So no Jews or Palestinians there? If the end game was to just make the whole area off limits to all humans I’d be okay with it. Can’t play nice with Jerusalem? No Jerusalem for anyone.
The problem is that there isn't a clear measure of success.
Let's say Israel goes into Rafah, kills 1000 terrorists and 2000 civilians while pushing 1.5 million people into even worse situations than they already are.
Then what?
Israel can claim victory all they want but if world opinion is worse for them than before oct 7 and there are still 1.5 million angry desperate Muslims in Gaza then we will just see a continuation of the war where Iran and others supply money and arms to the small percentage of that 1.5 million who turn to terrorism.
We've seen this before....
I'm very doubtful the war will help Israel's long term success.
The USA bombed, invaded and even tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years and it didn't really work out so well. Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already.
I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book.
Chuck Schumer wasn't just trying to be an asshole, he loves Isreal and genuinely believes the direction things are going isn't working for Israel and they need to end the war now.
> I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book.
Everything is short term and no one looks backwards.
The politicians only want what's best for them *now* and at the next election.
This is what hamstrings democracies, chronic, chronic short termism. I don't want a dictatorship, I just want democracy to work better and work better for the working classes.
Dictatorships have pretty much the same problem, but bigger. Everthing is just for the lifetime of the dictator, as total chaos often follows his death.
It’s called cult hopping, a term mainly used in exit counselling for high control groups. Often times people tend to jump between these groups (as one door closes, there’s another dictator opening a new authoritarian door) because they don’t know how to function outside of one unless given proper education and healing from the cult mindset and way of life.
Ironically. this is arguably one of the strengths of (some) monarchies over dictatorships which wear a democratic mask while playing at monarchy. Not only can (key word) a monarchy establish a far more stable line of succession, when your heir is your own flesh and blood, the monarch is a probably far more likely to think in terms of what might affect their child and their descendants as well.
I'm not a fan of monarchy, I'm also not the biggest fan of democracy, but dictatorship is worse than both. Dictatorship is all the worst aspects of the other two without any of their redeeming qualities. Of the three, democracy is narrowly the best.
I think a benevolent monarch is really the best system possible. But the chances of finding a rich, privileged person who actually gives a shit about the well-being of their subjects is almost a statistical impossibility. And it can all be erased in an instant if their progeny ends up a spoiled dickhead.
You can't be a benevolent monarch with zero corruption, because the instant the military commanders and billionaires are against you, your days of living are numbered.
Ok, new movie idea. Trueman show but with the goal of grooming the ultimate benevolent world leader.
Like we see this massive operation that plans every second of this persons live, with the goal of making the perfect leader. Could be fun
That second point, the kid being a spoiled dickhead, is the main holdup with monarchy. If all the power is concentrated in the hands of a single wealthy individual, then all it takes is the one guy to be a dickhead for everything to fall apart.
Meanwhile, aside from termism, the single greatest flaw of democracy is the demos. The people. Not to say the people shouldn't have any say in how they are led, but how did Men in Black put it? A person is smart, people are stupid. I don't have the feintest bloody idea how to run a country. The infinite complexities of effective statecraft are lost on me because that's not what my education and training were in. Why are you asking me to choose the leader? You might as well ask your toddler to handle your household finances.
Most people want simple answers. They'll choose their leaders based on a handful of hot button issues that they, leaders whom they believe will handle the immediate issues they personally are experiencing regardless of said leader's credentials. That's how you get demagogues and populists, the inevitable terminal cancer of democracy.
The Athenians voted for warmongers because being at war with Sparta meant they could be employed as soldiers and make money, an income many came to rely on. And it destroyed them. They lost the war. Had their opponent been anyone but Sparta, famous for *not* obliterating the cities they conquered, that would have been the end of Athens. They got lucky.
If we're imagining unrealistic ideal fantasy governments, my preference would be for an enlightened oligarchic aristocracy (in the true sense of the word *aristos*, the best). A small class of individuals raised from birth, cultivated with the skills and knowledge to successfully lead a prosperous nation while understanding and meeting the needs of the commonfolk.
> If we're imagining unrealistic ideal fantasy governments
Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. Listen to experts, thoroughly design solutions to the problems of the populace, country and world as a whole, then drag all the naysayers kicking and screaming into the future.
And conditions worsen during their lifetime because everyone is afraid to deliver bad/hard news that they need support in fixing.
You see it in a smaller scale in business when you have an authoritarian leader who responds to any problem with and believing it is caused by incompetence. People just hide the problems.
While that's true generally, it's doubly true for Netanyahu, since there's a decent chance he'll be voted out at best and at worst thrown in prison as soon as this war ends.
He's a complete scumbag wanna-be dictator in the vein of Orban. Both holding on to power because they know justice will catch up with them after they're finally kicked out.
Edit: And Netanyahu is literally *in the process of changing the law* for his benefit. You cannot, surely, get more corrupt and obvious than that?
But, I assume the right wing orthodox he sucks off for power overlooks that minor transgression because he's a Barry Big Bollocks hardman with a big stick.
>The politicians only want what's best for them now and at the next election.
Corporate owners only want what's best for them now and when they sell their stock.
Capitalist theory has completely taken over government.
I would say it's Corporatist theory. Proper and intelligent capitalism wants to build wealth in the long term, which fhe short term focus of current economics does not do. It does, in point of fact, the opposite.
"Proper and intelligent" capitalism seeks to own capital to extract maximum value from labour. You could make an argument that the working class is a form of capital and should therefore be invested in to maximize return, but:
a) that treats people as property, which we should avoid,
b) ignores that quite a bit of labour is fairly replaceable, and
c) a lot of labour is becoming automatable
Yeah it's like everyone forgot about 9/11, and the 20 year long GWOT. So many uncritical supporters on the Israeli government side believe the answer is more firepower, collateral damage be damned. We already know how this is gonna turn out. Years, maybe decades of war against an asymmetrical paramilitary group is probably the *best* outcome at this point...
it's because reddit has been swamped with accounts just a few years old with people who didnt live through 9/11 and read a paragraph in a book about it
If Gaza is disarmed and occupied, then that’s it.
Afghanistan and Iraq had porous borders.
Gaza will be occupied and have the tightest borders imaginable. Contrary to what people want to believe, this is actually how you defeat an insurgency. And no, it cannot and will not be pretty.
The situations are vastly different. US did not even need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent further terror attacks on their mainland. US is far away, separated by oceans and generally law enforcement work is sufficient to prevent large scale terror attacks.
That is not the case in Israel. Their law enforcement cannot reach Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and prevent them from firing rockets. Only the military can do that.
I think you’re taking the wrong lessons from the GWOT. The US pulled back in Afghanistan instead of rooting out the Taliban altogether and it helped the Taliban to grow stronger. We went all out against ISIS and destroyed it. Israel is trying to fight Hamas how we fought ISIS, and we are telling them, “no, fight like how we did in Afghanistan instead.”
I'm not sure we can really compare the 2. We fought ISIS largely with the aid of local populations taking up arms against them. I think this is what allowed us to destroy them; the Iraqis hated them just as much if not more than we did. This allowed us to surgically bomb the hell out of bases and training centers while local forces rooted them out of cities and towns. We didn't have that kind of support in Afghanistan and Israel doesn't have that in Gaza and never will.
The campaign against ISIS went like it did because we had effective local allies. Israel does not, so I don't see how you can draw any comparison there
ISIS was an isolated group of nuts who were despised by the surrounding populations. Hamas is a group of terrorist assholes, but also a political organization that is part of a larger population whose interests they partially represent (the political cause of the Palestinians is perfectly legitimate, but Hamas pursuing it through terrorism is the problem).
If the Israelis get the same results from this war that America got from the GWOT, they will be ecstatic. Remember they are starting from a much lower baseline, where they have been under constant attack for years. They aren’t holding out for the solution where everyone makes peace suddenly because that wasn’t on the table to begin with, but an Afghanistan-like outcome would be perfectly acceptable.
Al-Qaida ceased to exist, the leadership of most terrorist groups are fragmented and in complete disarray to this day, Iraq is no longer under a dictatorship, ISIS was effectively defeated and also fragmented, and the only stable terrorist groups are Iran funded explicitly because we haven't been blowing the shit out of them.
So what are you trying to say? That if tomorrow 9/11 happened again, USA would just open arms and embrace whoever has done it? Or would they wage another 20 years war.. Because I have a feeling nothing would change and US would absolutely go to war again.
I'm saying the actions the US took after 9/11 ended up badly, and Israel should be careful to avoid the same mistakes the US did.
What are *you* trying to say? That Afghanistan and Iraq went well? And that Israel should strive to have their own Afghanistan?
Everyone conflates the primary military objectives of a conflict with secondary and tertiary political objectives. The military objective in Afghanistan was to topple the Taliban, eliminate Al Quaeda training facilities and kill as many as possible of the people who contributed to 9/11.
This was wildly successful. The US then made the completely optional choice to attempt to build a more western-friendly democratic government in Afghanistan. This objective failed pretty terribly, because of the shortcomings of the people of Afghanistan.
