8 ms·

Are you saying that changes on Israel's part could cause Hamas to stop their aggression? That seems very unlikely - Hamas doesn't even pretend to be open to pea

Are you saying that changes on Israel's part could cause Hamas to stop their aggression? That seems very unlikely - Hamas doesn't even pretend to be open to peaceful coexistence with Israel. Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. Or that it could lead to Gazans overthrowing Hamas? It's possible, but it would take a violent rebellion since Hamas doesn't hold elections, and realistically it would probably take generations for sentiment to change. It would be hard for Israelis to just accept that they will be attacked for generations, with increasing sophistication (mainly thanks to Iran's support), with no response.

sudosysgen 3y ago
This is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel materially supported Hamas and saw it as useful. Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. On the other hand, Israel is not facing good geopolitical headwinds. As Yemen demonstrated, they are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. One day, in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. That of course doesn't justify Hamas's inhuman war crimes, but acting as if war is unprovoked is not consistent with reality - Israel has never, by the definitions in international law, stopped actively waging war against Gaza.
- dlubarov 3y ago
  I agree Israel ought to be able to prevent similar ground invasions, but what about rockets? The Iron Dome has been relatively effective so far, but the technological gap won't last forever. Hamas has already acquired rockets like the Fajr-5, despite the blockade. Once they start using guidance systems, the destruction will be much greater, and 90% interception rate won't be good enough. Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost.
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    How would guidance systems increase the destruction? If anything, history has shown that precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties - there isn't much of a point building a single precision guided missile, instead of 100 imprecise dumb rockets, when your goal is terror bombing (the calculus is slightly different for bombs, however). > Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost. This is an odd gripe. Israel is perpetrating repeated attacks in the West Bank, every single day, and the Palestinian Authority as well as the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank have been tolerating repeated attacks for decades now. In fact, it is perfectly possible to tolerate repeated attacks with limited response, and there are many examples of countries tolerating low-impact attacks for a very long time with little response. Preventing Hamas or a Hamas-like group from existing is not possible as a matter of reality, not as a matter of geopolitical cost. Israel already tried the whole occupation thing, and it only meant more attacks. The only way to remove Hamas from power, without them being replaced by not-Hamas-in-name-only, is to convince Gazans, for a second time, that peaceful coexistence is possible, and to actually give it a shot this time.
    - Aeolun 3y ago
      > the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank have been tolerating repeated attacks for decades now I’m fairly certain it’s more an inability to respond in any effective way.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
        Hamas doesn't have an ability to respond in an effective way either, yet here we are. If anything, it's far easier to get supplies and engage in terrorism in the West Bank than it is in Gaza.
    - dlubarov 3y ago
      > precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties Yes, but normally the user is targeting military assets and trying to minimize collateral damage. I think it's clear that Hamas has the opposite goal, since they typically lob unguided rockets in the general direction of population centers.
- edanm 3y ago
  > Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. While there were gigantic failures that no one denies, possibly to the level of gross incompetence, Israel is also fighting against a real enemy, not some cartoon. Hamas is also smart, is increasingly well-armed, and can wait many years until the next attack. It's not clear that Israel can defend against every conceivable attack that Hamas can mount, and staying completely vigilant all the time is very costly economically, too. (I'll note that Hamas puts a lot of money and labor into these attacks, but they are pretty freely stealing from their people; the Israeli government can't do the same.) It's true that, on its own, Hamas can't actually conquer Israel. But it can clearly carry out massive attacks that kill thousands and completely upend all life in Israel, and it's possible that they can keep doing this every couple of years. > So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. Actually, Israel is on relatively good terms with all its Arab neighbors (relative to the past), and was on the verge of formalizing those good relations with Saudi Arabia. That's one of the reasons for this Hamas attack - to try and stop the Israeli-Arab peace process, because they feel (very likely correctly) that it leaves the Palestinians in a worse situation. > It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. Well, they did elect Hamas and fairly quickly start to shoot rockets at Israel. And by that token they are also at war with Egypt. Gaza isn't a fully independent country, obviously, but it's also not under full military occupation like it was before. People insisting on one or the other usually have a point that it helps them prove, but reality is more complicated. I do believe that it is directionally true that Gazans could've made far more of their situation once Israel withdrew, and Hamas has basically squandered that opportunity by turning to violence.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. The US + Israel + allies can/will absolutely level these countries if necessary. Both history and current events demonstrate that. Do you really think they are at the mercy of what Yemen does?
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    Life is not a video game. The US and Saudi Arabia already spent 7 years trying to level Yemen to stop them from firing cruise missiles everywhere in the region, and failed. The US didn't managed to stop Iraq from launching ballistic missiles until over a year after the decision to invade was made, and now look at Iraq right now, various militias are still firing missiles at US military bases and getting away with it. Yemen is just a proxy of Iran, ultimately, and the US has already lost multiple proxy wars against Iran. Invading Iran itself is not a workable proposition, either.
geysersam 3y ago
> would probably take generations for sentiment to change It will likely take forever unless steps are taken to initiate a peace process.
- zo1 3y ago
  Honestly I'm not sure how we can start a peace process after the terrorist atrocities that were committed? At this point I think the best is to just evacuate all Palestinians to the rest of the Arab countries as refugees and then just leave the contested territory as unoccupied and "dmz" like for both sides. And honestly where tf is the UN in all of this?
  - uuiipppjjj 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - zen_1 3y ago
    > Honestly I'm not sure how we can start a peace process after the terrorist atrocities that were committed? Israel somehow managed to convince other arab states and the US to make peace after the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty incidents, I'm sure they can manage to find some equivalent forgiveness in their hearts this time around :) > At this point I think the best is to just evacuate all Palestinians to the rest of the Arab countries as refugees and then just leave the contested territory as unoccupied and "dmz" like for both sides. Logistically far more israelis have dual citizenship elsewhere than Palestnians, so perhaps they should leave instead?
    - gershy 3y ago
      I think anyone who's read about the lavon affair and the uss liberty will laugh at the comparison to oct. 7th
ignoramous 3y ago
> Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. That was 2004. By 2017, their asks, for all intents and purposes, were the same as the PA: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...
- reissbaker 3y ago
  Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met. They offered only a ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders, not a permanent peace deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas Anyway, they've shown their true colors at this point; very different statements recently: > Since the shocking Hamas attack on Oct. 7, in which Israel says about 1,400 people were killed — most of them civilians — and more than 240 others dragged back to Gaza as captives, the group’s leaders have praised the operation, with some hoping it will set off a sustained conflict that ends any pretense of coexistence among Israel, Gaza and the countries around them. “I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,” Taher El-Nounou, a Hamas media adviser, told The Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-is...
  - ignoramous 3y ago
    > Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met. India doesn't have peace with Pakistan. Doesn't mean the 2 nuclear powers (similarly partitioned up by the British) are at perpetual war. Hamas like PA accepts 2SS. It is expantionists in Israel that reject it. In fact, PA concedes to have a state on merely 19% of historic Palestine.
    - reissbaker 3y ago
      I feel like you missed the part where the official Hamas spokesman called for permanent war.
dang 3y ago
(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746496, but I detached it from there, i.e. moved it to the top level, because this subthread is better than the surrounding flamewar it was in.)

