closed Thread

[zipman]

What a surprise! UNRWA celebrating the 10/7 attacks.

 

[policywank]

As Ive already said - they aren't doing enough. They need to be publicly more targeted in their attacks and leadership needs to publicly express that more is being done.

Of course I'm a pundit. That doesn't make me wrong. At the moment, public sentiment is pretty harshly shifting and support for Israel is becoming less tenable.

No, being a pundit doesn't make you wrong. But it does make you a person working with limited and frequently biased information such that it would be absurd to assert that you are definitively correct.

I don't claim to be correct. I am expressing opinions and making my own observations. But when it comes to the bombing of Gaza for instances I am not saying that everything being done is justified or that they shouldn't alter their approach. I am saying that I don't have enough information to pass judgement and I don't think any of us has all the information and expertise and perspective to do so.

Should that stop any of us from asking what is going on with that bombing? No it shouldn't. We should ask. But seeing unpleasant things doesn't mean there is a better alternative.

Likewise public sentiment has nothing to do with with what is the best approach to the situation. History is filled with examples of people who's merit lay in the fact that they resisted public opinion.

 

[ll74]

No, being a pundit doesn't make you wrong. But it does make you a person working with limited and frequently biased information such that it would be absurd to assert that you are definitively correct.

That's not what a pundit is.

I don't claim to be correct. I am expressing opinions and making my own observations. But when it comes to the bombing of Gaza for instances I am not saying that everything being done is justified or that they shouldn't alter their approach. I am saying that I don't have enough information to pass judgement and I don't think any of us has all the information and expertise and perspective to do so.

We have clear information that large yield dumb bombs are being used in densely populated areas, when other weapons and methods are.available.

You can ignore that because you believe Israel should not make additional effort to try alternative approaches if you wish.

Should that stop any of us from asking what is going on with that bombing? No it shouldn't. We should ask. But seeing unpleasant things doesn't mean there is a better alternative.

The US literally provides better and more accurate weaponry to Israel.

Likewise public sentiment has nothing to do with with what is the best approach to the situation. History is filled with examples of people who's merit lay in the fact that they resisted public opinion.

No, it has to do with whether Israelis support what their government is doing or not and that, I turn, results in whether they will allow them to continue. Wars are fought in more places than just the battlefield.

That is the reason propaganda is used by participants in wars.

 

[policywank]

Then you know the Palestinians were promised one thing, and given another.

Terrorism stems from dissatisfaction or authoritarianism. Remove the cause the terrorism ends.

Where did I ever say to do that? I am pointing out this cycle needs to end. US and western policy needs to change, drastically.

Yep,but not by the west.

See my second answer,it's the same here.

No Hamas doesn't need to be eliminated, any more than the Israels. What needs to happen is the supporters of both need to be removed, the heads of both tried for crimes against Humanity. Then and only then can they move towards a negotiated peace.

You misunderstand Hamas. They are part of the consistent group of Palestinians who since 1947 have called for the destruction of Israel. They are not a government in waiting. They do not want peace. They want Israel eliminated and as many jews as possible killed - that isn't hyperbole, it is their words.

While nobody is blameless the premise that terrorism grew out of the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli's is bullshit. From day 1 of the existence of Israel powerful factions within the Palestinian population (first the PLO and later Hamas) called for the destruction of Israel. It was never the case that they were fighting for their own state or to live in peace side by side. There have been numerous attempts at a two state solution all of which the Palestinians have rejected. To the extent that Israel has oppressed them it has been for their own preservation. As I have said before it is grossly naive to see one man holding another man down and concluding on what is happening while disregarding the fact that the latter man is screaming "let me up so I can kill you and your family."

No terrorism isn't simply a response to dissatisfaction unless you count not being able to impose your will on others as a source of dissatisfaction.

 

[policywank]

That's not what a pundit is.


We have clear information that large yield dumb bombs are being used in densely populated areas, when other weapons and methods are.available.

You can ignore that because you believe Israel should not make additional effort to try alternative approaches if you wish.