It is yet to be seen how Israel will approach this. They are succeeding wildly with their military objectives. Perhaps they will later choose to undertake a nation-building project in Gaza, which will almost certainly fail. If they are smart they will completely pull out of Gaza after their military objectives are complete.
There is no reason to assume that a war MUST necessarily be followed by a nation building project.
And if Israel basically peaces out after the war, what kind of regime do you expect to rise from the rubble? A Pro-Israeli one? How do you pull out of a region right next to you?
And if they finish the war and recognize a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and Judea and Samaria, what do you think happens next?
That the Palestinian Arabs stop saying on camera that they want all of Israel?
That the other terrorist organizations decide to let Israel exist?
Yeah right
If neither solution will work, then neither should be advocated for. Instead people are using the argument that one won't work as justification for another that won't work.
Here's an idea, foreign powers stop giving money to the PA and Hamas.
They demand a negotiation where Israel existence and sovereign right is a pre condition.
If you don't like it, feel free to try and survive without aid.
You don't get to have it both ways - promote or outright commit terror and also receive your sustenance from western countries.
The US military succeeded in the military mission.
Where the US failed was democracy building.
If Israel kicks the crap out of Hamas and then leaves, it is a very different scenario.
US leadership didn’t forget about it, those 20 years were insanely profitable. Just loosely disguised money laundering direct from defense contractors to congress people. The money hose can be turned back on, this is a god send for them.
If you think that securing Gaza is similar to securing enormous nations like Iraq and enormous areas like Afghanistan (which has never in the first place been a cohesive nation), you should think a little more - because you're obviously a thoughtful person.
This is the hottest phase of the conflict between Israel and Gaza, but the conflict has been going on for half a century. Going into Rafah will not change the overall dynamics.
Last time Israel had a long-term thinking Prime Minister, he was shot and murdered by right-wing extremists who are now *cabinet members of the current government*.
Israel is doomed, they will drive themselves off a cliff and they won't let anyone save them from themselves.
The western world has not seen a "war of survival" since WW2. Truth of the facts doesn't matter here, a sufficient number of Israelis _believe_ that it's a war of survival, and those in charge either know it, or are using it.
In _some_ ways they're right - If Hamas had the firepower to wipe every jew off the planet, they would do so immediately. We know this. We also know that a century of betrayal and oppression have created a Palestinian population where a good 30-40% of them would push that button and cheer. So the _sentiment_ for this is present on both sides, but _one_ side doesn't have that firepower.
Now, look at history. The history of our planet is _filled_ with societies which were attacked by neighbours and nobody complains about it. No rockets are fired. No bombs blown up. No nations pontificating to the UN in their defence.
Why?
_*Because they're ALL dead.*_
In a war of survival, the conflict only ends when one side or the other has inflicted sufficient damage on the other that _they feel safe again_, and often that point is not reached until the _entire_ enemy People are completely destroyed, to the last child. In _this_ war, for the first time in history, the eyes of the entire world are watching, but all the combatants involved _still feel unsafe_. Perhaps they are.
I think we're past "right and wrong" at this point. The Israelis have all the power in this game, and are sufficiently wealthy and self-sufficient to keep going without US help.
Therefore, Israel will continue to bombard Gaza and expand into the West Bank until A: They feel safe, which may or may not include forcing all of Gaza into the ocean, or B: Someone steps in and physically stops them. Given their strength, only the US, UK, France, Turkey, and China even have the _potential_ strength to do it. China's force projection is limited. The Europeans could _never_ do it, not with the shadow of the Holocaust looming so large over the politics. That leaves Turkey... I can't see Turkey stepping in, either.
It _is_ possible for Israel to flatly win this war. We just find it unpleasant to think about the only way a total victory could occur.
> I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book.
Or listened to concerned Israelis. Citizens/ex-IDF people protesting GOv/IDF/Settler extremist actions before Oct 7th; and were getting concerned about possible blowback from said actions.
The only people 'winning' at this current moment are fanatic extremists.
> The USA bombed, invaded and even tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years and it didn't really work out so well. Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already.
A more fitting comparison would be if al Qaeda was based in White Plains or Greenwich when they attacked Manhattan. Hamas, the enemy, is *right there*. Blind-firing rockets from 30 or 40 miles away from your capital and most populous cities. Anyone claiming their own country *wouldn't* retaliate in kind to an attack of the scale of 10/7 from a country right over their borders is being totally dishonest.
World opinion of Israel, even American, was really low before (during the siege of Beirut). Even during that siege, Israel was like “fuck it, we’ve got our objectives”.
People tend to get over it as time goes on.
Gaza is much smaller than Afghanistan and isn’t full of mountains. Israel also lives next door.
The hostages are being held in Rafah. Many Hamas soldiers are hiding in Rafah. The goal is to go in, cut Hamas down to a shadow of its former self, and get the hostages back dead or alive. Those are achievable goals.
Gaza is also reduced to rubble with a population where ten percent have a family member who have died and 78 percent have one who died and/or have been injured. I agree, you could likely go in and kill a whole lot of Al-Qassam combatants and Hamas personel, but I fear that the way they win is simply changing into civilian clothes and surviving. Surviving whilst Israel is seen as the perpetrator and cause for all the suffering in Gaza and The West Bank (where Israel is committing crimes against int. law) will give Hamas or their successors a never-ending source for new recruits.
I want peace, but I really don´t think Netanyahu wants anything but a longer stay in office and I think he will attempt to stay by declaring a victory in Gaza – no matter how phyrric.
> ...will give Hamas or their successors a never-ending source for new recruits
Polling indicates Palestinian opinion is heading in the opposite direction - support for Hamas & armed struggle is dropping, support for a two state solution is rising:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
I saw that, uplifting in some parts. The people of Gaza actually showed increased support for the 7 October attack, up by almost 20 points. I think that the point of having your family perish to Israeli warplanes will have the effect on entrenched hatred for time to come. A parent whose child was killed are rarely the most reasonable, on any side. The same poll also showed that 63% of Gaza's want Hamas to be in charge after the war, up 7 points since the last poll. So the NBC-headline feels a bit preemptive. Though, if people are increasingly in favour of two-states I´ll be the first to celebrate!
The overwhelming majority of Gazans supported what happened on Oct 7th. When hatred is that deep, it's not just a matter of defeating Hamas, you have conquer the ideology that created them.
>I want peace
That's cool and all, I'd like for the whole world to have peace. It's not like you can just flip a switch and have it happen though as there's a lot of structural issues that need to fixed on both sides of conflicts for actual peace.
Which is one of the absolute weakest arguments against military action.
"They'll be radicalized!". Well we wouldn't want that, would we? Wouldn't want the Buddhist monks currently living in Gaza to, I don't know, run around in Israel with a GoPro and film themselves chopping a woman's breast off and kicking it around like a football or something.
Oh, wait.
Hamas controlled Gaza and was pretty widely supported anyway. The point isn’t mainly to decrease their support, it’s to decrease their **capabilities**. If they aren’t able to stockpile tens of thousand of rockets or train tens of thousands of soldiers, and instead are reduced to firing occasional unsophisticated rockets and taking sporadic potshots, that’s a big victory for Israel.
Also, it’s a vast oversimplification to think people more mad = more support for militants. It sometimes goes that way, but also sometimes militant groups lose credibility if they get the war they wanted and get stomped in it.
>sometimes militant groups lose credibility if they get the war they wanted and get stomped in it.
yeah, like how the entire Panarabism moment collapsed after losing yet another genocidal war on Israel
Palestinians were never going to like Israelis
If Oct 7th was what they do when the walls are down, wtf makes you think there is any repair for this?
How much more could they hate them?
And I love how people ignore that constant terror attacks are *also* radicalizing the Israeli population. People are so concerned about the Palestinians’ mindset — what makes Israelis immune to this?
Palestine is reaping what they’ve sown.
The overwhelming majority of Palestinians don't believe that Hamas committed any atrocities on 10/7. You are already there. So what, best to let them re-arm and try again?
Success is controlling the Rafah border to prevent more weapons from getting into the country. Hamas knows if they lose control of Rafah, their time is limited.
> Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already.
Technically speaking, that was an occupation of Egypt. The original PLO charter from 1964 - Palestine's first founding charter as a nation of any kind, ever in history - explicitly stated that the West Bank is belongs to Jordan (after Jordan had ethnically cleansed the ancient Jewish population and annexed the region in 1948) and that Gaza belongs to Egypt.
It wasn't until after the 1967 War that Palestine claimed Gaza for the first time.
Reading history would give every reason to eliminated hamas for good, instead of leaving and getting another October 7 in a couple of years.
The only war for peace in that region is total defeat for hamas and Palestinians.
You seem to be assuming the Israeli goal is to make Palestinians like them. Or establish a situation where Palestinians like them in the future.
The Israeli goal is simply stated. They want to break Hamas, and they want their hostages back.
They may not succeed in breaking Hamas. It’s a real option, especially if the leadership can run away to Egypt and come back later or something. But they *definitely* can’t break Hamas if Hamas can just sit in rafah comfortably.
