5 ms·

For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with th

by edanm 3y ago

For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it. > Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances. The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.

hef19898 3y ago
Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that. Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
- edanm 3y ago
  > Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself. > The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets. Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force. Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Re Suicide Bombers: By so far I meant in current conflict. Re bombing and airstrikes: For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes? The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
    - edanm 3y ago
      > The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story. This rings so hollow to me. People were out protesting Israel the day of the October 7th attacks, which was before Israel had done anything! In the eyes of many people in the world, Israel is guilty, period, no matter what it does. Not to mention, and this is also a pretty important point - Israel showing initial restraint would've made it look weak, which could easily have meant that this war would've turned into a multi-state regional conflict. Hezbollah for weeks was watching from the sidelines, deciding whether to join the conflict or not. Had they done so, casualties on all sides would be far far higher. People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint. > For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. That's a very sad consequence of the fact that Hamas uses that civilian infrastructure, thus making it effectively not civilian any more. > And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes? C'mon. Israel could easily attack and kill far more people. Just look at actual mass slaughters that have happened. Israel isn't coming anywhere close to what it could do if it wanted. Unlike Hamas, it isn't constrained by capability. Also, it is now doing a ground offensive which is causing far more Israeli soldier casualties, instead of continued bombing.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth. The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies. What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now. As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.

by edanm 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that. Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.

edanm 3y ago
> Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself. > The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets. Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force. Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Re Suicide Bombers: By so far I meant in current conflict. Re bombing and airstrikes: For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes? The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story.
  - edanm 3y ago
    > The best strategy for Israel would have been to show retraint, because now Israel is slowly ending up as the villain of this story. This rings so hollow to me. People were out protesting Israel the day of the October 7th attacks, which was before Israel had done anything! In the eyes of many people in the world, Israel is guilty, period, no matter what it does. Not to mention, and this is also a pretty important point - Israel showing initial restraint would've made it look weak, which could easily have meant that this war would've turned into a multi-state regional conflict. Hezbollah for weeks was watching from the sidelines, deciding whether to join the conflict or not. Had they done so, casualties on all sides would be far far higher. People seem to forget that the way to stop wars is to make the so costly as to not be worth it, which you don't do by showing restraint. > For not having the purpose of wrecking civilian infrastructure, the Israeli airforce sure did a great job at wrecking it regardless. That's a very sad consequence of the fact that Hamas uses that civilian infrastructure, thus making it effectively not civilian any more. > And far more force, how? Cracking out the nukes? C'mon. Israel could easily attack and kill far more people. Just look at actual mass slaughters that have happened. Israel isn't coming anywhere close to what it could do if it wanted. Unlike Hamas, it isn't constrained by capability. Also, it is now doing a ground offensive which is causing far more Israeli soldier casualties, instead of continued bombing.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      There were demonstrations against Israel, for sure. The public perception so is shifting. Abu Ghraib like pictures, sieges of hospitals, large scale distruction of housing and so on and so forth. The IDF is the heavy weight in this conflict, the Goliath and not the David. And when the Goliath, the heavy weight, continues punching the weaker foe, there is a point where he looks more like the baddy. Regardless of what the other party did initially. Not sure Israel can afford loosing support from its allies. What does drive me crazy so, is the argument of "but they used civilian buildings, so they were legitimate targets". That's not how this works, and that it doesn't work that way is one of the reasons why asymetrical warfare is so damn hard. That argument didn't fly in WW2, and it doesn't fly now. As the stronger party, an overreaction doesn't make you look strong, it makes you look butt hurt. The US did after 9/11 as well, and it got them nowhere. Restraint, with the hint of being able to use much more severe measures, makes you look strong as oppossed to be a bully. Goes dor every conflict at every level throughout history, not just the current one in Gaza.