The US literally provides better and more accurate weaponry to Israel.


No, it has to do with whether Israelis support what their government is doing or not and that, I turn, results in whether they will allow them to continue. Wars are fought in more places than just the battlefield.

That is the reason propaganda is used by participants in wars.

I don't mean public opinion is irrelevant to the dynamics of war. I mean it is not a good gauge of whether those conducting the war are on the right track. We all know that war is terrible so we have a natural and rational bias towards avoiding it at all costs. If both sides see it that way that is ideal. But when one side sees it that way and behaves in a naive fashion they can be readily victimized. As has been said many times over the year if Hamas lays down their weapons they get peace, if Israel lays down their weapons they get murdered - they may be a bit simplistic and optimistic but it contains merit.

There is nothing wrong with being a pundit and offering up an opinion. But it is far healthier for all involved and society in general when we leave open the possibility of being wrong or that there are other valid points of view. I know that there are more precision guided bombs. But I don't know how many they have, how many they can get or the very specific merits of each in any given circumstances. And the fact that America can provide them. Give me a fucking break - just ask Zelensky how prudent it is to rely upon America to continue stepping up in spite of their own political turmoil. If I was Israel right now and I had a limited supply of precision guided bombs I would be rationing them knowing full well that some Congressman with an axe to grind that has nothing to do with us might cease supplying them.

We have seen multiple (unfortunate) wars around the world wherein America tried to be as surgical as possible given their technological advantage. And they did in fact make great strides, but those efforts were still filled with rough, barbaric and often unintended outcomes. As near as I can tell pretty much every qualified military person who has ever been in a war will tell you that once the shooting starts everything changes and the people sitting in their armchairs criticizing don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

 

[ll74]

I don't mean public opinion is irrelevant to the dynamics of war. I mean it is not a good gauge of whether those conducting the war are on the right track. We all know that war is terrible so we have a natural and rational bias towards avoiding it at all costs. If both sides see it that way that is ideal. But when one side sees it that way and behaves in a naive fashion they can be readily victimized. As has been said many times over the year if Hamas lays down their weapons they get peace, if Israel lays down their weapons they get murdered - they may be a bit simplistic and optimistic but it contains merit.

If public pressure does not align with your war efforts, it is not good.

There is nothing wrong with being a pundit and offering up an opinion. But it is far healthier for all involved and society in general when we leave open the possibility of being wrong or that there are other valid points of view. I know that there are more precision guided bombs. But I don't know how many they have, how many they can get or the very specific merits of each in any given circumstances. And the fact that America can provide them. Give me a fucking break - just ask Zelensky how prudent it is to rely upon America to continue stepping up in spite of their own political turmoil. If I was Israel right now and I had a limited supply of precision guided bombs I would be rationing them knowing full well that some Congressman with an axe to grind that has nothing to do with us might cease supplying them.

There is no case where large civilian casualties is better than smaller civilian casualties.

We have seen multiple (unfortunate) wars around the world wherein America tried to be as surgical as possible given their technological advantage. And they did in fact make great strides, but those efforts were still filled with rough, barbaric and often unintended outcomes. As near as I can tell pretty much every qualified military person who has ever been in a war will tell you that once the shooting starts everything changes and the people sitting in their armchairs criticizing don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about.

Yes, there has been cases where civilians have been unnecessarily killed. And we should pressure leadership to do better in those cases.

 

[policywank]

The challenge with so much of this topic is that there are (at least) two competing narratives that each side takes as fact. The specific legal machinations are a matter of record, but so much else is a matter f perspective and which propaganda machine one has been listening to.

The whole issue of refugees is subject to two competing narratives. According to the Palestinian narrative hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their homes by the IDF. According to the Israelis they wanted to live in peace after the nation was founded. It was the neighbouring countries who told those Palestinians to leave so that they would be out of the way while their militaries crushed the Israelis. That didn't work out. They got their asses kicked - not because of some nefarious plot but because they were simply outfought. Then, no the Israeli didn't welcome back the Palestinians who acted so that their neighbours could go ahead with their planned genocide.