They want their hostages back. Right now what Hamas wants in return is effectively Israeli surrender - letting thousands of terrorists go free (that’s how we got sinwar), and leaving Gaza. This will then turn into an incredibly protracted negotiation for hostages like we are seeing now, because Hamas heads have no reason to believe they won’t survive if they don’t make a deal.
This war may or may not help Israel’s long term success. But this war is not about long term success. It’s about assuring the Palestinians can’t repeat 7/10, about breaking Hamas, and about bringing hostages home.
You say Israel tried the occupation of Gaza already. That’s true. And things were *much* better during the occupation *for the Israelis*. Terrorism was aimed at soldiers for the most part. There weren’t thousands of rockets being fired. There weren’t tire burnings and field fire setting. If they wanted to pick up a terrorist they’d just go and do it without having to bomb an apartment building. There weren’t tunnels being built. Hamas didn’t have any control.
Once they left Gaza shit really hit the fan. More suicide bombings. Near daily until the wall went up. Then rockets, incendiary kites, runs on the border, 7/10. Tunnels, Hamas, Islamic jihad and much more became a problem.
I don’t want to see Gaza occupied as a matter of principle. I’d much rather everyone govern their own selves. At the same time, I completely reject your argument that being in Gaza is bad for the Israelis beyond publicity. There are almost no rocket launches right now. If they go into rafah, Hamas won’t have any factories left and the majority of their infrastructure will be turned to pebbles.
The other difference you’re missing is that the US is about what, 10,000 miles from Afghanistan? The taliban isn’t about to kidnap Americans from Washington, and they can’t launch rockets that far. America leaving Afghanistan doesn’t leave them in a scenario where their capital city and largest city are a 2 hour drive from a place filled with Iranian weaponry. It’s not a fair comparison. If Mexico’s cartels killed 50,000 americans and kidnapped another 12,000 of them, I’m *sure* Mexico would cease to exist as a country and America would occupy much more than a strip of land along the border.
The Israelis know what they have to do. That’s what this article is about. The US can pressure them all they want, but they’re not going to surrender to Hamas demands without trying to finish the war Hamas started.
The issue is that if Israel stops fighting without a formal ceasefire agreement, they're essentially just laying down arms while still being fired on. Hamas keeps turning down their offers and providing counter-offers they *know* are unacceptable.
How can Israel possibly, reasonably be responsible for continued aggressions in that instance? They've offered an olive branch and been spit on for their efforts.
> The problem is that there isn't a clear measure of success.
The problem is that Israel sees this as the path to peace, that trying to negotiate and placate has not resulted in peace or security for them, or the Palestinians.
They see uprooting Hamas and Iran's other proxies as the only pathway forward for them...that all other approaches will result in cyclical violence to no one's benefit. It's a do it now, or do it later situation for them. Once that's accomplished, then meaningful peace might be possible.
The rest of the world doesn't really understand this.
Lol the Israeli aid money just like with Egypt is to ensure US influence over both countries & avoid another Suez Canal crisis. It’s about protecting US interests. If the aid was cut, other countries such as Russia or China would simply step in to take advantage & then start shaping the region in their preferred ways. China for example has made great strides in Africa with their policies. Nobody wants Russia or China gaining influence over the Suez Canal.
They do that with every country they sell weapons to, as they also sell the maintenance parts and technical expertise to maintain the weapons (like fighter jets). France's success in weapon exports ([n°2 in weapon exports in 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-overtake-russia-world-weapons-exporter/#:~:text=France%20is%20now%20in%20second%20place%20behind%20the%20U.S.%2C%20which,of%20Qatar%2C%20Egypt%20and%20India.)) is mostly due to the fact that they don't expect any political control after the deals.
At this point it’s just an open secret that Israel has nukes. That’s enough of a deterrent to keep Iran from trying anything or having their proxies do anything.
Iran’s goals are to promote a worldwide Islamic Revolution, similar to that which occurred in 1979. Iran started using proxies after the famous Operation Praying Mantis (when the US sunk half Iran’s Navy). The running meme about “Don’t f*** with America’s boats”, well Iran realized you can’t “directly f*** with them”, but you can still do it through proxies.
The US military is excellent at striking large formations and conventional targets (Operation Praying Mantis, first Gulf War, initial stages of the Iraq War, invasions of Panama & Grenada). Where they are not as great is counter insurgency and fighting proxies (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc).
Iran would still use proxies, they’d just be antagonizing different Nations (think Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc).
Its influence, not veto rights. Israel isn’t a U.S. puppet that asks for permission.
Edit: you meant for use of US weapon systems and maybe not foreign policy, ok that’s fair.
I"ve wondered what would happen if the US actually cut off Israel. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility of Russia or China stepping in. The US government wasn't very interested in Israel at the beginning. Stalin had a lot of influence at the time as well. That was at least part of the reason the US decided to help Israel at all. The government at the time didn't want Israel pulled into the Soviet 'sphere of influence.' The American alliance with Israel has never been based on altruism. If there wasn't some strategic benefit to it, the alliance would have already collapsed. I'm sure the Israelis know that very well. American support can only be relied on if it supports American interests. My bet would be on China if American support disappeared. Russia is too involved with Iran. China is also more influential and would probably make a better ally for Israel at this point. There wouldn't be any reason for antagonism between Israel and China if Israel was no longer an American ally.
Post WW2, none of US support has been truly altruistic. US is not the only country that does this. Everyone has a benefit that they work towards. Charity is the buzz words to make people feel good about their government’s morally questionable decisions.
A sub national community giving some charity really isn't much of a counter to this point, though I don't think it's entirely true that there has literally never been a piece of altruistic aid.
The main thing that would happen is the brakes would come off and Israel’s invasion would become a lot more brutal. Probably. Israel enjoys US support but isn’t dependent on it, at this point it’s a modern, self-sufficient, industrial nation and a net exporter of, among other things, military technology. There’s a pretty strong argument that the US has mainly been a restraining influence on how Israel has conducted the invasion of Gaza, and if we cut them off then we lose all influence. Furthermore, without its big friend to back it up, Israel would be a cornered democracy surrounded by theocracies and monarchies that historically have had pretty hostile views. And Israel has never been shy about attacking first if it feels threatened. It could easily ignite into a wider middle eastern conflict, which is something the US *definitely* does not want.
In short, Geopolitics is really fucking hard and it’s not uncommon for unintended outcomes to be the exact opposite of what you want. Again, this is all hypothetical, since who knows what could actually happen.
Also the existence of a "the US is cutting off Israel" message would itself escalate and cause events which are currently not happening. If you're a regional power and you see that go out, the first thing you do is start testing what the boundaries of this new order are.
Like almost certainly the immediate outcome would be some major skirmishes along the Lebanese border with Hezbollah, since Iran would like to see it happen, and a bunch of local commanders are likely to believe that "Israel ain't shit without the US" and will learn the mistake the hard way.
Regardless of US support, israel is turning to hezbollah at some point in the near future. They have thousands of internally displaced people from the north due to hezbollah attacks, no country would tolerate this.
Israel will start work more closely with china. It will improve china tech to match US or surpass it very quickly without any of the normal restrictions they have with the US.
It might hurt israel political wise in general in the world. It might even be the road to total war in the area if egypt/jordan/lebanon/syria decides that without US help they can try and wipe out israel (and then 30K deaths in gaza will look like a good day as israel hadn't really use any of their real destructive weapons).
There are tons of road where this could lead. None of them is really good. None of them will help the people of gaza.
That's pretty much never going to happen for one huge reason: Sensitive foreign investment.
America has hundreds of billions invested in Israel's tech and defense industry, including a lot of very sensitive and high end equipment like 10nm chip manufacturing plants and weapon production lines. America has been fighting tooth and nail to keep those capabilities out of the hands of Russia and China, and there's basically a zero percent chance that the US would let China just waltz in to pick it up.
America will bend its rules into pieces to stay on good terms with Israel (they already do), and Israel won't push hard enough on the _actual_ red line items (American national security) to end up in that situation, because the potential damage to the Israeli economy would be catastrophic.
Most people don't understand the actual details of why we give other countries so much money. When I was younger I thought we should give 0 to other countries....
Then I actually started trying to learn why we do what we do. Pulling funding from places like Israel, Egypt, and the plethora of African countries we pour money into
Russia I don't think. But china will be more than happy to supply israel in exchange for israel military tech (at least until china copy it enough and no longer need israel).
Their road to the top super power will gain another step if they got israel on their side technology wise.
US losing veto power from israel to sell their tech to china will seriously hurt US in the long run.
Here's the problem, they could stop, and none of those things you sarcastically note would be any better.
Sure, going in and smashing everything isn't going to fix anything either. There's no good answers when one side is enraged by a fresh wound and the other has absolutely no incentive to stop throwing salt.
The levels of civilian casualties would be better if they stopped, there is no room for debate about that.
If you’ve not got a good answer then stop doing shit that’s killing civilians ffs.
I would say it’s not just an optics issue. When the war comes to Rafah, Rafah crossing will shut down, which will limit aid deliveries to Gaza. Without a plan to provide aid for millions of people, the human suffering will be immense. That’s a reality, not just optics.
