3 ms·
> 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 c
by 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.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago> 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. The most difficult and perhaps most important skill for a soldier is knowing when NOT to pull the trigger. Here's an interview with Delta operator Dale Comstock, when he had an opportunity to shoot a gunman but didn't because he knew he'd hit the civilian BEHIND him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iSUUWl8nes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iSUUWl8nes "You have to make good decisions, because you have to live with them." The problem isn't the "What" Israel is doing, it's the how. We know Israel has the tools at its disposal to conduct an air campaign differently. It has the aviation platforms, the munitions, the surveillance assets, the AI models to assist with information processing. All of that can combine to produce a Master Air Attack Plan and supporting Air Tasking Orders, managed by an Air Operations Center with a robust Fires Cell that should be capable of significantly suppressing Hamas's rocket artillery without rendering Gaza uninhabitable. But that isn't what the IAF did. So they are either incompetent, or malevolent. Given that the IAF has a multi-decade reputation for being VERY competent, that kinda narrows it down. > 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. Israel's munitions stockpile is not large. It is quite possible that at the tail end of surged bombing missions against Hamas, the IAF would not have had enough ordnance to be decisive against Hezbollah. I think Iran is adroitly avoiding putting Israel into a situation where it feels existentially threatened until Iran has some sort of solution to the Samson Option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option Hezbollah didn't initiate a massive cross-border invasion because Iran doesn't want Israel to panic and nuke the entire Middle East. The overwhelming violence unleashed against Gaza doesn't impact that decision space in Tehran. >I was talking about a temporary solution that could save lives. We've seen "temporary" displacement of Palestinians turn into permanent displacement often enough that no one is willing to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on this again. >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. Aid money != domestic economic independence. It's the difference between teaching a man to fish, and giving him fish. These two things are not the same, so it is fallacious to say that this has been tried already. Would Hamas have been pissed off enough to shoot rockets into Israel if they were instead enriching the population by collecting revenue from...say...the Gaza Airport Terminal, which was the pride of the Palestinian people? Gee, what ever happened to the Gaza Airport? Oh right, it was completely razed by the IDF. With no indications there was any military necessity to doing so. >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. Perhaps a massive UN peacekeeping force needs to man DMZs between Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon, with large contributions from India and China (non-US, non-Muslim states interested in burnishing their global influence). Then implement a regional Armament Treaty for all involved parties/states. I would emphasize that all parties can maintain robust air-defense arsenals but are restricted on offensive strike systems: so the masses of Hezbollah rocket artillery needs to go away....but so does most of the IAF's fixed wing aircraft and large bombs. Israel needs to formally declare its nuclear arsenal and join the NPT. Basically make it so everyone doesn't really have the ability to do anything more than annoy each other. People will still die but we've got to get the violence back down to manageable levels so that economic development solutions can have an opportunity to bear fruit. Even this is probably an unpalatable solution....I don't think Iran will tolerate a nuclear-armed Israel without having SOME means to make Israel think twice about using it. But it's a start.