sudosysgen 3y ago

This is greatly complicated by the fact that Israel materially supported Hamas and saw it as useful. Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. On the other hand, Israel is not facing good geopolitical headwinds. As Yemen demonstrated, they are extremely vulnerable to a blockade. One day, in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. That of course doesn't justify Hamas's inhuman war crimes, but acting as if war is unprovoked is not consistent with reality - Israel has never, by the definitions in international law, stopped actively waging war against Gaza.

dlubarov 3y ago
I agree Israel ought to be able to prevent similar ground invasions, but what about rockets? The Iron Dome has been relatively effective so far, but the technological gap won't last forever. Hamas has already acquired rockets like the Fajr-5, despite the blockade. Once they start using guidance systems, the destruction will be much greater, and 90% interception rate won't be good enough. Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  How would guidance systems increase the destruction? If anything, history has shown that precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties - there isn't much of a point building a single precision guided missile, instead of 100 imprecise dumb rockets, when your goal is terror bombing (the calculus is slightly different for bombs, however). > Even if Israel could limit the damage in the long term, it doesn't seem politically viable to just tolerate repeated attacks with no response. So I think it's inevitable that Israel will have to remove Hamas from power, no matter the geopolitical cost. This is an odd gripe. Israel is perpetrating repeated attacks in the West Bank, every single day, and the Palestinian Authority as well as the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank have been tolerating repeated attacks for decades now. In fact, it is perfectly possible to tolerate repeated attacks with limited response, and there are many examples of countries tolerating low-impact attacks for a very long time with little response. Preventing Hamas or a Hamas-like group from existing is not possible as a matter of reality, not as a matter of geopolitical cost. Israel already tried the whole occupation thing, and it only meant more attacks. The only way to remove Hamas from power, without them being replaced by not-Hamas-in-name-only, is to convince Gazans, for a second time, that peaceful coexistence is possible, and to actually give it a shot this time.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    > the vast majority of Palestinians in the West Bank have been tolerating repeated attacks for decades now I’m fairly certain it’s more an inability to respond in any effective way.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      Hamas doesn't have an ability to respond in an effective way either, yet here we are. If anything, it's far easier to get supplies and engage in terrorism in the West Bank than it is in Gaza.
  - dlubarov 3y ago
    > precision weapons tend to reduce civilian casualties Yes, but normally the user is targeting military assets and trying to minimize collateral damage. I think it's clear that Hamas has the opposite goal, since they typically lob unguided rockets in the general direction of population centers.
edanm 3y ago
> Ultimately Israelis don't have to suffer serious attacks from Hamas. Hamas doesn't have that power, militarily - only gross incompetence from the IDF allows that kind of attack. While there were gigantic failures that no one denies, possibly to the level of gross incompetence, Israel is also fighting against a real enemy, not some cartoon. Hamas is also smart, is increasingly well-armed, and can wait many years until the next attack. It's not clear that Israel can defend against every conceivable attack that Hamas can mount, and staying completely vigilant all the time is very costly economically, too. (I'll note that Hamas puts a lot of money and labor into these attacks, but they are pretty freely stealing from their people; the Israeli government can't do the same.) It's true that, on its own, Hamas can't actually conquer Israel. But it can clearly carry out massive attacks that kill thousands and completely upend all life in Israel, and it's possible that they can keep doing this every couple of years. > So Israel desperately needs to make amends with its Arab neighbors, and it can stop any real attack from Hamas. That makes the situation pretty different and assymetrical. Actually, Israel is on relatively good terms with all its Arab neighbors (relative to the past), and was on the verge of formalizing those good relations with Saudi Arabia. That's one of the reasons for this Hamas attack - to try and stop the Israeli-Arab peace process, because they feel (very likely correctly) that it leaves the Palestinians in a worse situation. > It also bears note that, if you judge Gaza as a country, it would not be able to cause any act of agression, as the Israeli blockade alone constitutes an act of war and a casus belli. Well, they did elect Hamas and fairly quickly start to shoot rockets at Israel. And by that token they are also at war with Egypt. Gaza isn't a fully independent country, obviously, but it's also not under full military occupation like it was before. People insisting on one or the other usually have a point that it helps them prove, but reality is more complicated. I do believe that it is directionally true that Gazans could've made far more of their situation once Israel withdrew, and Hamas has basically squandered that opportunity by turning to violence.