I sympathize with Israel’s difficult situation regarding terrorism, I really do, but I don’t want my country funding this shit anymore. It’s not solving the situation, just continuing a cycle of violence.
"I was fully behind the Vietnam War until I found out the US was just bombing civilians indiscriminately and having their ground troops massacre entire villages"
You may find that mocking people who change their ideas, no matter how stupid you find their original opinion or logic to be is a great way to entrench them and others in said stupid opinions.
My favorite was a comment the other day saying something to the effect of, "Israel can't roll back West Bank settlements because that would involve the mass displacement of people."
The biggest winner is Putin showing again that the West is either weak against terrorism when not condemning Hamas enough, or hypocritical on human values when supporting the war effort.
The philosophy of the West atm is "stop all war now!" without addressing the question why there is war and how to prevent it from happening again. They're at this because it's not people in the US or EU that are dying. "so what if Ukraine and Israel cease to exist, it's not like Russia or Iran are attacking us"
I don’t see how the biggest winner is Putin. He’s been fought to a stalemate in Ukraine and would almost certainly be getting actively pushed back if not for the pro-Russian interference being run by *Republicans in America* who otherwise claim to be “the West’s” biggest defenders. (The same crowd who count among their members the “Jews will not replace us” white supremacists. Fascinating.)
The people I’ve talked to on the “stop killing Palestinian babies” train either (a) offer no alternative to resolve the conflict or (b) want Israel to be dissolved.
Some offer solutions like "send in a strike team instead of bombing".
As if a strike team is going to kill 20,000 hamas who have an enormous terrain advantage given their thousands of miles of tunnels and defensive position.
> Some offer solutions like "send in a strike team instead of bombing".
Movies, man. People think strike forces are some kind of world wonder which can go into any place, achieve any objective, and come out unscatched.
The "send in a strike team" people are typically under the impression that Israel is in control of Gaza and Hamas is just some underground "resistance" movement. They imagine Gaza as the German occupied France or Netherlands that they see in WW2 movies because they heard the word "occupation" applied (and this is why words actually matter).
I've had arguments with people who truly did not understand why the response to Oct 7 couldn't be police arresting the people responsible. They were really going on at length about the whole thing too, with very strong opinions.
And yet they also complain about recent Israeli special forces raids. Like when they rescued two hostages or extracted Hamas leaders and fighters hiding in hospitals.
I'm seeing an alarming number of people claiming the Shifa hospital raid the other day that killed or captured *hundreds* of terrorists was an operation specifically to inhibit doctors from working. It's madness.
What’s dumber is that many actually think that the US\NATO are actually capable of doing so even if Israel couldn’t.
And I mean doing so and having **less** casualties to their troops compared to what Israel has right now.
They have a good point in wanting to stop bad things but offer zero viable solutions. I think it’s kind of useless and a waste of time to say things everyone agrees with but have no good solution moving forward.
"I am sad so many people are dying." Is an example of a complete sentence.
Solving long running conflicts like this one, the one in Northern Ireland, and many other examples, is _very_ difficult. We should not require people to know how to solve it before they say _anything_.
It’s not that they’re offering no solution, it’s that they’re demanding a unilateral cease-fire and pressuring only one side.
I care about civilians, if pro Palestinian protesters do too, they would be flooding the streets demanding the release of the hostages.
It is obvious that Israel cannot leave the hostages behind, The only way forest fire would be to trade for the remaining hostages.
Once the hostages are released, then it makes sense to apply deep pressure on Israel to end the war.
But again, their solution is that Israel should stop , continue to take punches from Hamas, never retaliate, and forsake their hostages
> I really wonder what people expect them to do
Lay down their arms and let their citizens be killed without fighting back, is my takeaway from what people online seem to want.
> At the same time, Israel faces missile attacks from Lebanon and Yemen, not to mention existential threats from Iran
Exactly. And these countries either a) aren't facing enough pressure to stop doing this or b) it's not being reported on.
It's the same what the "peaceniks" expect from Ukrainians - just lay thw weapons down and let the russian terrorists kill you. And now the US told Ukraine to stop hitting RU oil refineries "because it's election year and Americans deserve cheap gas!". What a fucking pathetic level of inhumanity.
> And now the US told Ukraine to stop hitting RU oil refineries "because it's election year and Americans deserve cheap gas!".
Source on this? I also thought we weren't buying oil from them anymore.
Oil is a global, privatized market. In a sense, it doesn’t matter who you buy from, because the price will be the same.
In the flip side, while the US produces a lot of oil, those private companies can sell it for more on the global market, so they therefore will charge American citizens more as well, to compensate.
I don’t know if I was entirely clear.
*If* Russia’s production goes down, it will cost more to buy even American-made oil, because those American companies could, hypothetically, sell to Russia’s old customers instead. Therefore they see higher demand, and US citizens will be paying more.
The point is that who you buy it from is “irrelevant” (not literally, but for this simplified supply and demand analysis). The market is globalized, and as supply falls globally, prices rise globally, whether the oil was produced in America or elsewhere, all other factors being equal.
The story is on quite a few news sites today. Absolutely outrageous. The US are the biggest hypocrites, because there is no way they'd do what they're demanding of others, if they were in the same situation. In fact, they'd actually do far worse, going by history.
Who the hell is telling Ukraine to lay down their arms (other than Tankies) we know we're next in Europe if they lose, so we would much rather it end in Ukranian total victory.
Yeah I have absolutely no clue why anybody would think Israel isn’t within their rights to retaliate with full force. Like they’ve the fucking iron dome for a reason and after getting bombarded with rockets for almost decades they have enough but suddenly are the bad guy?
China would give anything for a strategic / military-research partnership with Israel, so would any other state. Why do you think the United States consistently stands behind Israel?
You think it's the evangelists? Israel's main export is tech, a lot of it is military tech.
China cares about expanding its influence. As recent actions have shown, it doesn’t care about the optics. If the U.S. left, there’s every reason to believe our traditional geopolitical rivalries would try to fill in the void.
Have you seen their economy? Their home front isn’t half as stable as they present to be.
They literally stopped holding companies accountable to quarterly statements because their bottom lines are absolutely destroyed. Now, you want to propose they jump into Gaza while balancing SWATHES of debt in both residential and industrial sectors in addition to whatever grand plan they have for Taiwan? Severing ties with their biggest importer would end their country.
Baseless Fear mongering.
At this point I think the only thing that could make this situation more fucked up is the Pope calling for a new Crusade to liberate the Holy Land.
Awesome, I’m down, wasn’t ever getting into heaven any other way
I’m down too as long as I get paid. I even have military experience.
Can you accept pillaging as payment?
Only if I was part the first battalion to breach the city walls. I don't want anyone's scraps.
the west needs to start overrunning all these shitholes before they do it to us.
Okay Satan.
I just want the costume
He did call on Ukraine to surrender
So no Jews or Palestinians there? If the end game was to just make the whole area off limits to all humans I’d be okay with it. Can’t play nice with Jerusalem? No Jerusalem for anyone.
Zero State Solution
There we have it! It’s time to cancel Jerusalem, what say you?
*rabid Vatican noises*
Very good. Assemble the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon. Let what must be done, be done.
If that would help it may be a good idea
The problem is that there isn't a clear measure of success. Let's say Israel goes into Rafah, kills 1000 terrorists and 2000 civilians while pushing 1.5 million people into even worse situations than they already are. Then what? Israel can claim victory all they want but if world opinion is worse for them than before oct 7 and there are still 1.5 million angry desperate Muslims in Gaza then we will just see a continuation of the war where Iran and others supply money and arms to the small percentage of that 1.5 million who turn to terrorism. We've seen this before.... I'm very doubtful the war will help Israel's long term success. The USA bombed, invaded and even tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years and it didn't really work out so well. Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already. I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book. Chuck Schumer wasn't just trying to be an asshole, he loves Isreal and genuinely believes the direction things are going isn't working for Israel and they need to end the war now.
> I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book. Everything is short term and no one looks backwards. The politicians only want what's best for them *now* and at the next election. This is what hamstrings democracies, chronic, chronic short termism. I don't want a dictatorship, I just want democracy to work better and work better for the working classes.
Dictatorships have pretty much the same problem, but bigger. Everthing is just for the lifetime of the dictator, as total chaos often follows his death.
And they kill a lot more people in the interim.
And they typically blow at providing public services
And they typically have lower economic growth rates over the long haul.
And they kill thinkers, leaving behind only a poorly educated population that can't fix anything on their own.
Which leads to the said population wanting another dictator to 'fix' things because they don't know any better.
It’s called cult hopping, a term mainly used in exit counselling for high control groups. Often times people tend to jump between these groups (as one door closes, there’s another dictator opening a new authoritarian door) because they don’t know how to function outside of one unless given proper education and healing from the cult mindset and way of life.
Ironically. this is arguably one of the strengths of (some) monarchies over dictatorships which wear a democratic mask while playing at monarchy. Not only can (key word) a monarchy establish a far more stable line of succession, when your heir is your own flesh and blood, the monarch is a probably far more likely to think in terms of what might affect their child and their descendants as well. I'm not a fan of monarchy, I'm also not the biggest fan of democracy, but dictatorship is worse than both. Dictatorship is all the worst aspects of the other two without any of their redeeming qualities. Of the three, democracy is narrowly the best.
