win the war of ideas. Bombing the crap out of Gaza will not help them to do that, and it probably won't even seriously hurt Hamas. Neither reoccupying Gaza, nor withdrawing and leaving Hamas in power, are viable options, for anyone. My personal choice would be for a peacekeeping force from the Gulf states to take charge, until reconstruction and a return to democracy can be achieved. The problem is that the Gulf states don't want anything to do with Palestine. They are content with giving them a bit of money, and mouthing anti-western rhetoric through their press. No way will they get their hands dirty: it's much easier to sit back and blame everyone else for the mess.

[Nessie]

This;

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

.... Israel needs to win the war of ideas. ...

At the moment, the only people who Israel are winning over, are those who think violence is the solution. Ironically, that is not just Israelis, it is also Palestinians.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Nessie

This;



At the moment, the only people who Israel are winning over, are those who think violence is the solution. Ironically, that is not just Israelis, it is also Palestinians.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where kindness was only met with kindness and violence with violence in kind. If that were the case violent behavior probably never would have evolved at all. Instead we live in a world where kindness is often met with treachery or contempt and violence is often met with submission.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Nessie

At the moment, the only people who Israel are winning over, are those who think violence is the solution. Ironically, that is not just Israelis, it is also Palestinians.

I don't believe you have any data that would evidence your comment.

Israel is being proudly supported by many people worldwide, who feel that the violence committed by Gazans against Israel on 10/7 was beyond the pale.

In the USA, 70% of conservatives are OK with the IDF actions.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/545045/...tion-gaza.aspx

By the way, IDF reported the elimination of one really bad dude today. Wissim Farhat got his wished-for martyrdom, good riddance.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by webfusion

In the USA, 70% of conservatives are OK with the IDF actions.

You know who else US conservatives are OK with?

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by webfusion

In the USA, 70% of conservatives are OK with the IDF actions.

You mean FASCISTS and Christian Nationalists and Self-righteous Supremacists and Evangelical Christian Zionists...

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

You know who else US conservatives are OK with?

Glenn Greenwald?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Do you seriously think that the defeat of Hamas, with all the collateral damage that requires, means a happy a peaceful future for Israelis and Palestinians?

It means a better future for Israelis.

As for the Palestinians, what it means for them depends largely on what they make of the opportunity. They might well squander it. But that would be on them.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by webfusion

.....In the USA, 70% of conservatives are OK with the IDF actions.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/545045/...tion-gaza.aspx....

They are OK with a lot of very bad people and policies.

[webfusion]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

They are OK with a lot of very bad people and policies.

It sure seems like you're now claiming that IDF is 'bad people' and 'bad policies' all rolled into one.
Is that what you meant to say?

I see it took over 55 days for the RedCross to finally decide to look into the conditions of the hostages still in captivity. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-776393

And, BuhBye to Haitham Khuwajari.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/381361
Yep, good riddance.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It would be nice if we lived in a world where kindness was only met with kindness and violence with violence in kind. If that were the case violent behavior probably never would have evolved at all. Instead we live in a world where kindness is often met with treachery or contempt and violence is often met with submission.

There's a saying in martial arts: "Don't mistake kindness for weakness."
As I have shown earlier, non-violent revolutions are generally more successful than violent ones. Non-violent protests are also significantly more successful than violent ones: Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela are obvious examples of this.

As a further point, the incidence of violence globally has decreased massively over time. We are, as a species, learning how to deal with our problems in a non-violent way. Violence evolved because we evolved from violent animals. That doesn't mean we should remain violent.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

There's a saying in martial arts: "Don't mistake kindness for weakness."
As I have shown earlier, non-violent revolutions are generally more successful than violent ones. Non-violent protests are also significantly more successful than violent ones: Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela are obvious examples of this.

As a further point, the incidence of violence globally has decreased massively over time. We are, as a species, learning how to deal with our problems in a non-violent way. Violence evolved because we evolved from violent animals. That doesn't mean we should remain violent.

That's quite the sweeping statement there, Cosmic Yak! What time frame are you talking about? The last 5 years? The last 50 years?

Are you only talking about stable, first world countries with a high standard of living, or do you also include African, Middle Eastern and East European countries in your statement?

And how do you define violence? Only people coming to a wet and sticky end, or do you also include those dying indirectly of say starvation, illness and hypothermia due to a brutal and repressive regime?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by BrettM

That's quite the sweeping statement there, Cosmic Yak! What time frame are you talking about? The last 5 years? The last 50 years?

From prehistoric times to the present.

Originally Posted by BrettM

Are you only talking about stable, first world countries with a high standard of living, or do you also include African, Middle Eastern and East European countries in your statement?

Globally.

Originally Posted by BrettM

And how do you define violence? Only people coming to a wet and sticky end, or do you also include those dying indirectly of say starvation, illness and hypothermia due to a brutal and repressive regime?

Deaths as a result of crime or war. However, I am quite confident that globally, deaths from starvation and disease are also at historic lows.

