site banner

Israel-Gaza Megathread #2

This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It would, nevertheless, probably have been in Israel's long-term best interests to have "[left] the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold." Of course, it would not have been in the short-term interests of the current Israeli administration to do so, so it was not going to happen.

Nor is the only choice either 1) ignoring the attack or 2) responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians. See, eg, Israel's response to the Munich Olympics attack.

What, specifically, do you think would have happened if Israel did not respond?

Please show me where I said that Israel should not respond. As I explicitly said, there are options other than not responding and responding in a manner which will inevitably kill large numbers of civilians.

What do you think would have been the best response for Israel here and why?

Such as? Again, be specific please.

More importantly, what do you think would have happened, that it would be in some way advantageous to Israel?

Such as? Again, be specific please.

I already mentioned the response to the Munich Olympics incident.

More importantly, what do you think would have happened, that it would be in some way advantageous to Israel?

Well, for one thing, this would have been more likely to come to fruition. As would various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies. There are a lot of potential advantages to not giving your enemies credible grounds for accusing you of war crimes.

You expect Israelis to conduct covert assassinations of thousands of Hamasniks inside the Gaza strip, by foot? That’s not very realistic. Unless you meant assassinating Hamas leaders in Qatar, which I’m all for. It doesn’t solve the issue, though, so I don’t see the point.

How does a deal with Saudi help with removing Hamas monsters from Gaza? Or at all, in this context? This is just unrelated.

It doesn’t solve the issue, though, so I don’t see the point.

There is not going to be a perfect solution. The point is simply that there are choices other than the imperfect solution of doing nothing and the imperfect solution of using force in a manner that is guaranteed to kill large numbers of civilians. But making leaders pay for their decisions will certainly encourage the next leaders to make different decisions in the future.

How does a deal with Saudi help with removing Hamas monsters from Gaza?

I didn't say it did. You asked what would happen that "would be in some way advantageous to Israel."

Ok, so your solution is not a solution, and the future affects you anticipate are unrelated to the conversation’s context. You’re also very clear that you’re not saying certain things, but won’t clarify or elaborate on your actual point.

I’d say you’re not communicating clearly enough for me to continue this conversation, and it seems like I’m not the only one who thinks that way.

the future affects you anticipate are unrelated to the conversation’s context

This is the very first thing I said: "It would, nevertheless, probably have been in Israel's long-term best interests to have "[left] the depravity and hatred of the Hamas project for the world to behold." Which was in response to a criticism of someone who implicitly made the same claim. So, if you think the future effect I mentioned is unrelated to the conversation's context, you are misremembering what that context was.

so your solution is not a solution,

And your "solution", ie, kill all Hamas members, is a short-term solution with enormous short-term costs, possible enormous medium term costs if it leads to a wider war, and serious long-term costs. Hence, it, too, is not a solution.

As for Hamas, I didn't only mention the Saudi deal, did I? I also mentioned "various other arrangements between Israel and local governments which are not particularly enamored of Iran and its proxies." There are other countries in the region that would like to see Hamas (and Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies) disabled, but their cooperation with Israel becomes less politically tenable as civilian casualties in Gaza mount.

Of course, it would not have been in the short-term interests of the current Israeli administration to do so, so it was not going to happen.

I agree that this over-determined the Israeli response. "Hamas breaks out of Gaza and attacks Israeli citizens" is not exactly the type of black swan event as "Jihadists crash planes into the WTC". So Hamas did not only commit their atrocities, but they also showed up the Israeli administration (which has security as a big part of their platform, I think) and their intelligence services and military which failed to stop them.

Under these circumstances, the people involved in deciding whether to invade are unlikely to decide that it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so.

the people involved in deciding whether to invade are unlikely to decide that it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so.

I think it is rather that they might take actions despite believing that it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so. Or, more likely, without making a sufficient effort to determine whether it is in Israels best long term interests not to do so.

That seems incredibly naïve to me. If you're surrounded by people who would gladly see you dead, it would be a fatal mistake to broadcast to them that they can kill you without fear of retribution.

Israel's response to the Munich Olympics attack involved very different circumstances, since they were assassinating PLO members living in Lebanon and various parts of Europe. They obviously couldn't kill large numbers of civilians in sovereign states they weren't at war with. There are some Hamas leaders living in Turkey and Qatar, but the rank-and-file of Hamas live in Gaza, among the civilian population.

If you're surrounded by people who would gladly see you dead, it would be a fatal mistake to broadcast to them that they can kill you without fear of retribution.

It's interesting you don't seem to even think to apply this same mode of thought to Palestinians.

Also I strongly doubt the reason the Gaza attack happened was because Hamas was mistaken in believing they could GTA it and dodge any sort of counter attack. If one is to believe the conspiracy theory that this is related to closening Israeli-Saudi relations one might think they were even counting on it.

Who said anything about no retribution? As I explicitly said, there is a third choice, other than 1) No retribution; and 2) retribution which inevitability kills large numbers of civilians. Which was the purpose of mentioning the response to the Munich Olympics, which was obvious a case of retribution.

Ok, so what is the third choice here? There's nothing explicit about gesturing to "a better way" without spelling out exactly what that way is. That's just smugness masquerading as nuance. Is Israel supposed to follow the Munich strategy in a dense urban area filled with hostile civilians?

The Munich strategy was to send covert assassination teams, so why not? And, there is nothing to prevent Israel from pursuing non-military options, especially with backing from the US, EU, and local enemies of Iran. The leaders of Qatar might find it to be in their interests to arrest Hamas's leader, for example.

And, you are completely ignoring the key issue, which is that a different response might well be in the long-term best interests of Israel. It would certainly make Saudi recognition more likely, that's for sure.