[RD] War in Gaza News: Pas de Deux

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Netanyahu says the ceasefire is OFF this Saturday unless hostages are released; uncertain if it means the ones that were previously scheduled or all remaining ones

Netanyahu threatens to resume fighting in Gaza if hostages aren't released Saturday

The first phase of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is supposed to last six weeks. But three weeks in, both Israel and Hamas are accusing the other of violating the deal, and Hamas’ threat to delay freeing more hostages has prompted Israel to prepare to resume fighting if needed.

apnews.com

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday threatened to withdraw from the ceasefire in Gaza and directed troops to prepare to resume fighting Hamas if the militant group does not r elease more hostages on Saturday.

Hamas said Monday — and reiterated Tuesday — that it planned to delay the release of three more hostages after accusing Israel of failing to meet the terms of the ceasefire, including by not allowing an agreed-upon number of tents and other aid into Gaza.

Amid the mounting tensions, U.S. President Donald Trump emboldened Israel to call for the release of even more remaining hostages on Saturday.
...
It wasn’t immediately clear whether Netanyahu’s threat referred to the three hostages scheduled for release on Saturday or all the remaining hostages, which would be a departure from the terms of the ceasefire. Netanyahu’s office said it “welcomed President Trump’s demand.”

 

[Gorbles]

OK, putting aside my general, uh, surprise, that this has been said

It's been said before. Maybe not by me. And now we have direct Israeli confirmation of the commands given.

Can you think of any recent example in which this tactic spectacularly backfired on them?

So it's pure utilitarianism all the way down?

Anyhow, yes, Israel are enjoying some of the steepest drops in public perception and have only been propped up on the International stage by the US' previous inaction and a subsequent election that has gone in Bibi's favour. They've suffered significant internal dissent that has repeatedly harmed the government to the extent that only the prolonged war effort is keeping it together.

This all adds up. It might not be as concrete as the Israeli response to October 7th, but unlike said Israeli response, no further ongoing culpability can very laid at Hamas' feet (beyond the military engagement both sidesare carrying out). On the other hand, Israel's ongoing excesses and flagrant violations of international law, combined with the choices made by the international community to support them in this for the sake of geopolitical support in the ME (often at the cost of domestic support at home) are a repeating pattern.

It's kinda apples and oranges. You have to apply a bit of nuance.

That said, if you want to rely on pure utilitarianism, then Hamas should logically continue to do whatever harms Israel to bring the faults further and further to damaging the state (in whatever way that manifests). This doesn't mean any of the things you suggested. They would all contribute to Israel being able to handle Palestine in a more conventional manner.

Moralism aside, naturally. No rules should be obeyed, because it's all about the ends justifying the means. "Hamas bad" means nothing, because "Israel bad" means nothing. Bad ends retroactively suggest bad means, and the inverse likewise.

It wouldn't be my choice, but it is what it is.

 

[Ajidica]

When the implication is "peace failed, public turned to Hamas", it should be noted there was never any honest chance for the population to say "war failing, turn away from Hamas", or even "rockets stupid, likely to get worse, go with a different path". I'm sure there will be dissenters presently, having concluded armed struggle discredited. That's gobsmackinglly obvious. I'm equally sure if Hamas remains in power, they will be crushed.

The wild thing is that I'm often the one accused of being pro-Israel!

 

[Voidwalkin]

The wild thing is that I'm often the one accused of being pro-Israel!

To some, acknowledging Israel has a right to hold any territory at all makes one wildly pro-Israeli, so it's not that wild.

 

[Gorbles]

To some, acknowledging Israel has a right to hold any territory at all makes one wildly pro-Israeli, so it's not that wild.

Selective rights do tend to infer bias towards a particular position, yes.

 

[Voidwalkin]

It's been said before. Maybe not by me. And now we have direct Israeli confirmation of the commands given.

To be clear, my surprise is because kidnapping as a means to extract concessions quite obviously backfired the latest conflict. Spectacularly. Oct 7 turned out to be the greatest geopolitical blunder in the ME post-Iraq.