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>in the not so distant future, the US won't be able to intercept all the missiles of Israel's enemies on its behalf, and Israel will have to contend with the threat of a total blockade. The US + Israel + allies can/will absolutely level these countries if necessary. Both history and current events demonstrate that. Do you really think they are at the mercy of what Yemen does?
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  Life is not a video game. The US and Saudi Arabia already spent 7 years trying to level Yemen to stop them from firing cruise missiles everywhere in the region, and failed. The US didn't managed to stop Iraq from launching ballistic missiles until over a year after the decision to invade was made, and now look at Iraq right now, various militias are still firing missiles at US military bases and getting away with it. Yemen is just a proxy of Iran, ultimately, and the US has already lost multiple proxy wars against Iran. Invading Iran itself is not a workable proposition, either.

geysersam 3y ago

> would probably take generations for sentiment to change It will likely take forever unless steps are taken to initiate a peace process.

zo1 3y ago
Honestly I'm not sure how we can start a peace process after the terrorist atrocities that were committed? At this point I think the best is to just evacuate all Palestinians to the rest of the Arab countries as refugees and then just leave the contested territory as unoccupied and "dmz" like for both sides. And honestly where tf is the UN in all of this?
- uuiipppjjj 3y ago
  [flagged]
- zen_1 3y ago
  > Honestly I'm not sure how we can start a peace process after the terrorist atrocities that were committed? Israel somehow managed to convince other arab states and the US to make peace after the Lavon Affair and USS Liberty incidents, I'm sure they can manage to find some equivalent forgiveness in their hearts this time around :) > At this point I think the best is to just evacuate all Palestinians to the rest of the Arab countries as refugees and then just leave the contested territory as unoccupied and "dmz" like for both sides. Logistically far more israelis have dual citizenship elsewhere than Palestnians, so perhaps they should leave instead?
  - gershy 3y ago
    I think anyone who's read about the lavon affair and the uss liberty will laugh at the comparison to oct. 7th

ignoramous 3y ago

> Their best offer was a 10-year ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders. That was 2004. By 2017, their asks, for all intents and purposes, were the same as the PA: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-char...

reissbaker 3y ago
Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met. They offered only a ceasefire in exchange for 1967 borders, not a permanent peace deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas Anyway, they've shown their true colors at this point; very different statements recently: > Since the shocking Hamas attack on Oct. 7, in which Israel says about 1,400 people were killed — most of them civilians — and more than 240 others dragged back to Gaza as captives, the group’s leaders have praised the operation, with some hoping it will set off a sustained conflict that ends any pretense of coexistence among Israel, Gaza and the countries around them. “I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,” Taher El-Nounou, a Hamas media adviser, told The Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-is...
- ignoramous 3y ago
  > Even their updated 2017 demands did not include peace with Israel if met. India doesn't have peace with Pakistan. Doesn't mean the 2 nuclear powers (similarly partitioned up by the British) are at perpetual war. Hamas like PA accepts 2SS. It is expantionists in Israel that reject it. In fact, PA concedes to have a state on merely 19% of historic Palestine.
  - reissbaker 3y ago
    I feel like you missed the part where the official Hamas spokesman called for permanent war.

dang 3y ago

(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746496, but I detached it from there, i.e. moved it to the top level, because this subthread is better than the surrounding flamewar it was in.)