Ok I’ll bite. Let’s back up in history before the Oct 7 attack and address the concerns when there is no bombing going on. Explain to me what the plan is, but remember, the two state solution is on the table only by Israel. The Palestinian leaders will not agree to anything that involves the State of Israel continuing to exist. So now you are in charge of the peace process. What’s the plan?
afaik, you did not bite, because you immediately back up in history, thus not addressing the bombing a concentration camp full of children. the two state solution was never really on the table in israel, they already have problems with more than one religion and ethnicity in one state.
Ok so bombing stops. My point is, there was plenty of time to work out a solution before the Hamas attack, and nobody has done it. If they stop bombing now, what is the new piece of information that will solve the crisis?
Paul, the airstrikes ARE the crisis. The immediate, real-world CRISIS, not a diversion into abstract discussion on historical context or analogy. Like "ten category six hurricanes" crisis.
However one might approach the ideological narrative level, the fact remains that Hamas could fire its entire arsenal and not generate the explosive power of one Israeli Air Force bombing sortie. This is asymmetrical warfare. The Netanyahu government is using strategic justifications drawn from WW2- bombing campaigns directed at the productive capability of military superpowers. Those examples have no relevance. Tactical justifications don't apply, either. It isn't as if the IDF and IAF are staving off a conventional military assault from some Hamas infantry and armored divisions. Hamas doesn't have the capability to mount another armed incursion into Israeli territory; the success of the first attack was reliant on the element of surprise,and that advantage no longer exists. The Israelis aren't destroying Gaza City as a necessary precondition for a humanitarian mission to "save the hostages", either.
This indicates that there's no justification for the bombing campaign other than punishment and intimidation. It's an escalation, and a wildly disproportionate response.
The notion that bombing missions on Gaza somehow provide a crucial morale edge over Hamas is absurd. This is being done for punitive reasons- and in defiance of what is known from the previous century about populations living under bombs; they aren't "taught a lesson", or intimidated. In a population reduced to homelessness, penury, hunger, and total privation by high altitude bombing, the attitude of resistance intensifies..
The last straw for me was when the Israelis called for the residents of the northern half to evacuate to the south- and then ordered bombing sorties along the evacuation routes. The Israeli Air Force has recurrently bombed concentrations of civilians since then. The casualties are horrendous, and probably over 10,000 civilian dead, by now. The Israeli government isn't even trying to deny that policy of indiscriminate airstrikes, for the most part. (With war propaganda- in any war- it's common to find multiple versions of a position in the "official record.") For the most part, the Israeli government is claiming "self-defense." And then acting dismayed when the response isn't a consensus of automatic approval in countries like the US (that was formerly taken for granted.)
Binyamin Netanyahu should have known that reducing Gaza to the rubble of Rotterdam or Guernica also enshrines the event with those atrocities. Some evidence is too obvious to be hand-waved into insignificance.
Ironically, it would have been Hamas leaders who had to resort to unconvincing hand-waves and hollow self-exculpating claims to justify their acts, if the Israeli government had exercised some forbearance in the immediate aftermath of the attacks into Israel.
DC, I respect your intellectual response. That is hard to find on this substack. I appreciate the content of your rebuttal, even if I disagree with your reasoning. You've appealed to logic rather than ad hominem criticism, and for that, I salute you.
Most of those that appeal to historical context do so to justify the Oct 7th attack of Hamas. The majority falling into that category present no historical narrative that bears any resemblance to the truth, so ironically, they achieve nothing of value.
You've avoided that pitfall by referencing the current situation, which is a respectable approach. The argument regarding asymmetrical warfare seems reasonable. Are you referencing Andrew Mack's use of the term?
The problem is that asymmetrical warfare often sees the weaker emerge victorious. This may have to do with the weaker power having little to lose, no budget to exhaust, and no time limit. It is simply a matter of willpower to fight. The term is probably appropriate to this conflict since it usually involves the weaker power fighting a war of terrorism or guerrilla warfare.
