6 ms·

Israel is no longer some great vanguard against "Terror in the world". It is a strategically important ally, for sure, but its usefulness has been especially wa

Israel is no longer some great vanguard against "Terror in the world". It is a strategically important ally, for sure, but its usefulness has been especially waning over the past 20 years. The behavior of the Israeli government and their military has been abhorrent, even in the wake of a horrible tragedy like 10/7. In line with that: The Israeli government and its supporters have become so accustomed to unwavering American support that they have started to take actions with a sense of ill-deserved impunity. The /tantrum/ that the Israeli government and the IDF threw has eroded good will all over the world. Based on its actions, recently and over decades, Israel is no longer seen as some unwavering force for good and right that it claims to be. The sooner Israel recognizes its increasingly precarious position of having unwavering western support, the better - both for itself, and the world.

phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
- parl_match 3y ago
  The correct response should have been a measured hunting down of Hamas, increasing offensive attacks, and shoring up the wall. The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw. Maybe don't do this: > At least 43% of all housing units in the Gaza Strip have been either destroyed or damaged since the start of the hostilities, according to the Ministry of Public Works and Housing in Gaza. Or this: > More than 6,500 people have been killed in Israeli air strikes and more than 17,400 injured. Not only was what it did morally wrong, but Israel has just created a generation of martyrs. It has created a humanitarian crisis for over 2 million people. Over 3000 children dead. Is that justified? Or is it a tantrum? The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. The news media is not the final arbiter of mass information. If someone, like you, challenges people by saying "it's complicated" or "those numbers are fake", I can easily point to wikipedia and a dearth of well respected and in depth research websites. It's a new world. People who have unconditional support of Israel are now finding themselves having this information repeatedly thrown in their face, causing them to topple off of the moral high ground they believed they held. What you are feeling is likely this. Can you remember the last time the public was so largely outraged by Israel's actions? Did it ever have this tenor? Did western countries' support waver? If "young people" is your answer, then you are about to be blindsided.
  - LAC-Tech 3y ago
    The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. I would put it slightly differently. News has been more democratised - and we can argue whether that's good or bad - but people are more and more compiling their own version of events rather than relying on a tiny handful of elite journalists at prestigious institutions to compile it for them. There are also now a lot of English speaking Arabs online, which means their voices are heard more and more often.
    - parl_match 3y ago
      I was being more broad, but yeah, I generally agree. It also has weakened the voice of a mainstream narrative from western powers (particularly the US gov). Actually, and this is an aside, one of the reasons there's been such dissonance from western countries on this issue is the US' power has had a marked decrease since the Iraq Invasion. An invasion that was part of a long tantrum response to another atrocity. History repeats itself.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ashirusnw 3y ago
    You say "The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw." ... and then go on to describe the containment strategy that they've tried since 2005. The reality is that after Hamas' declaration of war, war was a terrible necessity. The extent of that necessity will be debated until the end of time, but I haven't seen the large public outrage that you describe. Yes, there's plenty of it, but as a whole just as much understanding of Israel's position and why so many civilians in Gaza died in the bombings.
    - parl_match 3y ago
      The reality is that 3000 innocent children are dead. The reality is that many more innocent adults are dead. The reality is that almost a third of Palestinian housing is unlivable. The reality is that 2,000,000 people are now in a humanitarian crisis, due to IDF attacks. You can waffle about if it was or wasn't necessary, but the end result is that Israel is, if nothing else, facing a massive blow to public and western support as a result of their response - a response which seems more punitive than effective. This is incredibly dangerous for Israel, and what they've done may have hurt them in the long term more than help them. The American invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan has some parallels.... I don't have all the answers, I just call it like I see it.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  wow... so in response to 1400 people being murdered what do you believe the correct response should have been Those figures are from Israeli sources[1]. We must be careful using figures from active combatants to assess something. To paraphrase an earlier post of yours [2] "All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?" Was any military action "justified" Yes. I don't think many people would have been upset with extrajudicial assassinations by the IDF in Gaza. But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israe... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38453490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38453490 [3] https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-report-33-situation-gaza-strip-and-west-bank-including-east-Jerusalem https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-repo...
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    >>All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?" Yes... It is >>But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate. This is where we disagree. These was no way to do it any more surgical then they did. All militaries soften a entrenched enemy with Ariel bombing. That is standard practice. People that claim "they should have just killed Hamas only" are highly ignorant of military tactics and have unrealistic expectations for military conflict If bombing was off the table, then you are effectively saying there is no reponse what you would find justified
    - xg15 3y ago
      What kind of military tactic is cutting off water, denying food and humanitarian aid in a "total siege" and deliberately causing a humanitarian crisis? As in, they didn't cause the crisis as a side-effect of the bombing, they very purposefully starved them of food and water.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        Hamas caused humanitarian crisis but redirecting decades of humanitarian aid money to their military efforts and not to building up internal infrastructure I find it holy ironic that given the opportunity to build internal infrastructure instead they build rockets and bought guns and then relied upon their "enemy" for their basic needs
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Israel is a rich country, they don't need western support. In fact, western support is probably the only thing stopping them from straight genociding Palestinians. The day their western support ends is likely the day we see the largest humanitarian crisis in the history of the world begin.