Those are two very different narratives.

 

[policywank]

If public pressure does not align with your war efforts, it is not good.


There is no case where large civilian casualties is better than smaller civilian casualties.


Yes, there has been cases where civilians have been unnecessarily killed. And we should pressure leadership to do better in those cases.

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong. The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

 

[ll74]

The challenge with so much of this topic is that there are (at least) two competing narratives that each side takes as fact. The specific legal machinations are a matter of record, but so much else is a matter f perspective and which propaganda machine one has been listening to.

The whole issue of refugees is subject to two competing narratives. According to the Palestinian narrative hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven out of their homes by the IDF. According to the Israelis they wanted to live in peace after the nation was founded. It was the neighbouring countries who told those Palestinians to leave so that they would be out of the way while their militaries crushed the Israelis. That didn't work out. They got their asses kicked - not because of some nefarious plot but because they were simply outfought. Then, no the Israeli didn't welcome back the Palestinians who acted so that their neighbours could go ahead with their planned genocide.

Those are two very different narratives.

Palestinians are rightfully concerned that they won't be able to return home once hostilities allow.

That being said, the whole "return to the land" narrative is not really a good one. When a war is lost or won, the land typically goes to the victor. The original landowners don't have a right of return if they're on the wrong side of that equation. Borders shift, countries.evolve over time.....short statement is "shit happens"

There are Palestinians who still believe they have a right to their ancestors homes in Israel even though they've never lived there.

 

[ll74]

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong.

What does the term "wrong" mean?

The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Yes, war doesn't require public buy in. But it benefits from it and suffers without it.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

Beating people into submission is an approach...yes.

 

[ll74]

No it isn't good if public pressure doesn't align with your war efforts but that doesn't mean you are wrong. The public didn't agree with Churchill until it was almost too late. Wilson left Europe to suffer three years of WW1 before finally engaging because the American people didn't want to get involved. FDR couldn't bring the U.S. into WW2 because Americans preferred to let Hitler do whatever he wanted until such time as the Japanese decided to attack. Those were all situations in which people just didn't want to get involved so the public opposed getting involved until they realized they had no choice. We remember those leaders as heroes no, but the public didn't feel that way back then.

Almost every case where an evil regime has been beaten back involved having to inflict mass civilian casualties on them, in most cases more than our own casualties would have been if we had just capitulated.

I'll just ask you a simple question

If an objective can be met using one of two methods,
one being a complete and utter bombardment with mass civilian casualties
and the other being a targeted, strategic strike with minimal civilians casualties.

Should the latter be the appropriate or right approach?

And again, the idea here is that there is no difference in the objective being met.

 

[policywank]

Palestinians are rightfully concerned that they won't be able to return home once hostilities allow.

That being said, the whole "return to the land" narrative is not really a good one. When a war is lost or won, the land typically goes to the victor. The original landowners don't have a right of return if they're on the wrong side of that equation. Borders shift, countries.evolve over time.....short statement is "shit happens"

There are Palestinians who still believe they have a right to their ancestors homes in Israel even though they've never lived there.

My point wasn't to weigh in on the question of right of return. My point was to use that topic as a means of illustrating how two vastly different narratives about the same series of events lead to two opposing views where each side is utterly convinced of their own correctness. Meanwhile many people whop weigh in on either side have not done their diligence to fully understand the circumstances. They pick the side that appeals to them then find ample evidence to support that point of view and leave it at that without considering the evidence that refutes that point of view.

These dynamics are human nature with many causes but few more than this particular conflict.

 

[ll74]

My point wasn't to weigh in on the question of right of return. My point was to use that topic as a means of illustrating how two vastly different narratives about the same series of events lead to two opposing views where each side is utterly convinced of their own correctness. Meanwhile many people whop weigh in on either side have not done their diligence to fully understand the circumstances. They pick the side that appeals to them then find ample evidence to support that point of view and leave it at that without considering the evidence that refutes that point of view.

