History in the making, Part 2, V.2 - Israel/Palestine - NO RELIGION

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

If it helps I am an unfeeling monster. 

I think it's just a fundamental question of how to deal with any terrorist state? People claim that they are hiding behind innocent civilians which means they agree there are those present that are not part of the terrorist mindset. How do you differentiate and eliminate the terrorist members from the innocents? It seems many are ok with eliminating any and all indiscriminately and consider it the consequences of being affiliated and in proximity to the terrorists.

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

Beer Baron said:

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

A solution from the less civilized past:  

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.  ("Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own".)

Arnaud Amalric ordered this - Commander of the Massacre at Béziers in 1209 referring to the refusal to the offshoot of Christianity  Cathars to obey the Pope.   The town was under siege but the  Cathars leaders refused to surrender and were holding the town population hostage.   Amalric was a leader of the Order of Cistercians monks and an emissary of the Pope.

Beer Baron said:

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

I dont like calling Hamas just a terrorist organization, they are the government of a largely recognized "state." They also enjoy pretty strong support among the people of Palestine. You may say. they are an organization that kills political enemies and that may affect support polling, and I would concede that, but if you look at polling on solutions for the Israel conflict one party and two party states both receive about 20% while "armed conflict" received the majority of support. This is not a terror cell in an otherwise friendly state, this is a hostile state/government.

Look, im not saying there arent innocents, or that I condone the killing of them, I dont.

Unfortunately killing civilians is inevitable in war, and its why many of us dont like war or for it to be fought in our name, or with our help, or with our money. (Unless, this is the part most people leave out, it is fought specifically in defense of our own).

This will be brutal and ugly no matter what, I hope we stay out of it. I understand the plight of the Israelis, there values generally align closest to mine, and I wish them the best. Im lucky enough to not be a part of this and can take a look at the nuance of the situation, because I know Im not good enough to take the position of a reasonable man if I was involved.

In reply to Opti :

Wait, let me get this straight. A group that spent two years pilfering foreign aid to stock pile weapons, train their members, teach their children hate and then carry out some of the worst terroristic attacks in 70+ years is not a terrorist organization? Is this what you are trying to tell me? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am asking. I ask because it is so.... "out there" and well on the way to being an apologist for their actions that I cannot comprehend it. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Opti :

... worst terroristic attacks in 70+ years is not a terrorist organization?

Terrorist nation.

In reply to Opti :

I think mtn did an excellent job of capturing one coherent school of thought half way down page #11 and you've just done the same for a slightly, and not necessarily mutually exclusive, different coherent school of thought.

For me, I start with the basic multi generational tit-for-tat view spelled out by aircooled several pages ago and add one additional consideration in determining, for lack of a better term, who's "side" I'm on here.

I know that there is absolutely nothing that could possibly compel me to rape, or to burn alive, or to do any of the other disgusting things that have been the norm rather than the exception by one side in this conflict and have been very well documented.

To mtn's point, I'm not judging, but I am acknowledging that these barbaric acts cause me to disassociate with those that are committing them.

To paraphrase slightly, someone here recently asked "what's the difference if you die by bullet or by decapitation?" and to me, there is a difference, a really big one.

My "tribe" doesn't do sick E36 M3 like that, one group is making it abundantly clear to me that we're not, at a fundamental level, the same.

I'm not judging, I'm sure if I spent my life in that environment I'd think carving eyeballs out of living people was OK too but I didn't so I don't and doing so causes me to have difficulty feeling humane towards those that do.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Opti :

Wait, let me get this straight. A group that spent two years pilfering foreign aid to stock pile weapons, train their members, teach their children hate and then carry out some of the worst terroristic attacks in 70+ years is not a terrorist organization? Is this what you are trying to tell me? I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am asking. I ask because it is so.... "out there" and well on the way to being an apologist for their actions that I cannot comprehend it. 

AAZD has it. Im saying calling them a terrorist organization minimizes the severity. It makes people think of a small rogue group inside an otherwise friendly nation. This is the government, with wide support, that is the terrorist organization. Its a hostile/terrorist nation.

In reply to Opti :

That I can agree with. 

