2 ms·

I will gloss over the way you speak about Israeli losses. I am pretty sure you wouldn't speak like that ("only 13+67 dead, oh the pity!") if it were your countr

I will gloss over the way you speak about Israeli losses. I am pretty sure you wouldn't speak like that ("only 13+67 dead, oh the pity!") if it were your country. But logically this way of measuring harmfulness is idiotic. Hamas couldn't make more victims precisely because Israel had a lot of defensive and offensive systems to prevent that. All those systems are expensive financially, militarily, from a PR perspective, in term of personnel. It's like arguing guns are not dangerous since the usual targets wear a bulletproof vest anyway. A single Iron Dome counter missile costs 40000-100000 USD, for example. Hamas has tens of thousands of rockets which cost 1000 USD at best each.

littlestymaar 5y ago
> I will gloss over the way you speak about Israeli losses. I am pretty sure you wouldn't speak like that ("only 13+67 dead, oh the pity!") if it were your country. Of course I would! We (France) have lost more military than this (and a much much higher ratio among involved soldiers) in extra territorial operations in the past few years and we don't make a big deal about how powerful the African armed groups are… They aren't, the fight are almost always one-sided, but you can't wage war without losing men. Dozens of soldiers dying is nothing when talking about countries doing large-scale military operations. Of course, at the individual level it means 80 individual tragedies, with children losing parents, parents losing children, wifes losing husbands and so on. But on the military level, it reveals a highly asymmetric fight where you didn't really encountered resistance. Really far from your “Hamas is a powerful military” propaganda. > But logically this way of measuring harmfulness is idiotic Not if you actually tried to understand my point. Which I would rephrase for you: Tsahal is so dominant in this conflict it could get rid of Hamas military capabilities forever, with ease. They could completely remove the threat they cause to Israel, like how the Fatah on the West Bank is completely helpless today. But they do not do that, and it's on purpose: to wage war, you need an opponent, and nobody neither in the military, nor in the far-right in charge in the government, wants to end up without an enemy. The former because it would means budget cut (peacetime budget vs wartime budget), the later because they would have no scapegoat to justify their racist and expansionist policy.
- sharikous 5y ago
  Now I can understand what you are saying. There is definitely something in your point. But it's more complex than that. See, the Palestinian leadership needs to have an enemy too. And you say of the far-right in Israel they are "expansionist and racist", well Hamas/Fatah are arguably worse. And it's not like there would be no enemies and no need for a powerful military once Gaza is conquered and Hamas neutered (Iran? Hezbollah?). There are powerful interests in the Israeli side wanting to keep Hamas a menace, but there are also big interests on the Palestinian side too to keep the war going.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    > See, the Palestinian leadership needs to have an enemy too. And you say of the far-right in Israel they are "expansionist and racist", well Hamas/Fatah are arguably worse. I'm not discussing that. But only one side has the power of destroying the other and is instead keeping it alive on purpose. That's why I blame the Isreali government: Hamas is an evil terror group, and they deserve to die. > And it's not like there would be no enemies and no need for a powerful military once Gaza is conquered and Hamas neutered (Iran? Hezbollah?). The more enemies an army have, the better for their budget (the US DoD is really good at keeping multiple enemies relevant at the same time). Also, the other actors you mentioned are threats, but Israel is arguably not at war with them right now, which reduces their impact. And the army is only one side of the coin, the other is the far-right politicians, who really need Hamas to justify everything they do to other Palestinians inside Israel or in the West Bank, neither Iran nor Hezbollah makes good excuse for destroying Palestinians homes for instance.

littlestymaar 5y ago

> I will gloss over the way you speak about Israeli losses. I am pretty sure you wouldn't speak like that ("only 13+67 dead, oh the pity!") if it were your country. Of course I would! We (France) have lost more military than this (and a much much higher ratio among involved soldiers) in extra territorial operations in the past few years and we don't make a big deal about how powerful the African armed groups are… They aren't, the fight are almost always one-sided, but you can't wage war without losing men. Dozens of soldiers dying is nothing when talking about countries doing large-scale military operations. Of course, at the individual level it means 80 individual tragedies, with children losing parents, parents losing children, wifes losing husbands and so on. But on the military level, it reveals a highly asymmetric fight where you didn't really encountered resistance. Really far from your “Hamas is a powerful military” propaganda. > But logically this way of measuring harmfulness is idiotic Not if you actually tried to understand my point. Which I would rephrase for you: Tsahal is so dominant in this conflict it could get rid of Hamas military capabilities forever, with ease. They could completely remove the threat they cause to Israel, like how the Fatah on the West Bank is completely helpless today. But they do not do that, and it's on purpose: to wage war, you need an opponent, and nobody neither in the military, nor in the far-right in charge in the government, wants to end up without an enemy. The former because it would means budget cut (peacetime budget vs wartime budget), the later because they would have no scapegoat to justify their racist and expansionist policy.

sharikous 5y ago
Now I can understand what you are saying. There is definitely something in your point. But it's more complex than that. See, the Palestinian leadership needs to have an enemy too. And you say of the far-right in Israel they are "expansionist and racist", well Hamas/Fatah are arguably worse. And it's not like there would be no enemies and no need for a powerful military once Gaza is conquered and Hamas neutered (Iran? Hezbollah?). There are powerful interests in the Israeli side wanting to keep Hamas a menace, but there are also big interests on the Palestinian side too to keep the war going.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  > See, the Palestinian leadership needs to have an enemy too. And you say of the far-right in Israel they are "expansionist and racist", well Hamas/Fatah are arguably worse. I'm not discussing that. But only one side has the power of destroying the other and is instead keeping it alive on purpose. That's why I blame the Isreali government: Hamas is an evil terror group, and they deserve to die. > And it's not like there would be no enemies and no need for a powerful military once Gaza is conquered and Hamas neutered (Iran? Hezbollah?). The more enemies an army have, the better for their budget (the US DoD is really good at keeping multiple enemies relevant at the same time). Also, the other actors you mentioned are threats, but Israel is arguably not at war with them right now, which reduces their impact. And the army is only one side of the coin, the other is the far-right politicians, who really need Hamas to justify everything they do to other Palestinians inside Israel or in the West Bank, neither Iran nor Hezbollah makes good excuse for destroying Palestinians homes for instance.