This conflict has staunch supporters in each camp. I personally can see both perspectives and don't disagree fully on either side. I mentioned the right of return because it is one narrative being floated to support Palestinians and I think it's misguided.

These dynamics are human nature with many causes but few more than this particular conflict.

 

[policywank]

What does the term "wrong" mean?


Yes, war doesn't require public buy in. But it benefits from it and suffers without it.


Beating people into submission is an approach...yes.

Churchill stood virtually alone in believing that Hitler was an aggressor who could not be appeased. The general population and parliament opposed him. He was right and they were wrong by any reasonable measure. They ultimately changed their minds but only after the humiliation of Chamberlain, the loss of more sovereign territory and the further build up of the Nazi war machine. Furthermore arguably the Nazi's could have been defeated with far less damage on both sides if the majority of people had not indulged in the delusion that they could be appeased.

Of course that is one of the more simplistic examples. Usually they are a lot more complex and we don't have the luxury of knowing how the alternative might have worked out. But the point isn't a cataloguing of who was right and who was wrong. It is the clear and obvious point that just because the majority of people believe something or prefer one course of action doesn't mean that is the best or right course of action. Popular opinion and the support of the electorate is obviously a big factor in all of these things - especially in democratic countries where the people get a say - but that doesn't mean that the popular course of action is the best or right course of action.

You clearly understand that I am not making the case that beating people into submission is the best or preferred course of action. I am making the case that sometimes it is the only viable choice. And it is the responsibility of leaders to know when that is or isn't the case based upon an honest loo at the cold, hard facts.

 

[ll74]

Churchill stood virtually alone in believing that Hitler was an aggressor who could not be appeased. The general population and parliament opposed him. He was right and they were wrong by any reasonable measure. They ultimately changed their minds but only after the humiliation of Chamberlain, the loss of more sovereign territory and the further build up of the Nazi war machine. Furthermore arguably the Nazi's could have been defeated with far less damage on both sides if the majority of people had not indulged in the delusion that they could be appeased.

I doubt he was completely right in his assertions. Nobody ever is.

Of course that is one of the more simplistic examples. Usually they are a lot more complex and we don't have the luxury of knowing how the alternative might have worked out. But the point isn't a cataloguing of who was right and who was wrong. It is the clear and obvious point that just because the majority of people believe something or prefer one course of action doesn't mean that is the best or right course of action. Popular opinion and the support of the electorate is obviously a big factor in all of these things - especially in democratic countries where the people get a say - but that doesn't mean that the popular course of action is the best or right course of action.

It doesn't have to be the best course of action.

You clearly understand that I am not making the case that beating people into submission is the best or preferred course of action. I am making the case that sometimes it is the only viable choice. And it is the responsibility of leaders to know when that is or isn't the case based upon an honest loo at the cold, hard facts.

It never is the only viable choice. There are always other choices. And not all of those are the best choices either. Hindsight is 20/20. As Austin said recently,

"In this kind of a fight, the center of gravity is the civilian population. And if you drive them into the arms of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat,"

 

[policywank]

I'll just ask you a simple question

If an objective can be met using one of two methods,
one being a complete and utter bombardment with mass civilian casualties
and the other being a targeted, strategic strike with minimal civilians casualties.

Should the latter be the appropriate or right approach?

And again, the idea here is that there is no difference in the objective being met.

Yes of course - all other things being equal the latter approach is preferable. But all other things are rarely equal and neither you or I are in a position to say with certainty that both approaches will lead to equivalent objectives.

