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.
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.