I do find it funny that cynics and pessimists think they are the realists, when the actual data completely contradicts their gloomy world views.
Some actual data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

https://towardsdatascience.com/has-g...a-5af708f47fba

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

There's a saying in martial arts: "Don't mistake kindness for weakness."
As I have shown earlier, non-violent revolutions are generally more successful than violent ones. Non-violent protests are also significantly more successful than violent ones: Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela are obvious examples of this.

That the weaker side in conflicts find violence less successful doesn't contradict the idea that when violence is used as a tool by the stronger it can lead not to greater violence in kind, but submission.

Quote:

As a further point, the incidence of violence globally has decreased massively over time. We are, as a species, learning how to deal with our problems in a non-violent way. Violence evolved because we evolved from violent animals. That doesn't mean we should remain violent.

This seems to support the view that the violence of Israel won't necessarily be met by violence in return.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

That the weaker side in conflicts find violence less successful doesn't contradict the idea that when violence is used as a tool by the stronger it can lead not to greater violence in kind, but submission.

For example? Violent repression of civil disobedience may result in a short-term cessation of protests, but long-term? I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

This seems to support the view that the violence of Israel won't necessarily be met by violence in return.

I disagree. In general, violence is lessening around the world, but that doesn't apply to every specific case, and Israel/Palestine is one of those. Neither side, under their current leadership, seems terribly interested in a peaceful solution. That doesn't mean they shouldn't, just that, ATM, they aren't.
In the long term, surely a peaceful solution is the only one that will last.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by webfusion

It sure seems like you're now claiming that IDF is 'bad people' and 'bad policies' all rolled into one.
Is that what you meant to say?

I was referring to bad policies and bad people, Neo-Fascist policies and people in the USA.

Quote:

I see it took over 55 days for the RedCross to finally decide to look into the conditions of the hostages still in captivity. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-776393..

That's pretty dishonest, considering the Red Cross has been trying to see the hostages for months.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/red-cr...-held-in-gaza/

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

(...) when violence is used as a tool by the stronger it can lead not to greater violence in kind, but submission.

If you want to point out the human tendency to use violence, I'm not sure where you get off ignoring the human tendency to absolutely boil with rage about forced submission. I'd argue that 'beat them into submission' is a strategy that only worked while violent conflict was guys, maybe on horses, with rifles, arrows, or bladed weapons. When your handful of angry rebels could kill a couple guys tops, because they had to do it one-to-one. Now that rockets, explosives, automatic weapons etc can be had, the anger that boils up out of submission will never stop bringing violence. It's simply too easy for a sufficiently angry and sufficiently hopeless person to commit an emotionally satisfying (as opposed to an emotionally hopeless) act of violence.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I do find it funny that cynics and pessimists think they are the realists, when the actual data completely contradicts their gloomy world views.
Some actual data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

https://towardsdatascience.com/has-g...a-5af708f47fba

Thank you for the links - specially the second one. It is a very thought provoking article.

You are correct. I am a cynic and a pessimist. Hardly surprising, given that I live in an African country being systematically destroyed by greedy politicians.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

For example? Violent repression of civil disobedience may result in a short-term cessation of protests, but long-term? I'm not so sure.

Tiananmen Square. Seems like that period of unrest was experienced by both the Soviet Union and China, but China made different choices about whether or not to use violence to suppress their rising "democracy movement", and their use of violence at that time is directly responsible for the fact that the CCP is still in power today.

Quote:

I disagree. In general, violence is lessening around the world, but that doesn't apply to every specific case, and Israel/Palestine is one of those. Neither side, under their current leadership, seems terribly interested in a peaceful solution. That doesn't mean they shouldn't, just that, ATM, they aren't.
In the long term, surely a peaceful solution is the only one that will last.

I only said "won't necessarily", the general trend doesn't show that the specific case will follow it, but it should shift our view slightly in that direction. Anyway, my point isn't that we should be particularly hopeful of a peace here, my point is that the point you are making can cut in two directions.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

If you want to point out the human tendency to use violence, I'm not sure where you get off ignoring the human tendency to absolutely boil with rage about forced submission. I'd argue that 'beat them into submission' is a strategy that only worked while violent conflict was guys, maybe on horses, with rifles, arrows, or bladed weapons. When your handful of angry rebels could kill a couple guys tops, because they had to do it one-to-one. Now that rockets, explosives, automatic weapons etc can be had, the anger that boils up out of submission will never stop bringing violence. It's simply too easy for a sufficiently angry and sufficiently hopeless person to commit an emotionally satisfying (as opposed to an emotionally hopeless) act of violence.

Doesn't seem to have happened in Tibet.

My point isn't that violence never leads to violence in kind. My point is that it's not always the case. There's this naive view that every terrorist you kill creates two more. Sure, that happens sometimes, but the Soviets were pretty successful in putting down the Prague spring. The Ukrainians didn't successfully rise up after the famines of the 30's. Yes, there are cases where repression leads to revolt, but there are also cases where it leads to submission.

I think it's possible that to argue that the degree of repression necessary to lead to submission is morally reprehensible and should be condemned. But that's a different argument from suggesting that it just doesn't work, which is the claim I disagree with. It's working pretty well right now in Xinjiang.