phpisthebest 3y ago

[flagged]

parl_match 3y ago
The correct response should have been a measured hunting down of Hamas, increasing offensive attacks, and shoring up the wall. The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw. Maybe don't do this: > At least 43% of all housing units in the Gaza Strip have been either destroyed or damaged since the start of the hostilities, according to the Ministry of Public Works and Housing in Gaza. Or this: > More than 6,500 people have been killed in Israeli air strikes and more than 17,400 injured. Not only was what it did morally wrong, but Israel has just created a generation of martyrs. It has created a humanitarian crisis for over 2 million people. Over 3000 children dead. Is that justified? Or is it a tantrum? The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. The news media is not the final arbiter of mass information. If someone, like you, challenges people by saying "it's complicated" or "those numbers are fake", I can easily point to wikipedia and a dearth of well respected and in depth research websites. It's a new world. People who have unconditional support of Israel are now finding themselves having this information repeatedly thrown in their face, causing them to topple off of the moral high ground they believed they held. What you are feeling is likely this. Can you remember the last time the public was so largely outraged by Israel's actions? Did it ever have this tenor? Did western countries' support waver? If "young people" is your answer, then you are about to be blindsided.
- LAC-Tech 3y ago
  The one thing that I think has changed between now and the last time there was a major conflict is that the internet exists. I would put it slightly differently. News has been more democratised - and we can argue whether that's good or bad - but people are more and more compiling their own version of events rather than relying on a tiny handful of elite journalists at prestigious institutions to compile it for them. There are also now a lot of English speaking Arabs online, which means their voices are heard more and more often.
  - parl_match 3y ago
    I was being more broad, but yeah, I generally agree. It also has weakened the voice of a mainstream narrative from western powers (particularly the US gov). Actually, and this is an aside, one of the reasons there's been such dissonance from western countries on this issue is the US' power has had a marked decrease since the Iraq Invasion. An invasion that was part of a long tantrum response to another atrocity. History repeats itself.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ashirusnw 3y ago
  You say "The attacks also proved that Israel's "containment" strategy has a massive flaw." ... and then go on to describe the containment strategy that they've tried since 2005. The reality is that after Hamas' declaration of war, war was a terrible necessity. The extent of that necessity will be debated until the end of time, but I haven't seen the large public outrage that you describe. Yes, there's plenty of it, but as a whole just as much understanding of Israel's position and why so many civilians in Gaza died in the bombings.
  - parl_match 3y ago
    The reality is that 3000 innocent children are dead. The reality is that many more innocent adults are dead. The reality is that almost a third of Palestinian housing is unlivable. The reality is that 2,000,000 people are now in a humanitarian crisis, due to IDF attacks. You can waffle about if it was or wasn't necessary, but the end result is that Israel is, if nothing else, facing a massive blow to public and western support as a result of their response - a response which seems more punitive than effective. This is incredibly dangerous for Israel, and what they've done may have hurt them in the long term more than help them. The American invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan has some parallels.... I don't have all the answers, I just call it like I see it.
LAC-Tech 3y ago
wow... so in response to 1400 people being murdered what do you believe the correct response should have been Those figures are from Israeli sources[1]. We must be careful using figures from active combatants to assess something. To paraphrase an earlier post of yours [2] "All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?" Was any military action "justified" Yes. I don't think many people would have been upset with extrajudicial assassinations by the IDF in Gaza. But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israe... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38453490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38453490 [3] https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-report-33-situation-gaza-strip-and-west-bank-including-east-Jerusalem https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-repo...
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>All of those come from Israel, is that a source you trust?" Yes... It is >>But displacing 1.7 million people[3] is disproportionate. This is where we disagree. These was no way to do it any more surgical then they did. All militaries soften a entrenched enemy with Ariel bombing. That is standard practice. People that claim "they should have just killed Hamas only" are highly ignorant of military tactics and have unrealistic expectations for military conflict If bombing was off the table, then you are effectively saying there is no reponse what you would find justified
  - xg15 3y ago
    What kind of military tactic is cutting off water, denying food and humanitarian aid in a "total siege" and deliberately causing a humanitarian crisis? As in, they didn't cause the crisis as a side-effect of the bombing, they very purposefully starved them of food and water.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Hamas caused humanitarian crisis but redirecting decades of humanitarian aid money to their military efforts and not to building up internal infrastructure I find it holy ironic that given the opportunity to build internal infrastructure instead they build rockets and bought guns and then relied upon their "enemy" for their basic needs

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Israel is a rich country, they don't need western support. In fact, western support is probably the only thing stopping them from straight genociding Palestinians. The day their western support ends is likely the day we see the largest humanitarian crisis in the history of the world begin.