4 ms·

That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existen

by hef19898 3y ago

That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existence as a state.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
The Zionist project began long before WW2 (and before WW1)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Not sure what that has to do with it. The current conflict between Palsetinians and Israel roots back to the foubdation of Israel as a state after WW2. Which I get, jews came pretty close to extinction, and arguably not a lot of people actually cared about that. Hence the need for a state of their own. 80 years and a bunch of wars, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, terror and air campaigns later, interseded with a handful of peace initiatives, the situation is truely FUBAR. I am not convinced so that leveling Gaza actually does a lot to solve that problem.
  - Maken 3y ago
    The origins of Israel go back to the post-WW1 Ottoman partition. WW2 just fed them more colonists.
lolinder 3y ago
From the perspective of Israel's defense forces, Hamas doesn't have that power because Israel responds the way it does. I'd imagine that for many in Israel the lesson of the 60s is that if given an opening all of their neighbors will attack, so Israel cannot ever be seen as responding lukewarmly to an attack, even one by a party that couldn't destroy them singlehandedly. (I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)
- hef19898 3y ago
  That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast). And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
  - falserum 3y ago
    It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
    - prewett 3y ago
      Sadly, both have to be willing to forgive for option 3 to work, so even if one side would be willing to, they are stuck unless the other side is also willing.
  - bloaf 3y ago
    I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back. The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight. If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians. In conclusion: Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it. Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.
amluto 3y ago
I think that what’s going on in the minds of those calling the shots on Israel’s side (or at least most of them) is: they’re not trying to level Gaza. They’re trying to fight a war against Hamas, and Hamas is fighting from positions in cities that are often literally on the grounds of or inside what ought to be protected civilian sites: hospitals, mosques, etc. And they are surely making what seems a straightforward tactical calculation: they could send infantry in to try to minimize civilian casualties at enormous cost to their infantry, or they could use their massively superior firepower to just destroy the Hamas positions from a distance. And the Israeli command feels the need to fight on the ground in the first place because Hamas is holding obviously innocent hostages and shooting militarily-useless but nonetheless quite dangerous explosive-filled rockets over the border. Hamas is goading them very effectively. If Israel could magically snap its fingers to destroy Hamas, get rid of all of Hamas’ weapons, and leave Gazan civilians, buildings and infrastructure alone, of course they would! One might ask why Hamas is doing any of the above. I don’t think Hamas is at all on the side of the residents of Gaza. Their strategy seems much better explained by some rather different goals: improving their own status in the world, raising money, making a really big show, weakening Israel, seeming and feeling important, and recruiting more militant members. I think that every Gazan civilian injury and death is in Hamas’ favor. Israel making itself look bad is in Hamas’ favor. More Gazans who hate Israel and feel hopeless and marginalized is in Hamas’ favor. So of course Hamas wants to keep holding hostages and randomly blowing stuff up in Israel. To be clear: I do not think Israel is making an ethically or strategically appropriate decision here. But I understand where they’re coming from. And I don’t think Hamas is making the right decisions either, ethically or strategically, at least if the goal is making a good, safe life for residents of Gaza.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Politically, Hamas has something in common with Nethanyahus government: the urge to stay in power. From that perspective, at least for now, both sides, Israels politicak leadership and Hamas leadership, have achieved their goal. Another thing both have in common: they don't give a fuck about the price other people have to pay in order to achieve that goal.

That explains what happened in 50s and 60s. Leveling Gaza in 2023 doesn't fall in that category, Hamas never had the power to do anything about Israel's existence as a state.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

The Zionist project began long before WW2 (and before WW1)

hef19898 3y ago
Not sure what that has to do with it. The current conflict between Palsetinians and Israel roots back to the foubdation of Israel as a state after WW2. Which I get, jews came pretty close to extinction, and arguably not a lot of people actually cared about that. Hence the need for a state of their own. 80 years and a bunch of wars, insurgencies, counter-insurgencies, terror and air campaigns later, interseded with a handful of peace initiatives, the situation is truely FUBAR. I am not convinced so that leveling Gaza actually does a lot to solve that problem.
- Maken 3y ago
  The origins of Israel go back to the post-WW1 Ottoman partition. WW2 just fed them more colonists.

lolinder 3y ago

From the perspective of Israel's defense forces, Hamas doesn't have that power because Israel responds the way it does. I'd imagine that for many in Israel the lesson of the 60s is that if given an opening all of their neighbors will attack, so Israel cannot ever be seen as responding lukewarmly to an attack, even one by a party that couldn't destroy them singlehandedly. (I'm not arguing that this position is correct, just trying to explain another possible perspective.)