I mean, I am sorta surprised that someone who is all about morality in other matters finds it...tolerable? But not really. A pattern with Western Palestinian supporters I've spoken to seems to be that they just judge any situation along these lines: "group X is a bigger victim so what they do is righteous no matter what". That way of evaluating the world manifests oddly, in thousands of ways and situations.

Anyhow, yes, Israel are enjoying some of the steepest drops in public perception and have only been propped up on the International stage by the US' previous inaction and a subsequent election that has gone in Bibi's favour. They've suffered significant internal dissent that has repeatedly harmed the government to the extent that only the prolonged war effort is keeping it together.

Their neighbors in the ME have always passionately despised their state. Still there.

That said, if you want to rely on pure utilitarianism, then Hamas should logically continue to do whatever harms Israel to bring the faults further and further to damaging the state (in whatever way that manifests). This doesn't mean any of the things you suggested. They would all contribute to Israel being able to handle Palestine in a more conventional manner.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, insurgent tactics have proven almost wholly ineffective for decades. Do remember, the goal is quite clearly to destroy Israel, or at least forcibly change it via insistence on right of return. Not close to either the hardcore goal of Hamas, nor the softer but still unreasonable right of return Arafat famously insisted on.

 

[Snowygerry]

(...)

From a purely utilitarian perspective, insurgent tactics have proven almost wholly ineffective for decades. Do remember, the goal is quite clearly to destroy Israel, or at least forcibly change it via insistence on right of return. Not close to either the hardcore goal of Hamas, nor the softer but still unreasonable right of return Arafat famously insisted on.

Insurgent tactics are very effective against foreign armies, not against settlers, don't invade it if you don't intend to go and live there, would be my advice.

Even if it lasts decades they will keep killing your soldiers until you go home, like they did in Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq.

No good will come of it.

 

[Senethro]

Does anyone choose insurgent tactics or is that the only option on the table for forces acting (and indeed living wholly within) absolute enemy air supremacy?

 

[EnglishEdward]

That said, if you want to rely on pure utilitarianism, then Hamas should logically continue to do whatever harms Israel to bring the faults further and further to damaging the state (in whatever way that manifests).

Not necessarily, I think this would provide an additional incentive, and qualm domestic Israeli doubters, for Israel to genocide them.

 

[Gorbles]

To be clear, my surprise is because kidnapping as a means to extract concessions quite obviously backfired the latest conflict. Spectacularly. Oct 7 turned out to be the greatest geopolitical blunder in the ME post-Iraq.

And how many times previously did it work? Was the Hannibal Directive reference not accurate?

Setting aside your own personal descriptor r.e. "blunder", of course. If Hamas are amoral killers out to lead Palestine to ruin, who says it's a blunder? Let's try and leave subjective conclusions at the door with this.

I mean, I am sorta surprised that someone who is all about morality in other matters finds it...tolerable? But not really. A pattern with Western Palestinian supporters I've spoken to seems to be that they just judge any situation along these lines: "group X is a bigger victim so what they do is righteous no matter what".

Who said I found it tolerable? We're sidestepping moralising, remember?

You need to stop leaping into what you assume about me as a person r.e. discussing Hamas' efficacy r.e. military tactics. And you're misattributing "victim", to boot. Again, this attempt at moralising and putting your discussion partner into some kind of neat box; a strawman, almost.

Their neighbors in the ME have always passionately despised their state. Still there.

And? I haven't even gotten into how "the ends justify the means" would lead to a lot of annoyance (at best) for Israel in that regard. Imagine if Iran started acting as though the US currently is. Of course, endless hypotheticals, many of which would cause harm to Iran. Doesn't mean that at the same time they won't cause harm to others.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, insurgent tactics have proven almost wholly ineffective for decades. Do remember, the goal is quite clearly to destroy Israel, or at least forcibly change it via insistence on right of return. Not close to either the hardcore goal of Hamas, nor the softer but still unreasonable right of return Arafat famously insisted on.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, forcing Israel to murder its own people is so far from "wholly ineffective" I can't understand how you're measuring utility in this regard. You can't be regarding it as a binary position, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about "nearly wholly". "% of effectiveness" is not the same as "achieved or not". They're very different metrics.