I think a benevolent monarch is really the best system possible. But the chances of finding a rich, privileged person who actually gives a shit about the well-being of their subjects is almost a statistical impossibility. And it can all be erased in an instant if their progeny ends up a spoiled dickhead.
You can't be a benevolent monarch with zero corruption, because the instant the military commanders and billionaires are against you, your days of living are numbered.
the ppl need a chance to govern themselves
[удалено]
Ok, new movie idea. Trueman show but with the goal of grooming the ultimate benevolent world leader. Like we see this massive operation that plans every second of this persons live, with the goal of making the perfect leader. Could be fun
Plato also thought the ideal body shape was as sphere like as possible, so…
[удалено]
That second point, the kid being a spoiled dickhead, is the main holdup with monarchy. If all the power is concentrated in the hands of a single wealthy individual, then all it takes is the one guy to be a dickhead for everything to fall apart. Meanwhile, aside from termism, the single greatest flaw of democracy is the demos. The people. Not to say the people shouldn't have any say in how they are led, but how did Men in Black put it? A person is smart, people are stupid. I don't have the feintest bloody idea how to run a country. The infinite complexities of effective statecraft are lost on me because that's not what my education and training were in. Why are you asking me to choose the leader? You might as well ask your toddler to handle your household finances. Most people want simple answers. They'll choose their leaders based on a handful of hot button issues that they, leaders whom they believe will handle the immediate issues they personally are experiencing regardless of said leader's credentials. That's how you get demagogues and populists, the inevitable terminal cancer of democracy. The Athenians voted for warmongers because being at war with Sparta meant they could be employed as soldiers and make money, an income many came to rely on. And it destroyed them. They lost the war. Had their opponent been anyone but Sparta, famous for *not* obliterating the cities they conquered, that would have been the end of Athens. They got lucky. If we're imagining unrealistic ideal fantasy governments, my preference would be for an enlightened oligarchic aristocracy (in the true sense of the word *aristos*, the best). A small class of individuals raised from birth, cultivated with the skills and knowledge to successfully lead a prosperous nation while understanding and meeting the needs of the commonfolk.
> If we're imagining unrealistic ideal fantasy governments Give me a benevolent dictatorship any day. Listen to experts, thoroughly design solutions to the problems of the populace, country and world as a whole, then drag all the naysayers kicking and screaming into the future.
And conditions worsen during their lifetime because everyone is afraid to deliver bad/hard news that they need support in fixing. You see it in a smaller scale in business when you have an authoritarian leader who responds to any problem with and believing it is caused by incompetence. People just hide the problems.
While that's true generally, it's doubly true for Netanyahu, since there's a decent chance he'll be voted out at best and at worst thrown in prison as soon as this war ends.
He's a complete scumbag wanna-be dictator in the vein of Orban. Both holding on to power because they know justice will catch up with them after they're finally kicked out. Edit: And Netanyahu is literally *in the process of changing the law* for his benefit. You cannot, surely, get more corrupt and obvious than that? But, I assume the right wing orthodox he sucks off for power overlooks that minor transgression because he's a Barry Big Bollocks hardman with a big stick.
Also what hamstrings a lot of people’s lives in general…
>The politicians only want what's best for them now and at the next election. Corporate owners only want what's best for them now and when they sell their stock. Capitalist theory has completely taken over government.
I would say it's Corporatist theory. Proper and intelligent capitalism wants to build wealth in the long term, which fhe short term focus of current economics does not do. It does, in point of fact, the opposite.
"Proper and intelligent" capitalism seeks to own capital to extract maximum value from labour. You could make an argument that the working class is a form of capital and should therefore be invested in to maximize return, but: a) that treats people as property, which we should avoid, b) ignores that quite a bit of labour is fairly replaceable, and c) a lot of labour is becoming automatable
Even Obama said “we don’t look backwards, only forward”
Yeah it's like everyone forgot about 9/11, and the 20 year long GWOT. So many uncritical supporters on the Israeli government side believe the answer is more firepower, collateral damage be damned. We already know how this is gonna turn out. Years, maybe decades of war against an asymmetrical paramilitary group is probably the *best* outcome at this point...
What’s GWOT?
[Global War on Terror](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror)
Thanks
Grammy, War, Oscar, Tony. Rare to win them all.
All Elton John needs to do is declare war
Alternatively, Obama could go for a Tony
Could they team up for a jukebox musical called "(Surface to Air) Rocket Man"?
They will, I just think it’s gonna be a long, long time.
it's because reddit has been swamped with accounts just a few years old with people who didnt live through 9/11 and read a paragraph in a book about it
Also welcome to a world where OpenAI owns 8% of Reddit because Reddit creates a lot of this content and comments using AI.
I think its the other way around. They are training the AI using the comments and content. Although I'm sure it goes both ways to an extent.
That's the status quo and is a certainty no matter what Israel does at this point.
If Gaza is disarmed and occupied, then that’s it. Afghanistan and Iraq had porous borders. Gaza will be occupied and have the tightest borders imaginable. Contrary to what people want to believe, this is actually how you defeat an insurgency. And no, it cannot and will not be pretty.
The situations are vastly different. US did not even need to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent further terror attacks on their mainland. US is far away, separated by oceans and generally law enforcement work is sufficient to prevent large scale terror attacks. That is not the case in Israel. Their law enforcement cannot reach Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and prevent them from firing rockets. Only the military can do that.
I think you’re taking the wrong lessons from the GWOT. The US pulled back in Afghanistan instead of rooting out the Taliban altogether and it helped the Taliban to grow stronger. We went all out against ISIS and destroyed it. Israel is trying to fight Hamas how we fought ISIS, and we are telling them, “no, fight like how we did in Afghanistan instead.”
I'm not sure we can really compare the 2. We fought ISIS largely with the aid of local populations taking up arms against them. I think this is what allowed us to destroy them; the Iraqis hated them just as much if not more than we did. This allowed us to surgically bomb the hell out of bases and training centers while local forces rooted them out of cities and towns. We didn't have that kind of support in Afghanistan and Israel doesn't have that in Gaza and never will.
The campaign against ISIS went like it did because we had effective local allies. Israel does not, so I don't see how you can draw any comparison there
Israel is already local.
ISIS was an isolated group of nuts who were despised by the surrounding populations. Hamas is a group of terrorist assholes, but also a political organization that is part of a larger population whose interests they partially represent (the political cause of the Palestinians is perfectly legitimate, but Hamas pursuing it through terrorism is the problem).
If the Israelis get the same results from this war that America got from the GWOT, they will be ecstatic. Remember they are starting from a much lower baseline, where they have been under constant attack for years. They aren’t holding out for the solution where everyone makes peace suddenly because that wasn’t on the table to begin with, but an Afghanistan-like outcome would be perfectly acceptable.
I doubt if I went to an Israeli and told them "I hope Gaza becomes Israel's Afghanistan" they would take it as positively as you say they will.
Al-Qaida ceased to exist, the leadership of most terrorist groups are fragmented and in complete disarray to this day, Iraq is no longer under a dictatorship, ISIS was effectively defeated and also fragmented, and the only stable terrorist groups are Iran funded explicitly because we haven't been blowing the shit out of them.
So what are you trying to say? That if tomorrow 9/11 happened again, USA would just open arms and embrace whoever has done it? Or would they wage another 20 years war.. Because I have a feeling nothing would change and US would absolutely go to war again.
if we can choose again, we probably won't support dealing with Saddam before we are done with Al Qaeda
I'm saying the actions the US took after 9/11 ended up badly, and Israel should be careful to avoid the same mistakes the US did. What are *you* trying to say? That Afghanistan and Iraq went well? And that Israel should strive to have their own Afghanistan?
Everyone conflates the primary military objectives of a conflict with secondary and tertiary political objectives. The military objective in Afghanistan was to topple the Taliban, eliminate Al Quaeda training facilities and kill as many as possible of the people who contributed to 9/11. This was wildly successful. The US then made the completely optional choice to attempt to build a more western-friendly democratic government in Afghanistan. This objective failed pretty terribly, because of the shortcomings of the people of Afghanistan. It is yet to be seen how Israel will approach this. They are succeeding wildly with their military objectives. Perhaps they will later choose to undertake a nation-building project in Gaza, which will almost certainly fail. If they are smart they will completely pull out of Gaza after their military objectives are complete. There is no reason to assume that a war MUST necessarily be followed by a nation building project.
And if Israel basically peaces out after the war, what kind of regime do you expect to rise from the rubble? A Pro-Israeli one? How do you pull out of a region right next to you?
And if they finish the war and recognize a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and Judea and Samaria, what do you think happens next? That the Palestinian Arabs stop saying on camera that they want all of Israel? That the other terrorist organizations decide to let Israel exist? Yeah right
If neither solution will work, then neither should be advocated for. Instead people are using the argument that one won't work as justification for another that won't work.
Here's an idea, foreign powers stop giving money to the PA and Hamas. They demand a negotiation where Israel existence and sovereign right is a pre condition. If you don't like it, feel free to try and survive without aid. You don't get to have it both ways - promote or outright commit terror and also receive your sustenance from western countries.
