5 ms·

I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know,

by edanm 2y ago

I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know, and have spoken about what Israel is doing. Regarding your point of putting refugees inside of Israel - I don't know if there's any practical way to do this. It is impossible to tell apart Hamas militants and normal civilians. Even if you somehow made a vast area inside of Israel to house the refugees, you're all but guaranteeing thousands of Hamas operatives getting into Israel as well. Do you similarly support the idea of letting the refugees into Egyp in a similar manner? Cause that seems like the obvious solution to the problem from my perspective (and is the "usual" solution in urban war situations). Except Egypt absolutely refused to allow this, and almost no one pushed them on this, often claiming it was an attempt at more ethnic cleansing from Israel. (Apparently sacrificing Palestinian lives to prevent ethnic cleansing, without asking them, is somehow moral?)

CapricornNoble 2y ago
> I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know While it's been over a decade since I've controlled live aircraft or built an Air Tasking Order, I've managed rather complex dynamic airspaces in exercises within the past few years. Points #1 & #2 are basic stuff that would be incorporated into how the USMC and Joint Services conduct air operations. I haven't worked with the IAF but I assume their approach to battlespace management is roughly analogous to a NATO nation. The sheer amount of ordnance dropped in the first few weeks after October 7th was indicative of a completely permissive air campaign. In other words, it was conducted with NO concern for collateral damage, probably against a bunch of pre-planned targets from a Prioritized Target List that was refined over a period of years prior. And almost certainly with little or no terminal control (i.e. nobody looking at the targets on the ground minutes/seconds prior to ordnance release to ensure there were no civilians at the target, or to even verify that they destroyed what they meant to destroy). > Even if you somehow made a vast area inside of Israel to house the refugees, you're all but guaranteeing thousands of Hamas operatives getting into Israel as well. Yes, there are some risks involved. Saving lives is a hard decision. But even if Hamas operatives end up inside new Israeli camps, you are separating them from their military infrastructure, heavy ordnance, and logistics supply chains. You are also extending an olive branch in a very real and tangible way, which would make inroads in giving them a different perspective of Israel besides "these are the people who have killed my relatives/destroyed my home". > Do you similarly support the idea of letting the refugees into Egypt in a similar manner? Cause that seems like the obvious solution to the problem from my perspective No. Why should Egypt be forced to allocate resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster that entirely derives from Israeli actions? The Palestinians were not driven out of homes in Egypt, they were driven out of homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, etc. Gaza is starving and without healthcare because the Israeli Air Force, not the Egyptian Air Force, has bombed the place back to the stone age. Israel could at any moment decide "Hey you know what we're just gonna honor the 1967 borders and recognize a two-state solution too. From now on we expect to diplomatically deal with the Palestinian State via your capital in Eastern Jerusalem. Also we are lifting our maritime blockade so you can conduct international trade via ports in Gaza once you build them....and once you start exporting gas from your Gaza Marine 1/2 offshore gas fields....lemme know if you want to hire some Israeli engineers to help build all that though." You don't have to give them hand-outs, make them borrow money (probably from Qatar or Iran, but still...) to pay for Israeli services like any other trade deal...but normalize their economic opportunities. That would radically change the circumstances of the Palestinian people....regardless of Egypt's position on the matter. The Palestinian refugee problem is entirely a creation of Israel; it is Israel's burden to bear. Under no circumstances should the neighboring countries reward Israel with what the far-right in the Likud Party want: to be the sole inhabitants and controllers of what was originally "Mandatory Palestine". You may consider these actions a complete non-starter. At some point Israelis will need to come to terms with reality: their state in its current incarnation is dependent on maritime trade imports, even to keep their most pivotal military branch (the Air Force) supplied with munitions. That munitions supplier and principal political benefactor is also beginning a period of pretty severe imperial decline. You are surrounded by increasingly well-equipped adversaries who are refining their skills at modern protracted/attritional warfare....a style of warfare that Israel does not have the population to sustain. It is likely that continuing to "massacre your way to security" will no longer be a viable course of action. As the timeline extends further to the right....prognosis negative. It's an interesting variation on the "iron triangle" problem: distinctly Jewish state, liberal democracy, multi-ethnic/multi-religious population. Pick two. I think Israelis would lean towards the first two....but that requires either killing or expelling almost the entire Palestinian population, which obviously the rest of the planet is no longer interested in tolerating.
- edanm 2y ago
  > The sheer amount of ordnance dropped in the first few weeks after October 7th was indicative of a completely permissive air campaign. In other words, it was conducted with NO concern for collateral damage, probably against a bunch of pre-planned targets from a Prioritized Target List that was refined over a period of years prior. Yes, this seems accurate. And this caused a large amount of the civilian deaths. However, I think this is actually one of the most defensible actions Israel took. This started after an invasion of Israel in which thousands of militants roamed around inside the country and literally took over towns, a military base and a police station. It also happened while Israel was being daily bombarded with rockets multiple times a day. Israel was literally shut down for a couple of weeks because of the massive rocket fire. The economy was completely shut down, schools were shut down, etc, as we ran into safe rooms 3-5 times a day. And in the background, for the first three weeks, we waited to hear if Hezbollah would join in the action, which was clearly the goal of Hamas. Had they done so, we suspected it could lead to a massive war with huge losses. We've since seen that the situation was even worse than most of us suspected - if you're following along with what the IDF is uncovering in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah apparently had stockpiles of weapons and massive tunnels primed to attack Israel, in a move that could've made October 7th look like a picnic. This is a situation that no country in the world would countenance. You can't invade and shut down a country without a massive retaliatory strike. And it is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that only the massive Israel strike on Gaza prevented Hezbollah from joining in the war. Had they done so, I have little doubt the death toll in all countries would be much higher. > Yes, there are some risks involved. Saving lives is a hard decision. But even if Hamas operatives end up inside new Israeli camps, you are separating them from their military infrastructure, heavy ordnance, and logistics supply chains. You are also extending an olive branch in a very real and tangible way, which would make inroads in giving them a different perspective of Israel besides "these are the people who have killed my relatives/destroyed my home". I think there was no realistic way to do this inside of Israel logistically. We're talking about a massive population here - how in the world would you be able to secure this. I think Israel should've done a lot of other things to earn good will among Gazans, like being the ones securing and giving out aid to the people ASAP, etc. > Why should Egypt be forced to allocate resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster that entirely derives from Israeli actions? The Palestinians were not driven out of homes in Egypt, they were driven out of homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, etc. I was talking about a temporary solution that could save lives. > Israel could at any moment decide "Hey you know what we're just gonna honor the 1967 borders and recognize a two-state solution too. From now on we expect to diplomatically deal with the Palestinian State via your capital in Eastern Jerusalem. Also we are lifting our maritime blockade so you can conduct international trade via ports in Gaza once you build them....and once you start exporting gas from your Gaza Marine 1/2 offshore gas fields....lemme know if you want to hire some Israeli engineers to help build all that though." We've seen that this does not work. Israel tried the route of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - "honoring the '67 borders" - and they elected Hamas, which promptly started shooting rockets at Israel and spent the billions they receive in aid money building up attacks against Israel. Had Israel done the equivalent of the Gaza withdrawal in the West Bank, deciding to unilaterally leave all Palestinians lands without any negotiation, without any agreements on what things would look like the day after... we'd have just had October 7th, but much worse. There is no alternative to a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Unfortunately most Israelis believe that it can't happen, since the last time Israel sincerely made the effort to achieve peace, those efforts were met with terrorism (and in Gaza, the election of Hamas). But I agree with you completely - a negotiated two state solution is the only viable way forward. I just have no idea if it can actually be done.