In reply to RX Reven' :

Oh no, I am judging. I'm judging the ever loving E36 M3 out of those acts and the animals that committed them. 

Beer Baron said:

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

Agreed that all the options are bad, though the noises Israel has been making going forward (post-combat operations) point to cutting all ties with Gaza, effectively sealing the border, which may be the least bad option at this point. Egypt will scream bloody murder about this if it happens, mostly because they don't want to deal with the problem. Long-term, the much bigger issue is the West Bank; unlike Gaza, there is the very thorny problem of Jewish settlers scattered across the area, meaning that isolating it from Israel is a non-starter. And there are reports that Iran has upped smuggling of weapons into the West Bank, and that these are being distributed with impunity, likely in the hopes that someone will get angry enough to just start shooting and set off a further escalation.

02Pilot said:

Beer Baron said:

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

Agreed that all the options are bad, though the noises Israel has been making going forward (post-combat operations) point to cutting all ties with Gaza, effectively sealing the border, which may be the least bad option at this point. Egypt will scream bloody murder about this if it happens, mostly because they don't want to deal with the problem. Long-term, the much bigger issue is the West Bank; unlike Gaza, there is the very thorny problem of Jewish settlers scattered across the area, meaning that isolating it from Israel is a non-starter. And there are reports that Iran has upped smuggling of weapons into the West Bank, and that these are being distributed with impunity, likely in the hopes that someone will get angry enough to just start shooting and set off a further escalation.

^This.  I don't think anybody in this thread is saying that Israel shouldn't get some straightening.  They will need to be smart about it, because once they destroy Hamas, they will have to deal with the aftermath in the West Bank.   This won't end in Gaza (edited for clarity).

02Pilot said:

Beer Baron said:

It seems like Israel is in a no-win scenario. How do you handle this properly?

You get attacked by a terrorist organization hiding among the civilian population of neighboring territory. Do you:

• Take no counter-action. Allow them to get away with attacking you with impunity.
• Attack with small, limited strike force. Risking potential loss of life of your soldiers for potentially no significant impact against a force that can disappear into the community.
• Limited bombardment of only most likely targets. Moderately likely to damage enemy forces, highly unlikely to cripple enemy forces. Strong risk of civilian casualties.
• Overwhelming bombardment of every identified tarted. Strong likelihood of significant damage to enemy forces. Very high risk of civilian casualties.

There is no good option. No right answer.

Agreed that all the options are bad, though the noises Israel has been making going forward (post-combat operations) point to cutting all ties with Gaza, effectively sealing the border, which may be the least bad option at this point. Egypt will scream bloody murder about this if it happens, mostly because they don't want to deal with the problem. Long-term, the much bigger issue is the West Bank; unlike Gaza, there is the very thorny problem of Jewish settlers scattered across the area, meaning that isolating it from Israel is a non-starter. And there are reports that Iran has upped smuggling of weapons into the West Bank, and that these are being distributed with impunity, likely in the hopes that someone will get angry enough to just start shooting and set off a further escalation.

Settlers are a big part of the problem. Stop with taking new territory. Going into occupied territories and evicting Palestinians who in some cases have lived in the same home for generations is not a recipe for reducing conflict.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Settlers are a big part of the problem. Stop with taking new territory. Going into occupied territories and evicting Palestinians who in some cases have lived in the same home for generations is not a recipe for reducing conflict.
 

In Gaza? You are almost two decades late. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers evacuated back in 2005. Hamas wasn't even in power yet. So curious why you think it's a big part of the problem. 

We've always been at war with Eurasia.  That's why most people believe what they believe today.  

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Settlers are a big part of the problem. Stop with taking new territory. Going into occupied territories and evicting Palestinians who in some cases have lived in the same home for generations is not a recipe for reducing conflict.
 

In Gaza? You are almost two decades late. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers evacuated back in 2005. Hamas wasn't even in power yet. So curious why you think it's a big part of the problem. 

Palestinians in Gaza do not exist in a vacuum. It's like you not minding if Canadians from New Brunswick started booting Maine residents out of their homes and moving in. Because you live way over there in California.