And this is before we even talk about the hostages they did get, which is a talking point in Israel to this day, and relevant to what's happening right now with the ceasefire. The tactic seems very effective indeed. The tactic doesn't have to advance the singular stated end goal, to be effective in the short to medium term. Hamas evidently have multiple priorities beyond the destruction of Israel, as evidenced by me saying previously that Israel financed them (to mutual advantage, or at the very least Israel's, against the PA).

Not necessarily, I think this would provide an additional incentive, and qualm domestic Israeli doubters, for Israel to genocide them.

Agree to disagree. Certainly, I think Voidwalkin's suggestions would give them less of the same domestic doubt, and more of said incentive.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Netanyahu says the ceasefire is OFF this Saturday unless hostages are released; uncertain if it means the ones that were previously scheduled or all remaining ones

Netanyahu threatens to resume fighting in Gaza if hostages aren't released Saturday

The first phase of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is supposed to last six weeks. But three weeks in, both Israel and Hamas are accusing the other of violating the deal, and Hamas’ threat to delay freeing more hostages has prompted Israel to prepare to resume fighting if needed.

apnews.com

War again?

I thought the ceasefire would last longer.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Let's just get this whole exchange over with now. Why the wait? My worry is that the Israeli hostages we've seen already released are the best-looking ones (in terms of health), and that Hamas assuming they have as many as they say they have to be released is probably not true. They don't know what they're really bargaining with. But that's my view.

If such is the case, fewer Palestinian prisoners will also be returned in turn and that the deal, and the cease-fire, will most likely fall through.

 

[Gorbles]

Let's just get this whole exchange over with now. Why the wait? My worry is that the Israeli hostages we've seen already released are the best-looking ones (in terms of health), and that Hamas assuming they have as many as they say they have to be released is probably not true. They don't know what they're really bargaining with. But that's my view.

If such is the case, fewer Palestinian prisoners will also be returned in turn and that the deal, and the cease-fire, will most likely fall through.

It was agreed to happen in phases:

Shaky first day for Gaza cease-fire as Israel drags its feet

Three hostages held in Gaza were reunited with their families in Israel, even after bombing continued past the agreed time of the truce.

www.politico.eu

Plus, we have the allegations that Israel are breaking the ceasefire.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Hannibal Directive reference not accurate?

Setting aside your own personal descriptor r.e. "blunder", of course. If Hamas are amoral killers out to lead Palestine to ruin, who says it's a blunder? Let's try and leave subjective conclusions at the door with this.

My real opinion is that insurgency of any sort has been and will remain entirely ineffective. This is because Israel is no longer an ideological program made manifest, but a real nation, the home and native land of 2 and soon 3 generations, born and raised. They will not abandon that, nor see it radically changed because of a grievance that occurred 75 years ago(mostly).

The Palestinian side I believe is delusional regarding these facts, and seek to use insurgency to compel a "foreign" power off of "their land", which they define as stretching from the Jordan to the Med(note: all Israel), amongst other, darker currents running through that movement. It can't be expected to work as they imagine it. It's not a foreign army, or a foreign state, and will not withdrawal, unconcerned with the failure of a foreign adventure. Israelis have much more at stake.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, forcing Israel to murder its own people is so far from "wholly ineffective" I can't understand how you're measuring utility in this regard. You can't be regarding it as a binary position, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about "nearly wholly". "% of effectiveness" is not the same as "achieved or not". They're very different metrics.

And this is before we even talk about the hostages they did get, which is a talking point in Israel to this day, and relevant to what's happening right now with the ceasefire. The tactic seems very effective indeed. The tactic doesn't have to advance the singular stated end goal, to be effective in the short to medium term. Hamas evidently have multiple priorities beyond the destruction of Israel, as evidenced by me saying previously that Israel financed them (to mutual advantage, or at the very least Israel's, against the PA).

Gaza is under occupation, mostly destroyed, Hamas leadership is devastated, Iran's proxies and even its ally Syria are in tatters or have seen regime change, the hardline plotters are vanquished nearly to a man, and displacement is now openly discussed in the halls of power.