So, if Israel were to fight in a "proportionate" way, they would most certainly ensure their loss. This is precisely what the weaker power needs when waging a war. They want proportionate responses, year after year, decade after decade, until they exacerbate their enemy.
You are correct that bombing civilians into oblivion does not break their will to fight. This was tried exhaustively in World War II, and it achieved nothing. I was surprised when I initially learned this.
I disagree that, overall, this is a punitive exercise. I believe Hamas when they claim to have hundreds of miles of tunnels beneath Gaza. They are estimated to receive $150+ million in annual funding for their military wing. I have seen even higher estimates. Granted, it's nothing compared to Israel. However, this group can continue fighting for an extended time on the stash they have now.
So, with that in mind, it makes logical sense militarily to obliterate Hamas installations if Israel has any real hope of eliminating the threat beyond a quick cease-fire that will shortly end with Hamas firing more rockets.
Unfortunately, the complete devastation of this bombing campaign, even if necessary, is not going to provide Israel any respite from international pressure and condemnation. At some point, they likely will be forced to stop this campaign. That may be the reason they are doing so much damage so quickly. They know the clock started ticking the moment they began their response, so they hope to damage Hamas' capabilities as soon as possible.
I will have to research the bombing sorties along evacuation routes. I am unfamiliar with what happened, so I have no response.
Your final comment is about Hamas leaders needing to resort to unconvincing hand-waves if Israel had refrained from a swift, mighty response. I may have agreed with you initially. I'm not sure.
Hamas filmed the massacre and took 200+ hostages. They do confirm and deny the same things at random, but it seems that those messages are for different people. Their supporters can latch onto their denial, regardless of any proof, and for those who comprehend the evil that happened they achieve the fear and anger they sought.
I have a hard time with innocent children dying in bombing raids, so I will continue to listen to those who have strong arguments advocating for restraint. Yet, I still await the "restraint" crowd to offer an actual achievable solution that allows Palestinians to live in freedom and Israel to live in security. The idea of a cease-fire that keeps Palestinians under brutal Hamas' oppression and Israel without security seems like a lose-lose to me.
I'm not a fan of Netanyahu, and he is likely corrupt. What do you mean by pact? I may or may not agree with you.
Netanyahu is not foolish enough to sign any written pact with Hamas or to be caught conspiring directly.
But in action, yes, it was pretty much a pact. According to a Times of Israel article (1), he told people in private that Hamas was an asset if the goal was to avoid having to negotiate a two-state solution.
Hamas controlling Gaza was politically expedient for Netanyahu, as it kept power divided between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas.
Netanyahu mistakenly miscalculated the risk of Hamas' capabilities, and Israeli intelligence was not foolproof in preventing a large-scale attack.
Israel (as a whole*) does not target unarmed citizens. Hamas *specifically* targets unarmed Jewish families. When the Israeli military kills innocent people in Gaza, it is not the goal. They actively try to avoid it if possible. It is not helpful for Israel in any form or fashion, as it is pure propaganda material for Hamas.
Hamas, on the other hand, murders Palestinians in Gaza all the time, but nobody seems to care. People only care when Israel is involved.
Finally, Israel does not occupy Gaza any more than Egypt does. They both blockade the Gaza Strip.
Why does Egypt get a pass? Gaza was under Egyptian control until 1967, and I've never heard of anyone demanding Egypt take responsibility for Gaza or ask why they didn't form a Palestinian state back then.
* Clarification on this: Israel (as a whole) does not target unarmed citizens. There are Israelis who have targeted innocent Palestinians. This is a terrible crime and should be punished. But it is not the practice of the Israeli military. It is an unfortunate fact of life that any person can be evil, no matter their ethnicity, religion, profession, or creed.
Ok I’ll bite. Let’s back up in history before the Oct 7 attack and address the concerns when there is no bombing going on. Explain to me what the plan is, but remember, the two state solution is on the table only by Israel. The Palestinian leaders will not agree to anything that involves the State of Israel continuing to exist. So now you are in charge of the peace process. What’s the plan?
afaik, you did not bite, because you immediately back up in history, thus not addressing the bombing a concentration camp full of children. the two state solution was never really on the table in israel, they already have problems with more than one religion and ethnicity in one state.