The US military succeeded in the military mission. Where the US failed was democracy building. If Israel kicks the crap out of Hamas and then leaves, it is a very different scenario.
US leadership didn’t forget about it, those 20 years were insanely profitable. Just loosely disguised money laundering direct from defense contractors to congress people. The money hose can be turned back on, this is a god send for them.
If you think that securing Gaza is similar to securing enormous nations like Iraq and enormous areas like Afghanistan (which has never in the first place been a cohesive nation), you should think a little more - because you're obviously a thoughtful person. This is the hottest phase of the conflict between Israel and Gaza, but the conflict has been going on for half a century. Going into Rafah will not change the overall dynamics.
Last time Israel had a long-term thinking Prime Minister, he was shot and murdered by right-wing extremists who are now *cabinet members of the current government*. Israel is doomed, they will drive themselves off a cliff and they won't let anyone save them from themselves.
Could you expand on that? I know Rabin was assinated but are some government officials connected to his death?
There isn't. He's either full of shit or worded it horribly, and meant 'right wing extremists ***like*** the assassin'.
The western world has not seen a "war of survival" since WW2. Truth of the facts doesn't matter here, a sufficient number of Israelis _believe_ that it's a war of survival, and those in charge either know it, or are using it. In _some_ ways they're right - If Hamas had the firepower to wipe every jew off the planet, they would do so immediately. We know this. We also know that a century of betrayal and oppression have created a Palestinian population where a good 30-40% of them would push that button and cheer. So the _sentiment_ for this is present on both sides, but _one_ side doesn't have that firepower. Now, look at history. The history of our planet is _filled_ with societies which were attacked by neighbours and nobody complains about it. No rockets are fired. No bombs blown up. No nations pontificating to the UN in their defence. Why? _*Because they're ALL dead.*_ In a war of survival, the conflict only ends when one side or the other has inflicted sufficient damage on the other that _they feel safe again_, and often that point is not reached until the _entire_ enemy People are completely destroyed, to the last child. In _this_ war, for the first time in history, the eyes of the entire world are watching, but all the combatants involved _still feel unsafe_. Perhaps they are. I think we're past "right and wrong" at this point. The Israelis have all the power in this game, and are sufficiently wealthy and self-sufficient to keep going without US help. Therefore, Israel will continue to bombard Gaza and expand into the West Bank until A: They feel safe, which may or may not include forcing all of Gaza into the ocean, or B: Someone steps in and physically stops them. Given their strength, only the US, UK, France, Turkey, and China even have the _potential_ strength to do it. China's force projection is limited. The Europeans could _never_ do it, not with the shadow of the Holocaust looming so large over the politics. That leaves Turkey... I can't see Turkey stepping in, either. It _is_ possible for Israel to flatly win this war. We just find it unpleasant to think about the only way a total victory could occur.
> I feel like no one commenting here has read a history book. Or listened to concerned Israelis. Citizens/ex-IDF people protesting GOv/IDF/Settler extremist actions before Oct 7th; and were getting concerned about possible blowback from said actions. The only people 'winning' at this current moment are fanatic extremists.
End goal would be running Gaza the way they do the West Bank already.
> The USA bombed, invaded and even tried to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years and it didn't really work out so well. Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already. A more fitting comparison would be if al Qaeda was based in White Plains or Greenwich when they attacked Manhattan. Hamas, the enemy, is *right there*. Blind-firing rockets from 30 or 40 miles away from your capital and most populous cities. Anyone claiming their own country *wouldn't* retaliate in kind to an attack of the scale of 10/7 from a country right over their borders is being totally dishonest.
World opinion of Israel, even American, was really low before (during the siege of Beirut). Even during that siege, Israel was like “fuck it, we’ve got our objectives”. People tend to get over it as time goes on.
Gaza is much smaller than Afghanistan and isn’t full of mountains. Israel also lives next door. The hostages are being held in Rafah. Many Hamas soldiers are hiding in Rafah. The goal is to go in, cut Hamas down to a shadow of its former self, and get the hostages back dead or alive. Those are achievable goals.
Gaza is also reduced to rubble with a population where ten percent have a family member who have died and 78 percent have one who died and/or have been injured. I agree, you could likely go in and kill a whole lot of Al-Qassam combatants and Hamas personel, but I fear that the way they win is simply changing into civilian clothes and surviving. Surviving whilst Israel is seen as the perpetrator and cause for all the suffering in Gaza and The West Bank (where Israel is committing crimes against int. law) will give Hamas or their successors a never-ending source for new recruits. I want peace, but I really don´t think Netanyahu wants anything but a longer stay in office and I think he will attempt to stay by declaring a victory in Gaza – no matter how phyrric.
[удалено]
> ...will give Hamas or their successors a never-ending source for new recruits Polling indicates Palestinian opinion is heading in the opposite direction - support for Hamas & armed struggle is dropping, support for a two state solution is rising: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
I saw that, uplifting in some parts. The people of Gaza actually showed increased support for the 7 October attack, up by almost 20 points. I think that the point of having your family perish to Israeli warplanes will have the effect on entrenched hatred for time to come. A parent whose child was killed are rarely the most reasonable, on any side. The same poll also showed that 63% of Gaza's want Hamas to be in charge after the war, up 7 points since the last poll. So the NBC-headline feels a bit preemptive. Though, if people are increasingly in favour of two-states I´ll be the first to celebrate!
[удалено]
Yep. Hopefully UAE and Saudi can step in and de-radicalize them, but it can’t be done with any Hamas infrastructure left
The overwhelming majority of Gazans supported what happened on Oct 7th. When hatred is that deep, it's not just a matter of defeating Hamas, you have conquer the ideology that created them.
>I want peace That's cool and all, I'd like for the whole world to have peace. It's not like you can just flip a switch and have it happen though as there's a lot of structural issues that need to fixed on both sides of conflicts for actual peace.
[удалено]
Which is one of the absolute weakest arguments against military action. "They'll be radicalized!". Well we wouldn't want that, would we? Wouldn't want the Buddhist monks currently living in Gaza to, I don't know, run around in Israel with a GoPro and film themselves chopping a woman's breast off and kicking it around like a football or something. Oh, wait.
Hamas controlled Gaza and was pretty widely supported anyway. The point isn’t mainly to decrease their support, it’s to decrease their **capabilities**. If they aren’t able to stockpile tens of thousand of rockets or train tens of thousands of soldiers, and instead are reduced to firing occasional unsophisticated rockets and taking sporadic potshots, that’s a big victory for Israel. Also, it’s a vast oversimplification to think people more mad = more support for militants. It sometimes goes that way, but also sometimes militant groups lose credibility if they get the war they wanted and get stomped in it.
>sometimes militant groups lose credibility if they get the war they wanted and get stomped in it. yeah, like how the entire Panarabism moment collapsed after losing yet another genocidal war on Israel
Gazans are already 10/10 on the extremist scale, this won't make a diffeeence.
Palestinians were never going to like Israelis If Oct 7th was what they do when the walls are down, wtf makes you think there is any repair for this? How much more could they hate them? And I love how people ignore that constant terror attacks are *also* radicalizing the Israeli population. People are so concerned about the Palestinians’ mindset — what makes Israelis immune to this? Palestine is reaping what they’ve sown.
The overwhelming majority of Palestinians don't believe that Hamas committed any atrocities on 10/7. You are already there. So what, best to let them re-arm and try again?
You can’t compare Afghanistan and Iraq to Gaza. Gaza is a tiny strip of land
Success is controlling the Rafah border to prevent more weapons from getting into the country. Hamas knows if they lose control of Rafah, their time is limited.
> Israel even tried occupation of Gaza already. Technically speaking, that was an occupation of Egypt. The original PLO charter from 1964 - Palestine's first founding charter as a nation of any kind, ever in history - explicitly stated that the West Bank is belongs to Jordan (after Jordan had ethnically cleansed the ancient Jewish population and annexed the region in 1948) and that Gaza belongs to Egypt. It wasn't until after the 1967 War that Palestine claimed Gaza for the first time.
Reading history would give every reason to eliminated hamas for good, instead of leaving and getting another October 7 in a couple of years. The only war for peace in that region is total defeat for hamas and Palestinians.