Is that your idea of effective? It isn't mine. All of the above were foreseeable consequences. Doing nothing would've been preferable. I remain convinced that this apologia is really just excusing the stupidity, something I believe more indicative of a double standard than most anything else.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Not necessarily, I think this would provide an additional incentive, and qualm domestic Israeli doubters, for Israel to genocide them.

There is an increasingly high likelihood, as we get further away from WW2, that tolerance of insurgency will wane. Generally, across the world, the norms that prevented such radical action(ethnic cleansing) are breaking down. Insurgency presumes its target will operate within the fairly benign parameters stated, but this may begin to really break in a world more multipolar than it was previously.

Somewhat interestingly, we(USA) saw this in Iraq. The terrorist Zarqawi meant to create a sectarian war by inflaming Sunni-Shia tension. He succeeded. The USA were unable to keep a lid on it. Iran's puppet Shia Al-Sadr brigaded had no qualms engaging in ethnic cleansing against the Sunni in retaliation, weakening faith in the ability of the US and the international community to actually enforce these norms, particularly in the ME, specifically. Everybody took note.

Israel is mostly constrained by American influence, but going forward, it's less clear how firm American commitment to these norms will be, additionally. It's already wishy-washy. We're talking about buying Gaza and Greenland, at tje moment(Jesus). The anti-insurgency toolkit may about to be going electric, I'm really not sure.

 

[Gorbles]

My real opinion is that insurgency of any sort has been and will remain entirely ineffective. This is because Israel is no longer an ideological program made manifest, but a real nation, the home and native land of 2 and soon 3 generations, born and raised. They will not abandon that, nor see it radically changed because of a grievance that occurred 75 years ago(mostly).

Israel is both a "real" nation, a colonial enterprise and an ideological program. They're not mutually exclusive. They don't bring Jews from other countries "home" via a program called "Birthright" via a non-ideological program.

But I understand your realpolitic perspective even as I disagree with it. I just wish it were more consistent r.e. the objectives of other actors (Hamas, Iran, etc).

The same goes for your lack of consistency r.e. the Nakba, and other atrocities that echo to the modern day with very real consequences that people still look to learn lessons from.

Is that your idea of effective? It isn't mine. All of the above were foreseeable consequences. Doing nothing would've been preferable. I remain convinced that this apologia is really just excusing the stupidity, something I believe more indicative of a double standard than most anything else.

Overall? Perhaps not. But again, I'm not weighting this on a singular binary. "effective" as a semantic proxy for "wholly effective" fails to understand the context of living under occupation; of living in a policed state with guarded borders and wanton violence inflicted on a whim (far before October 7th).

You can consider things double standards if you like. Again, it's pretty much just moralising. You consider it apologia; you consider tactics ineffective and therefore stupid (as supposed to merely ineffective). Your argument is full of subjective value judgements, and I've been intentionally avoiding them. My doing so has actually helped the discourse between us, or at least I think it has.

Agreement was never on the cards. Different people see things differently, and that's fine. But I don't think you're seeing how self-defeating this reliance on ideological enemies is being when it comes to approaching complex geopolitical situations. Even pure realpolitic only gets you so far, though it is where the discussion is at its most productive.

 

[Lexicus]

From a realpolitik perspective everything Israel is doing now is senseless destruction. It only makes sense when viewed as a population of would-be colonial masters trying desperately to re-establish that sense of mastery after the natives humbled their military machine and showed everyone that it could be humbled, if only for a matter of hours.

 

[Gorbles]

‘Last nail in the coffin’: Israeli settlers push on with fresh West Bank land grab

There are fears that a widely unnoticed displacement of Bedouin has the aim of fragmenting the territory intended for a future Palestinian state

www.theguardian.com

‘Last nail in the coffin’: Israeli settlers push on with fresh West Bank land grab

There are fears that a widely unnoticed displacement of Bedouin has the aim of fragmenting the territory intended for a future Palestinian state

 

[danjuno]

Can we relocate 500,000 to Ohio? They would have a much better life there than in the Middle East.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, look at photos of Gaza now and then look at photos of Ohio now. But my post was actually about immigration and how willing Republicans are to relocating half a million brown people to white America.