hef19898 3y ago
That's the problem, isn't it? If you put yourself in the shoes of either side, you can see how they have very good reason to do what they do (except Israelian settlement policies, those basically amount to borderline ethnic cleansing, and force the IDF to move in after the fact, but that's a different beast). And since both sides are "right", there is no way this can end without outside intervention. An intervention that won't come, becaues nobody who could intervene is neutral enough, nor willing to be drawn into this.
- falserum 3y ago
  It’s multigenerational vendeta. Both sides have what to avenge for. Three ways how piece can be achieved here: - side a is wiped out - side b is wiped out - both sides turn the other cheek and shake hands. Both sides know that, and neither of them believe in cheeky business.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I saw an interview a while ago of an Israeli father who lost his kid in one of the previous wars, and who now works a Palestinian father, who also lost his kid, in order to find a peaceful solution. He confirmed your point by saying, I paraphrase, "we are doomed to live share this land together, or the graveyard under it". I really, really hope it will be tze "cheely" solution, the alternatives are, unfortunately, very much imaginable and incredibly painful and ugly.
  - prewett 3y ago
    Sadly, both have to be willing to forgive for option 3 to work, so even if one side would be willing to, they are stuck unless the other side is also willing.
- bloaf 3y ago
  I disagree. Palestinian terrorism is objectively counterproductive and driven by unreasonable domestic politics, not reasonable geopolitics. You can't be a successful politician in Palestine with a position of "lets make concessions to Israel so we can stop suffering." The only successful politicians for the past 60-odd years have been the ones promising to fight Israel and get the Palestinians their stuff back. The problem is that Palestine as a state has no military, economic, cultural or geopolitical bargaining chips to get their stuff back. That means every successful Palestinian politician is elected with a mandate to "get our stuff back" but without the means to do it. So they have two options: either make concessions to get some stuff back, or try to fight. If they make concessions, they lose their grip on power to the groups saying "Those guys are giving away stuff to Israel! We'll get your stuff back!" If they try to fight a conventional war they lose in a matter of weeks (evidently.) So their only option is to fight just enough that their constituents are convinced they're doing a good job, but not so much that Israel wipes them out. Hence, the 60-year history of terrorism and targeting civilians. In conclusion: Palestinians need to make concessions for peace so that they can accumulate the bargaining chips they need to get their stuff back from Israel. They are not doing that because the Palestinian people will not support any leaders that pursue that strategy; they believe violence is a viable means of getting their stuff back even though that has been factually incorrect for the past 60 years. It is possible that the geopolitical landscape may change in the future, and violence becomes a viable option, but wasting resources on fruitless wars does not help change it. Therefore it is not true that both sides have very good reasons to do what they do.

amluto 3y ago

I think that what’s going on in the minds of those calling the shots on Israel’s side (or at least most of them) is: they’re not trying to level Gaza. They’re trying to fight a war against Hamas, and Hamas is fighting from positions in cities that are often literally on the grounds of or inside what ought to be protected civilian sites: hospitals, mosques, etc. And they are surely making what seems a straightforward tactical calculation: they could send infantry in to try to minimize civilian casualties at enormous cost to their infantry, or they could use their massively superior firepower to just destroy the Hamas positions from a distance. And the Israeli command feels the need to fight on the ground in the first place because Hamas is holding obviously innocent hostages and shooting militarily-useless but nonetheless quite dangerous explosive-filled rockets over the border. Hamas is goading them very effectively. If Israel could magically snap its fingers to destroy Hamas, get rid of all of Hamas’ weapons, and leave Gazan civilians, buildings and infrastructure alone, of course they would! One might ask why Hamas is doing any of the above. I don’t think Hamas is at all on the side of the residents of Gaza. Their strategy seems much better explained by some rather different goals: improving their own status in the world, raising money, making a really big show, weakening Israel, seeming and feeling important, and recruiting more militant members. I think that every Gazan civilian injury and death is in Hamas’ favor. Israel making itself look bad is in Hamas’ favor. More Gazans who hate Israel and feel hopeless and marginalized is in Hamas’ favor. So of course Hamas wants to keep holding hostages and randomly blowing stuff up in Israel. To be clear: I do not think Israel is making an ethically or strategically appropriate decision here. But I understand where they’re coming from. And I don’t think Hamas is making the right decisions either, ethically or strategically, at least if the goal is making a good, safe life for residents of Gaza.

hef19898 3y ago
Politically, Hamas has something in common with Nethanyahus government: the urge to stay in power. From that perspective, at least for now, both sides, Israels politicak leadership and Hamas leadership, have achieved their goal. Another thing both have in common: they don't give a fuck about the price other people have to pay in order to achieve that goal.