Ok so bombing stops. My point is, there was plenty of time to work out a solution before the Hamas attack, and nobody has done it. If they stop bombing now, what is the new piece of information that will solve the crisis?
Paul, the airstrikes ARE the crisis. The immediate, real-world CRISIS, not a diversion into abstract discussion on historical context or analogy. Like "ten category six hurricanes" crisis.
However one might approach the ideological narrative level, the fact remains that Hamas could fire its entire arsenal and not generate the explosive power of one Israeli Air Force bombing sortie. This is asymmetrical warfare. The Netanyahu government is using strategic justifications drawn from WW2- bombing campaigns directed at the productive capability of military superpowers. Those examples have no relevance. Tactical justifications don't apply, either. It isn't as if the IDF and IAF are staving off a conventional military assault from some Hamas infantry and armored divisions. Hamas doesn't have the capability to mount another armed incursion into Israeli territory; the success of the first attack was reliant on the element of surprise,and that advantage no longer exists. The Israelis aren't destroying Gaza City as a necessary precondition for a humanitarian mission to "save the hostages", either.
This indicates that there's no justification for the bombing campaign other than punishment and intimidation. It's an escalation, and a wildly disproportionate response.
The notion that bombing missions on Gaza somehow provide a crucial morale edge over Hamas is absurd. This is being done for punitive reasons- and in defiance of what is known from the previous century about populations living under bombs; they aren't "taught a lesson", or intimidated. In a population reduced to homelessness, penury, hunger, and total privation by high altitude bombing, the attitude of resistance intensifies..
The last straw for me was when the Israelis called for the residents of the northern half to evacuate to the south- and then ordered bombing sorties along the evacuation routes. The Israeli Air Force has recurrently bombed concentrations of civilians since then. The casualties are horrendous, and probably over 10,000 civilian dead, by now. The Israeli government isn't even trying to deny that policy of indiscriminate airstrikes, for the most part. (With war propaganda- in any war- it's common to find multiple versions of a position in the "official record.") For the most part, the Israeli government is claiming "self-defense." And then acting dismayed when the response isn't a consensus of automatic approval in countries like the US (that was formerly taken for granted.)
Binyamin Netanyahu should have known that reducing Gaza to the rubble of Rotterdam or Guernica also enshrines the event with those atrocities. Some evidence is too obvious to be hand-waved into insignificance.
Ironically, it would have been Hamas leaders who had to resort to unconvincing hand-waves and hollow self-exculpating claims to justify their acts, if the Israeli government had exercised some forbearance in the immediate aftermath of the attacks into Israel.
DC, I respect your intellectual response. That is hard to find on this substack. I appreciate the content of your rebuttal, even if I disagree with your reasoning. You've appealed to logic rather than ad hominem criticism, and for that, I salute you.
Most of those that appeal to historical context do so to justify the Oct 7th attack of Hamas. The majority falling into that category present no historical narrative that bears any resemblance to the truth, so ironically, they achieve nothing of value.
You've avoided that pitfall by referencing the current situation, which is a respectable approach. The argument regarding asymmetrical warfare seems reasonable. Are you referencing Andrew Mack's use of the term?
The problem is that asymmetrical warfare often sees the weaker emerge victorious. This may have to do with the weaker power having little to lose, no budget to exhaust, and no time limit. It is simply a matter of willpower to fight. The term is probably appropriate to this conflict since it usually involves the weaker power fighting a war of terrorism or guerrilla warfare.
So, if Israel were to fight in a "proportionate" way, they would most certainly ensure their loss. This is precisely what the weaker power needs when waging a war. They want proportionate responses, year after year, decade after decade, until they exacerbate their enemy.