A few things to consider:

• Have you taken into account the Hamas propensity to intentionally put innocent civilians between it and the bombs. We know that the Israelis have taken extensive steps to warn Palestinians of when a strike will occur so that they have time to evacuate. And in many cases it is Hamas who keeps them from evacuating. If Hamas won't let them out of the building how will a precision guided bomb remedy the inevitable outcome.
• What is Israel's supply of precision guided bombs and how many more can the U.S. provide and how many can they be trusted to provide, notwithstanding gridlock in Congress?
• What is the cost of precision guided bombs versus dumb bombs? I know people hate to consider economics but if Israel can't afford enough precision guided bombs to get the job done should they leave themselves fatally vulnerable for the next attack from goodness knows which enemy?
• How many Palestinian deaths have been caused by dumb bombs versus people not heeding the warning to evacuate or not being able to - either because Hamas stooped them or because they had nowhere left to evacuate?

I am not saying that they shouldn't be using precision guided bombs more. maybe they should. I am saying neither of us has the perfect answer to the questions above let alone the numerous otters strategic consideration at play to be able to say with certainty that is a viable or effective strategy.

 

[policywank]

I doubt he was completely right in his assertions. Nobody ever is.


It doesn't have to be the best course of action.


It never is the only viable choice. There are always other choices. And not all of those are the best choices either. Hindsight is 20/20. As Austin said recently,

No he wasn't completely right. But you are avoiding the point being made which is that just because most people disagreed with him didn't make him wrong. In hindsight he was at least mostly right. And the western world owes him a debt of gratitude for not being led by majority opinion.

Sure there are always choices, but sometimes all of them are worse. And sometimes mass casualties is a feature of the least bad choice.

Should we choose a sub-optimal path because it is popular. In general that sounds silly but in some cases it might be the right way to go. But not likely if you are dealing with a genocidal murderous foe living on or within your borders. Israel doesn't have the luxury of failure. It isn't in a position to indulge in naiveté lose all of its land and somehow come back. More than any other combatant than I can think of it cannot afford any failures on the battlefield so it has to approach every battle as a matter of life and death which cannot be lost and which provides no room for a soft touch.

 

[ll74]

Yes of course - all other things being equal the latter approach is preferable. But all other things are rarely equal and neither you or I are in a position to say with certainty that both approaches will lead to equivalent objectives.

The we agree.

A few things to consider:

• Have you taken into account the Hamas propensity to intentionally put innocent civilians between it and the bombs. We know that the Israelis have taken extensive steps to warn Palestinians of when a strike will occur so that they have time to evacuate. And in many cases it is Hamas who keeps them from evacuating. If Hamas won't let them out of the building how will a precision guided bomb remedy the inevitable outcome.

Irrelevant to whether more consideration should be placed on civilian casualties.

• What is Israel's supply of precision guided bombs and how many more can the U.S. provide and how many can they be trusted to provide, notwithstanding gridlock in Congress?

They have some that aren't being used and are using dumb bombs instead.

• What is the cost of precision guided bombs versus dumb bombs? I know people hate to consider economics but if Israel can't afford enough precision guided bombs to get the job done should they leave themselves fatally vulnerable for the next attack from goodness knows which enemy?

What is the cost of war?

• How many Palestinian deaths have been caused by dumb bombs versus people not heeding the warning to evacuate or not being able to - either because Hamas stooped them or because they had nowhere left to evacuate?

Blaming the victims is always a fun approach.

I am not saying that they shouldn't be using precision guided bombs more. maybe they should. I am saying neither of us has the perfect answer to the questions above let alone the numerous otters strategic consideration at play to be able to say with certainty that is a viable or effective strategy.

You are saying that Israel is right to do what it seems necessary and without question.

I am saying that we should be pressuring them to do better
....always.

 

[Rightguide]

Collective Punishment is Nazi Solution!

"From the river to the sea" is the Palestinian articulation of Hitler's final solution it has been repeated by Democrats as well.

 

[policywank]

The we agree.


Irrelevant to whether more consideration should be placed on civilian casualties.

Nonsense. If Hamas won't let civilians get out of the way using precision guided bombs will have no beneficial effect. And given that they are scarce a rationale combatant will save them for when they are most needed eater for military purpose or to save the most civilian lives

They have some that aren't being used and are using dumb bombs instead.

Nonsense. Israel must plan for the long haul. Only a fool would use their more valuable weapons for no net benefit when they might be desperately needed later.