by edanm 2y ago

CapricornNoble 2y ago

> I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know While it's been over a decade since I've controlled live aircraft or built an Air Tasking Order, I've managed rather complex dynamic airspaces in exercises within the past few years. Points #1 & #2 are basic stuff that would be incorporated into how the USMC and Joint Services conduct air operations. I haven't worked with the IAF but I assume their approach to battlespace management is roughly analogous to a NATO nation. The sheer amount of ordnance dropped in the first few weeks after October 7th was indicative of a completely permissive air campaign. In other words, it was conducted with NO concern for collateral damage, probably against a bunch of pre-planned targets from a Prioritized Target List that was refined over a period of years prior. And almost certainly with little or no terminal control (i.e. nobody looking at the targets on the ground minutes/seconds prior to ordnance release to ensure there were no civilians at the target, or to even verify that they destroyed what they meant to destroy). > Even if you somehow made a vast area inside of Israel to house the refugees, you're all but guaranteeing thousands of Hamas operatives getting into Israel as well. Yes, there are some risks involved. Saving lives is a hard decision. But even if Hamas operatives end up inside new Israeli camps, you are separating them from their military infrastructure, heavy ordnance, and logistics supply chains. You are also extending an olive branch in a very real and tangible way, which would make inroads in giving them a different perspective of Israel besides "these are the people who have killed my relatives/destroyed my home". > Do you similarly support the idea of letting the refugees into Egypt in a similar manner? Cause that seems like the obvious solution to the problem from my perspective No. Why should Egypt be forced to allocate resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster that entirely derives from Israeli actions? The Palestinians were not driven out of homes in Egypt, they were driven out of homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, etc. Gaza is starving and without healthcare because the Israeli Air Force, not the Egyptian Air Force, has bombed the place back to the stone age. Israel could at any moment decide "Hey you know what we're just gonna honor the 1967 borders and recognize a two-state solution too. From now on we expect to diplomatically deal with the Palestinian State via your capital in Eastern Jerusalem. Also we are lifting our maritime blockade so you can conduct international trade via ports in Gaza once you build them....and once you start exporting gas from your Gaza Marine 1/2 offshore gas fields....lemme know if you want to hire some Israeli engineers to help build all that though." You don't have to give them hand-outs, make them borrow money (probably from Qatar or Iran, but still...) to pay for Israeli services like any other trade deal...but normalize their economic opportunities. That would radically change the circumstances of the Palestinian people....regardless of Egypt's position on the matter. The Palestinian refugee problem is entirely a creation of Israel; it is Israel's burden to bear. Under no circumstances should the neighboring countries reward Israel with what the far-right in the Likud Party want: to be the sole inhabitants and controllers of what was originally "Mandatory Palestine". You may consider these actions a complete non-starter. At some point Israelis will need to come to terms with reality: their state in its current incarnation is dependent on maritime trade imports, even to keep their most pivotal military branch (the Air Force) supplied with munitions. That munitions supplier and principal political benefactor is also beginning a period of pretty severe imperial decline. You are surrounded by increasingly well-equipped adversaries who are refining their skills at modern protracted/attritional warfare....a style of warfare that Israel does not have the population to sustain. It is likely that continuing to "massacre your way to security" will no longer be a viable course of action. As the timeline extends further to the right....prognosis negative. It's an interesting variation on the "iron triangle" problem: distinctly Jewish state, liberal democracy, multi-ethnic/multi-religious population. Pick two. I think Israelis would lean towards the first two....but that requires either killing or expelling almost the entire Palestinian population, which obviously the rest of the planet is no longer interested in tolerating.