You are correct that bombing civilians into oblivion does not break their will to fight. This was tried exhaustively in World War II, and it achieved nothing. I was surprised when I initially learned this.
I disagree that, overall, this is a punitive exercise. I believe Hamas when they claim to have hundreds of miles of tunnels beneath Gaza. They are estimated to receive $150+ million in annual funding for their military wing. I have seen even higher estimates. Granted, it's nothing compared to Israel. However, this group can continue fighting for an extended time on the stash they have now.
So, with that in mind, it makes logical sense militarily to obliterate Hamas installations if Israel has any real hope of eliminating the threat beyond a quick cease-fire that will shortly end with Hamas firing more rockets.
Unfortunately, the complete devastation of this bombing campaign, even if necessary, is not going to provide Israel any respite from international pressure and condemnation. At some point, they likely will be forced to stop this campaign. That may be the reason they are doing so much damage so quickly. They know the clock started ticking the moment they began their response, so they hope to damage Hamas' capabilities as soon as possible.
I will have to research the bombing sorties along evacuation routes. I am unfamiliar with what happened, so I have no response.
Your final comment is about Hamas leaders needing to resort to unconvincing hand-waves if Israel had refrained from a swift, mighty response. I may have agreed with you initially. I'm not sure.
Hamas filmed the massacre and took 200+ hostages. They do confirm and deny the same things at random, but it seems that those messages are for different people. Their supporters can latch onto their denial, regardless of any proof, and for those who comprehend the evil that happened they achieve the fear and anger they sought.
I have a hard time with innocent children dying in bombing raids, so I will continue to listen to those who have strong arguments advocating for restraint. Yet, I still await the "restraint" crowd to offer an actual achievable solution that allows Palestinians to live in freedom and Israel to live in security. The idea of a cease-fire that keeps Palestinians under brutal Hamas' oppression and Israel without security seems like a lose-lose to me.
Thank you again for your thoughtful response.
mealy-mouthed hand-waving.
No-one knows BUT there better be a solution!
Wiping out unarmed citizens because they are Palestinians trying to live a life in an occupied country.
I might remind you K.Paul that before this happened Israeli's were in the streets demonstrating against Netanyahu.
Seems strange to me, with all the technology Israel has Hamas could so easily enter. Not to mention Israel had been warned by Jordan and Egypt!
I suspect you will find when all this eventually comes out is that Netanyahu made a pact with Hamas.
I'm not a fan of Netanyahu, and he is likely corrupt. What do you mean by pact? I may or may not agree with you.
Netanyahu is not foolish enough to sign any written pact with Hamas or to be caught conspiring directly.
But in action, yes, it was pretty much a pact. According to a Times of Israel article (1), he told people in private that Hamas was an asset if the goal was to avoid having to negotiate a two-state solution.
Hamas controlling Gaza was politically expedient for Netanyahu, as it kept power divided between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas.
Netanyahu mistakenly miscalculated the risk of Hamas' capabilities, and Israeli intelligence was not foolproof in preventing a large-scale attack.
Israel (as a whole*) does not target unarmed citizens. Hamas *specifically* targets unarmed Jewish families. When the Israeli military kills innocent people in Gaza, it is not the goal. They actively try to avoid it if possible. It is not helpful for Israel in any form or fashion, as it is pure propaganda material for Hamas.
Hamas, on the other hand, murders Palestinians in Gaza all the time, but nobody seems to care. People only care when Israel is involved.
Finally, Israel does not occupy Gaza any more than Egypt does. They both blockade the Gaza Strip.
Why does Egypt get a pass? Gaza was under Egyptian control until 1967, and I've never heard of anyone demanding Egypt take responsibility for Gaza or ask why they didn't form a Palestinian state back then.
* Clarification on this: Israel (as a whole) does not target unarmed citizens. There are Israelis who have targeted innocent Palestinians. This is a terrible crime and should be punished. But it is not the practice of the Israeli military. It is an unfortunate fact of life that any person can be evil, no matter their ethnicity, religion, profession, or creed.
1 - https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/