What is the cost of war?

For Israel it is their very existence. If they can only afford so many precision guided bombs it is only rational that they prioritize them first and foremost to protect their own population.

Blaming the victims is always a fun approach.

What a trite and unhelpful comment. I am not blaming the victim. I am blaming two possible parties. If Hamas is getting in the way of evacuation then I am blaming them. And if those innocent civilians have nowhere left to flee I am blaming Israel for leaving them nowhere to run. As you can see I am not above faulting Israel. I am just not buying the nonsense that Israel must prioritize Palestinian civilians even over its own civilians.

You are saying that Israel is right to do what it seems necessary and without question.

I am saying that we should be pressuring them to do better
....always.

That isn't what I am saying at all. By all means pressure them to do better. Engage in productive dialogue. Bring pressure to bear. But listen as well. Don't just assume that you know better from your armchair. And don't get into the silly process of allowing real life and death decisions be guided by unpleasant images and harsh realities that we don't wish to consider.

 

[Rightguide]

The Israeli propaganda machine has been pushing this "Hamas cowardly hiding behind civilians" trope from the first day of their genocidal campaign.

It fits their "Israelis Brave, Hamas Cowards" narrative.

You know wat? It's probably true...the population density in Gaza is incredibly dense, you can't shoot a weapon in Gaza without a good chance of hitting a civilian.

My opinion is that the Israeli IDF doesn't give a fuck....like that one Israeli defense minister said "there are no civilians in Gaza".

Like the Japanese did in Manila, the Chinese did in Korea, and the VC did in Vietnam, Hamas has no compunction about hiding behind civilians knowing they too will be targeted. This is why we execute enemy commanders do so.

 

[ll74]

Nonsense. If Hamas won't let civilians get out of the way using precision guided bombs will have no beneficial effect. And given that they are scarce a rationale combatant will save them for when they are most needed eater for military purpose or to save the most civilian lives

And there is always the option of not using bombs at all.

Nonsense. Israel must plan for the long haul. Only a fool would use their more valuable weapons for no net benefit when they might be desperately needed later.

If the long haul is the objective.....yes.
Why would anyone want perpetual war?

For Israel it is their very existence. If they can only afford so many precision guided bombs it is only rational that they prioritize them first and foremost to protect their own population.

They already failed in that regard....see Oct 7.

What a trite and unhelpful comment. I am not blaming the victim. I am blaming two possible parties. If Hamas is getting in the way of evacuation then I am blaming them. And if those innocent civilians have nowhere left to flee I am blaming Israel for leaving them nowhere to run. As you can see I am not above faulting Israel. I am just not buying the nonsense that Israel must prioritize Palestinian civilians even over its own civilians.

"But they didn't move"

Right.
As has been pointed out, Gaza is densely populated.

That isn't what I am saying at all. By all means pressure them to do better. Engage in productive dialogue. Bring pressure to bear. But listen as well. Don't just assume that you know better from your armchair. And don't get into the silly process of allowing real life and death decisions be guided by unpleasant images and harsh realities that we don't wish to consider.

I know that they've killed civilians that were killed because they've used more bombs than Afghanistan in the first two months...that's not armchair anything...it's observation based on facts.

My personal opinion is that Hamas should surrender unconditionally and release all hostages. After that, the UN should take over control until such time as new leadership is found and elected who will be in favor of peace.

And yes, that is highly unlikely......most things are difficult to get to right now...
.but it's better to push for peace than to throw your hands up in the air and say ..."but they won't let me"

 

[pocjet]

And there is always the option of not using bombs at all.

if not bombs, then what?

 

[ll74]

if not bombs, then what?

Troops, drones....sonic weapons....

 

[pocjet]

all being used and you know it


bombs are the best way to destroy FAST

as far as the bogus Afghan comment, Gaza is a city Afghanistan was huts etc with next to no infrastructure, thats why more bombs in one place vs the other

but hey

you gotta just double down on dumb ass comments