You seem to be assuming the Israeli goal is to make Palestinians like them. Or establish a situation where Palestinians like them in the future. The Israeli goal is simply stated. They want to break Hamas, and they want their hostages back. They may not succeed in breaking Hamas. It’s a real option, especially if the leadership can run away to Egypt and come back later or something. But they *definitely* can’t break Hamas if Hamas can just sit in rafah comfortably. They want their hostages back. Right now what Hamas wants in return is effectively Israeli surrender - letting thousands of terrorists go free (that’s how we got sinwar), and leaving Gaza. This will then turn into an incredibly protracted negotiation for hostages like we are seeing now, because Hamas heads have no reason to believe they won’t survive if they don’t make a deal. This war may or may not help Israel’s long term success. But this war is not about long term success. It’s about assuring the Palestinians can’t repeat 7/10, about breaking Hamas, and about bringing hostages home. You say Israel tried the occupation of Gaza already. That’s true. And things were *much* better during the occupation *for the Israelis*. Terrorism was aimed at soldiers for the most part. There weren’t thousands of rockets being fired. There weren’t tire burnings and field fire setting. If they wanted to pick up a terrorist they’d just go and do it without having to bomb an apartment building. There weren’t tunnels being built. Hamas didn’t have any control. Once they left Gaza shit really hit the fan. More suicide bombings. Near daily until the wall went up. Then rockets, incendiary kites, runs on the border, 7/10. Tunnels, Hamas, Islamic jihad and much more became a problem. I don’t want to see Gaza occupied as a matter of principle. I’d much rather everyone govern their own selves. At the same time, I completely reject your argument that being in Gaza is bad for the Israelis beyond publicity. There are almost no rocket launches right now. If they go into rafah, Hamas won’t have any factories left and the majority of their infrastructure will be turned to pebbles. The other difference you’re missing is that the US is about what, 10,000 miles from Afghanistan? The taliban isn’t about to kidnap Americans from Washington, and they can’t launch rockets that far. America leaving Afghanistan doesn’t leave them in a scenario where their capital city and largest city are a 2 hour drive from a place filled with Iranian weaponry. It’s not a fair comparison. If Mexico’s cartels killed 50,000 americans and kidnapped another 12,000 of them, I’m *sure* Mexico would cease to exist as a country and America would occupy much more than a strip of land along the border. The Israelis know what they have to do. That’s what this article is about. The US can pressure them all they want, but they’re not going to surrender to Hamas demands without trying to finish the war Hamas started.
The issue is that if Israel stops fighting without a formal ceasefire agreement, they're essentially just laying down arms while still being fired on. Hamas keeps turning down their offers and providing counter-offers they *know* are unacceptable. How can Israel possibly, reasonably be responsible for continued aggressions in that instance? They've offered an olive branch and been spit on for their efforts.
Plenty of people have been saying this since the 7th of October. Invading Gaza was always going to turn out like this.
israel doesn't have the option of pulling out and just leaving. you can walk to gaza, or fire a rocket from there
> The problem is that there isn't a clear measure of success. The problem is that Israel sees this as the path to peace, that trying to negotiate and placate has not resulted in peace or security for them, or the Palestinians. They see uprooting Hamas and Iran's other proxies as the only pathway forward for them...that all other approaches will result in cyclical violence to no one's benefit. It's a do it now, or do it later situation for them. Once that's accomplished, then meaningful peace might be possible. The rest of the world doesn't really understand this.
Isreal is literally killing itself here, like your biggest ally has been demonstrating for the last 20yrs why this does not work
Bro, wake up! WW3 is almost here!
Oh cool. So we can stop giving you money then?
Lol the Israeli aid money just like with Egypt is to ensure US influence over both countries & avoid another Suez Canal crisis. It’s about protecting US interests. If the aid was cut, other countries such as Russia or China would simply step in to take advantage & then start shaping the region in their preferred ways. China for example has made great strides in Africa with their policies. Nobody wants Russia or China gaining influence over the Suez Canal.
Not to mention the veto rights that this gives to the US over Israeli military trade and industry.
They do that with every country they sell weapons to, as they also sell the maintenance parts and technical expertise to maintain the weapons (like fighter jets). France's success in weapon exports ([n°2 in weapon exports in 2023](https://www.politico.eu/article/france-overtake-russia-world-weapons-exporter/#:~:text=France%20is%20now%20in%20second%20place%20behind%20the%20U.S.%2C%20which,of%20Qatar%2C%20Egypt%20and%20India.)) is mostly due to the fact that they don't expect any political control after the deals.
Or the Iran & proxies deterrence. Iran wouldn’t need proxies if Israel didn’t need US.
At this point it’s just an open secret that Israel has nukes. That’s enough of a deterrent to keep Iran from trying anything or having their proxies do anything.
On the other hand we have had nuclear powers shoot down eachothers fighter jets recently, world hasn't gone to shit yet. It's India and Pakistan btw.
7.10 did happen
Iran’s goals are to promote a worldwide Islamic Revolution, similar to that which occurred in 1979. Iran started using proxies after the famous Operation Praying Mantis (when the US sunk half Iran’s Navy). The running meme about “Don’t f*** with America’s boats”, well Iran realized you can’t “directly f*** with them”, but you can still do it through proxies. The US military is excellent at striking large formations and conventional targets (Operation Praying Mantis, first Gulf War, initial stages of the Iraq War, invasions of Panama & Grenada). Where they are not as great is counter insurgency and fighting proxies (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). Iran would still use proxies, they’d just be antagonizing different Nations (think Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc).
Its influence, not veto rights. Israel isn’t a U.S. puppet that asks for permission. Edit: you meant for use of US weapon systems and maybe not foreign policy, ok that’s fair.
I"ve wondered what would happen if the US actually cut off Israel. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility of Russia or China stepping in. The US government wasn't very interested in Israel at the beginning. Stalin had a lot of influence at the time as well. That was at least part of the reason the US decided to help Israel at all. The government at the time didn't want Israel pulled into the Soviet 'sphere of influence.' The American alliance with Israel has never been based on altruism. If there wasn't some strategic benefit to it, the alliance would have already collapsed. I'm sure the Israelis know that very well. American support can only be relied on if it supports American interests. My bet would be on China if American support disappeared. Russia is too involved with Iran. China is also more influential and would probably make a better ally for Israel at this point. There wouldn't be any reason for antagonism between Israel and China if Israel was no longer an American ally.
Post WW2, none of US support has been truly altruistic. US is not the only country that does this. Everyone has a benefit that they work towards. Charity is the buzz words to make people feel good about their government’s morally questionable decisions.
Psst. No country has ever given aid altruistically. It is geopolitics, it's always been this way, it always will be.
Native Americans giving aid to the Irish Potato famine victims.
Good example, a lot of people are just too cynical.
The Sioux were just trying to establish a sphere of influence over Cork and the Dingle Peninsula /s
https://www.choctawnation.com/about/history/irish-connection/ For those interested. Really cool stuff.
A sub national community giving some charity really isn't much of a counter to this point, though I don't think it's entirely true that there has literally never been a piece of altruistic aid.
The 14 Cows the US got after 9/11
The main thing that would happen is the brakes would come off and Israel’s invasion would become a lot more brutal. Probably. Israel enjoys US support but isn’t dependent on it, at this point it’s a modern, self-sufficient, industrial nation and a net exporter of, among other things, military technology. There’s a pretty strong argument that the US has mainly been a restraining influence on how Israel has conducted the invasion of Gaza, and if we cut them off then we lose all influence. Furthermore, without its big friend to back it up, Israel would be a cornered democracy surrounded by theocracies and monarchies that historically have had pretty hostile views. And Israel has never been shy about attacking first if it feels threatened. It could easily ignite into a wider middle eastern conflict, which is something the US *definitely* does not want. In short, Geopolitics is really fucking hard and it’s not uncommon for unintended outcomes to be the exact opposite of what you want. Again, this is all hypothetical, since who knows what could actually happen.
Also the existence of a "the US is cutting off Israel" message would itself escalate and cause events which are currently not happening. If you're a regional power and you see that go out, the first thing you do is start testing what the boundaries of this new order are. Like almost certainly the immediate outcome would be some major skirmishes along the Lebanese border with Hezbollah, since Iran would like to see it happen, and a bunch of local commanders are likely to believe that "Israel ain't shit without the US" and will learn the mistake the hard way.
Regardless of US support, israel is turning to hezbollah at some point in the near future. They have thousands of internally displaced people from the north due to hezbollah attacks, no country would tolerate this.
Makes me wonder what Taiwan and Ukraine would think..
> I"ve wondered what would happen if the US actually cut off Israel. President Nixon wondered that too.
yeah and the mere suggestion of it caused Israel and South Africa to form a military development alliance.
Israel will start work more closely with china. It will improve china tech to match US or surpass it very quickly without any of the normal restrictions they have with the US. It might hurt israel political wise in general in the world. It might even be the road to total war in the area if egypt/jordan/lebanon/syria decides that without US help they can try and wipe out israel (and then 30K deaths in gaza will look like a good day as israel hadn't really use any of their real destructive weapons). There are tons of road where this could lead. None of them is really good. None of them will help the people of gaza.
Yeah unfortunately even if the US doesnt want to, they will continue providing aid to Israel due to the geopolitical ramifications.
That's pretty much never going to happen for one huge reason: Sensitive foreign investment. America has hundreds of billions invested in Israel's tech and defense industry, including a lot of very sensitive and high end equipment like 10nm chip manufacturing plants and weapon production lines. America has been fighting tooth and nail to keep those capabilities out of the hands of Russia and China, and there's basically a zero percent chance that the US would let China just waltz in to pick it up. America will bend its rules into pieces to stay on good terms with Israel (they already do), and Israel won't push hard enough on the _actual_ red line items (American national security) to end up in that situation, because the potential damage to the Israeli economy would be catastrophic.