edanm 2y ago
> The sheer amount of ordnance dropped in the first few weeks after October 7th was indicative of a completely permissive air campaign. In other words, it was conducted with NO concern for collateral damage, probably against a bunch of pre-planned targets from a Prioritized Target List that was refined over a period of years prior. Yes, this seems accurate. And this caused a large amount of the civilian deaths. However, I think this is actually one of the most defensible actions Israel took. This started after an invasion of Israel in which thousands of militants roamed around inside the country and literally took over towns, a military base and a police station. It also happened while Israel was being daily bombarded with rockets multiple times a day. Israel was literally shut down for a couple of weeks because of the massive rocket fire. The economy was completely shut down, schools were shut down, etc, as we ran into safe rooms 3-5 times a day. And in the background, for the first three weeks, we waited to hear if Hezbollah would join in the action, which was clearly the goal of Hamas. Had they done so, we suspected it could lead to a massive war with huge losses. We've since seen that the situation was even worse than most of us suspected - if you're following along with what the IDF is uncovering in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah apparently had stockpiles of weapons and massive tunnels primed to attack Israel, in a move that could've made October 7th look like a picnic. This is a situation that no country in the world would countenance. You can't invade and shut down a country without a massive retaliatory strike. And it is entirely possible, and I would say likely, that only the massive Israel strike on Gaza prevented Hezbollah from joining in the war. Had they done so, I have little doubt the death toll in all countries would be much higher. > Yes, there are some risks involved. Saving lives is a hard decision. But even if Hamas operatives end up inside new Israeli camps, you are separating them from their military infrastructure, heavy ordnance, and logistics supply chains. You are also extending an olive branch in a very real and tangible way, which would make inroads in giving them a different perspective of Israel besides "these are the people who have killed my relatives/destroyed my home". I think there was no realistic way to do this inside of Israel logistically. We're talking about a massive population here - how in the world would you be able to secure this. I think Israel should've done a lot of other things to earn good will among Gazans, like being the ones securing and giving out aid to the people ASAP, etc. > Why should Egypt be forced to allocate resources to mitigate the consequences of a disaster that entirely derives from Israeli actions? The Palestinians were not driven out of homes in Egypt, they were driven out of homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Ashkelon, etc. I was talking about a temporary solution that could save lives. > Israel could at any moment decide "Hey you know what we're just gonna honor the 1967 borders and recognize a two-state solution too. From now on we expect to diplomatically deal with the Palestinian State via your capital in Eastern Jerusalem. Also we are lifting our maritime blockade so you can conduct international trade via ports in Gaza once you build them....and once you start exporting gas from your Gaza Marine 1/2 offshore gas fields....lemme know if you want to hire some Israeli engineers to help build all that though." We've seen that this does not work. Israel tried the route of unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - "honoring the '67 borders" - and they elected Hamas, which promptly started shooting rockets at Israel and spent the billions they receive in aid money building up attacks against Israel. Had Israel done the equivalent of the Gaza withdrawal in the West Bank, deciding to unilaterally leave all Palestinians lands without any negotiation, without any agreements on what things would look like the day after... we'd have just had October 7th, but much worse. There is no alternative to a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Unfortunately most Israelis believe that it can't happen, since the last time Israel sincerely made the effort to achieve peace, those efforts were met with terrorism (and in Gaza, the election of Hamas). But I agree with you completely - a negotiated two state solution is the only viable way forward. I just have no idea if it can actually be done.