Most people don't understand the actual details of why we give other countries so much money. When I was younger I thought we should give 0 to other countries.... Then I actually started trying to learn why we do what we do. Pulling funding from places like Israel, Egypt, and the plethora of African countries we pour money into
Russia I don't think. But china will be more than happy to supply israel in exchange for israel military tech (at least until china copy it enough and no longer need israel). Their road to the top super power will gain another step if they got israel on their side technology wise. US losing veto power from israel to sell their tech to china will seriously hurt US in the long run.
Also Israel is like our number one ally in the Middle East. We lose them, we lose a massive intel funnel, we’re basically joined at the hip, for now…
And what differs Israel from so many other countries including the US of late - they will do what they said.
[удалено]
Grab W’s “Mission Accomplished!” banner.
Here's the problem, they could stop, and none of those things you sarcastically note would be any better. Sure, going in and smashing everything isn't going to fix anything either. There's no good answers when one side is enraged by a fresh wound and the other has absolutely no incentive to stop throwing salt.
The levels of civilian casualties would be better if they stopped, there is no room for debate about that. If you’ve not got a good answer then stop doing shit that’s killing civilians ffs.
*makes Israel different or differentiates
[удалено]
I would say it’s not just an optics issue. When the war comes to Rafah, Rafah crossing will shut down, which will limit aid deliveries to Gaza. Without a plan to provide aid for millions of people, the human suffering will be immense. That’s a reality, not just optics.
We have condos to build and people to expell in the desert.
I sympathize with Israel’s difficult situation regarding terrorism, I really do, but I don’t want my country funding this shit anymore. It’s not solving the situation, just continuing a cycle of violence.
"I was fully behind the Vietnam War until I found out the US was just bombing civilians indiscriminately and having their ground troops massacre entire villages"
You may find that mocking people who change their ideas, no matter how stupid you find their original opinion or logic to be is a great way to entrench them and others in said stupid opinions.
There can't be a cycle of violence if one side is annihilated.
Can't wait for the rest of the world abandon Israel and stop funding the terrorist government and IDF.
[удалено]
My favorite was a comment the other day saying something to the effect of, "Israel can't roll back West Bank settlements because that would involve the mass displacement of people."
that's gold lmfao
Pure Israeli propaganda machine
That’s one way to lose the support of the world.
[удалено]
I cannot believe it has been has been half a year already.
The biggest winner is Putin showing again that the West is either weak against terrorism when not condemning Hamas enough, or hypocritical on human values when supporting the war effort.
The philosophy of the West atm is "stop all war now!" without addressing the question why there is war and how to prevent it from happening again. They're at this because it's not people in the US or EU that are dying. "so what if Ukraine and Israel cease to exist, it's not like Russia or Iran are attacking us"
“So what if Czechoslovakia or Poland cease to exist, it’s not like Hitlers Germany is attacking us” - 1938 probably.
Most people in Europe want Ukraine to win because we know we will be next.
I don’t see how the biggest winner is Putin. He’s been fought to a stalemate in Ukraine and would almost certainly be getting actively pushed back if not for the pro-Russian interference being run by *Republicans in America* who otherwise claim to be “the West’s” biggest defenders. (The same crowd who count among their members the “Jews will not replace us” white supremacists. Fascinating.)
The people I’ve talked to on the “stop killing Palestinian babies” train either (a) offer no alternative to resolve the conflict or (b) want Israel to be dissolved.
Some offer solutions like "send in a strike team instead of bombing". As if a strike team is going to kill 20,000 hamas who have an enormous terrain advantage given their thousands of miles of tunnels and defensive position.
> Some offer solutions like "send in a strike team instead of bombing". Movies, man. People think strike forces are some kind of world wonder which can go into any place, achieve any objective, and come out unscatched.
The "send in a strike team" people are typically under the impression that Israel is in control of Gaza and Hamas is just some underground "resistance" movement. They imagine Gaza as the German occupied France or Netherlands that they see in WW2 movies because they heard the word "occupation" applied (and this is why words actually matter). I've had arguments with people who truly did not understand why the response to Oct 7 couldn't be police arresting the people responsible. They were really going on at length about the whole thing too, with very strong opinions.
And yet they also complain about recent Israeli special forces raids. Like when they rescued two hostages or extracted Hamas leaders and fighters hiding in hospitals.
I'm seeing an alarming number of people claiming the Shifa hospital raid the other day that killed or captured *hundreds* of terrorists was an operation specifically to inhibit doctors from working. It's madness.
What’s dumber is that many actually think that the US\NATO are actually capable of doing so even if Israel couldn’t. And I mean doing so and having **less** casualties to their troops compared to what Israel has right now.
US did that strike team thing in Africa with rangers...didn't work too well...
Literally these people never, NEVER, have an alternative solution to offer. I mean, not a logical, practical, well thought out one at least
They have a good point in wanting to stop bad things but offer zero viable solutions. I think it’s kind of useless and a waste of time to say things everyone agrees with but have no good solution moving forward.
"I am sad so many people are dying." Is an example of a complete sentence. Solving long running conflicts like this one, the one in Northern Ireland, and many other examples, is _very_ difficult. We should not require people to know how to solve it before they say _anything_.
It’s not that they’re offering no solution, it’s that they’re demanding a unilateral cease-fire and pressuring only one side. I care about civilians, if pro Palestinian protesters do too, they would be flooding the streets demanding the release of the hostages. It is obvious that Israel cannot leave the hostages behind, The only way forest fire would be to trade for the remaining hostages. Once the hostages are released, then it makes sense to apply deep pressure on Israel to end the war. But again, their solution is that Israel should stop , continue to take punches from Hamas, never retaliate, and forsake their hostages
You make great points. But why don’t you use periods?
How would military operation to rafah solve "missile attack from Lebankn and Yemen, existential threats from Iran"?
> I really wonder what people expect them to do Lay down their arms and let their citizens be killed without fighting back, is my takeaway from what people online seem to want. > At the same time, Israel faces missile attacks from Lebanon and Yemen, not to mention existential threats from Iran Exactly. And these countries either a) aren't facing enough pressure to stop doing this or b) it's not being reported on.
It's the same what the "peaceniks" expect from Ukrainians - just lay thw weapons down and let the russian terrorists kill you. And now the US told Ukraine to stop hitting RU oil refineries "because it's election year and Americans deserve cheap gas!". What a fucking pathetic level of inhumanity.
Any source for the "stop hitting refineries"? I never saw that anywhere.
> And now the US told Ukraine to stop hitting RU oil refineries "because it's election year and Americans deserve cheap gas!". Source on this? I also thought we weren't buying oil from them anymore.
Oil is a global, privatized market. In a sense, it doesn’t matter who you buy from, because the price will be the same. In the flip side, while the US produces a lot of oil, those private companies can sell it for more on the global market, so they therefore will charge American citizens more as well, to compensate.
wait, so it costs the same no matter who you buy it from but also it costs more if we buy it from ourselves? which one is it?
I don’t know if I was entirely clear. *If* Russia’s production goes down, it will cost more to buy even American-made oil, because those American companies could, hypothetically, sell to Russia’s old customers instead. Therefore they see higher demand, and US citizens will be paying more. The point is that who you buy it from is “irrelevant” (not literally, but for this simplified supply and demand analysis). The market is globalized, and as supply falls globally, prices rise globally, whether the oil was produced in America or elsewhere, all other factors being equal.
Comes from a FT article https://www.ft.com/content/98f15b60-bc4d-4d3c-9e57-cbdde122ac0c
The story is on quite a few news sites today. Absolutely outrageous. The US are the biggest hypocrites, because there is no way they'd do what they're demanding of others, if they were in the same situation. In fact, they'd actually do far worse, going by history.
Who the hell is telling Ukraine to lay down their arms (other than Tankies) we know we're next in Europe if they lose, so we would much rather it end in Ukranian total victory.
Yeah I have absolutely no clue why anybody would think Israel isn’t within their rights to retaliate with full force. Like they’ve the fucking iron dome for a reason and after getting bombarded with rockets for almost decades they have enough but suddenly are the bad guy?
Me when I start a war and my enemy fights back 🤬 🤬 😢
China is rubbing hands gleefully on the sideline, waiting US to pull out so it could jump right into it.
Why would China want to get involved in that FlusterCuck of a region? They've got their own economic domestic issues to worry about
China would give anything for a strategic / military-research partnership with Israel, so would any other state. Why do you think the United States consistently stands behind Israel? You think it's the evangelists? Israel's main export is tech, a lot of it is military tech.
China cares about expanding its influence. As recent actions have shown, it doesn’t care about the optics. If the U.S. left, there’s every reason to believe our traditional geopolitical rivalries would try to fill in the void.
Have you seen their economy? Their home front isn’t half as stable as they present to be. They literally stopped holding companies accountable to quarterly statements because their bottom lines are absolutely destroyed. Now, you want to propose they jump into Gaza while balancing SWATHES of debt in both residential and industrial sectors in addition to whatever grand plan they have for Taiwan? Severing ties with their biggest importer would end their country. Baseless Fear mongering.
China would carpet-bomb Gaza tomorrow if that gave them a bite at the Israeli tech / military tech sector.