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Settlers are a big part of the problem. Stop with taking new territory. Going into occupied territories and evicting Palestinians who in some cases have lived in the same home for generations is not a recipe for reducing conflict.
 

In Gaza? You are almost two decades late. The settlements in Gaza were dismantled and the settlers evacuated back in 2005. Hamas wasn't even in power yet. So curious why you think it's a big part of the problem. 

Palestinians in Gaza do not exist in a vacuum. It's like you not minding if Canadians from New Brunswick started booting Maine residents out of their homes and moving in. Because you live way over there in California.

If you apply that thought globally, you'll realize no one really cares until it affects them personally.  I could make the same statement about the US Southern border, but very few people posting on a platform from all over actually care.  It's mostly an American thing to pretend to care about things globally and then America cares by giving away other peoples money as debt someone else can pay in the future.  If people really cared, there are plenty of problems to solve locally first.  

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Palestinians in Gaza do not exist in a vacuum. It's like you not minding if Canadians from New Brunswick started booting Maine residents out of their homes and moving in. Because you live way over there in California.
 

So you believe Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza took one for the team, with settlements- which have not been in Gaza for almost 20 years- being one of the big problems. That's an interesting take. And you knew that there were no settlements in Gaza when you posted that? 

Using two of our UNITED states is a poor comparison. The West Bank and Gaza do not share a government. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Palestinians in Gaza do not exist in a vacuum. It's like you not minding if Canadians from New Brunswick started booting Maine residents out of their homes and moving in. Because you live way over there in California.
 

So you believe Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza took one for the team, with settlements- which have not been in Gaza for almost 20 years- being one of the big problems. That's an interesting take. And you knew that there were no settlements in Gaza when you posted that? 

Using two of our UNITED states is a poor comparison. The West Bank and Gaza do not share a government.

When I lived in Maine, there *was* a problem with illegal Canadian immigrants settling there. My next door neighbors as an example.  ...Other than that I agree that the analogy is flawed.

If anyone seriously wants to explore the reasoning behind the timing of the attack, I'd consider a couple major factors. 
 

Israel has been entering into peace treaties with many previously hostile countries in the region. The Saudi-Israel Normalization Agreement is/was on the horizon, which would be a game changer. A big step towards peace in the Middle East. Which is why Israel naively thought Hamas would be on board with peace. But peace is bad for the terror and conflict business. Hamas is a one trick pony with no skills to actually help their populous thrive. "Death to Israel" can only take you so far, and falls a bit flat if there is peace. 
 

Iran has shown Hamas increasing support, and just loves to stir E36 M3 up with Israel. They put pressure on Hamas to E36 M3 or get off the pot, as they could see the window of opportunity was closing. 
 

I think the above is a much bigger factor than the settlements. Hamas is like a "protester" who doesn't care about the cause, they just use it as an excuse to cause havoc. Pick your favorite anti Israel talking point, it's just the excuse to break stuff and hurt people. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I posted on the Iran-Hamas connection in the timing and intent of this somewhere, probably in the previous thread. It's certainly Iran's doing, and stopping or delaying the Israeli-Saudi normalization is clearly the purpose. Hamas is so reliant on Iran that it would be quite easy to leverage them into action.

The settlement problem in the West Bank is not a short-term issue, but it very certainly complicates any sort of long-term solution. Even if Gaza is completely isolated from Israel and Hamas is rendered ineffective, the West Bank Palestinians will continue to view Gazans as countrymen, and vice versa (for comparison, think about other instances of divided nationalist communities - Serbia in the first years of the 20th Century, for example). Disputed land will remain a problem that will be very hard to resolve, and will have repercussions beyond the immediate vicinity.

- Israel did another incursion operation

- Hamas may be willing to release more hostages for a few days of ceasefire.  If true, it not likely for the purpose of giving the civilians a break.

- As a bit of a hint to what the Israelis are up against.  Israel recently released info (which I think was pretty well known already) that the Hamas HQ is directly underneath the largest hospital in Gaza:

The headquarters of the organization's activity in the Gaza Strip is Shifaa Hospital, the central and largest hospital in the Gaza Strip, located in the heart of Gaza City.

In the Shifaa hospital, there are several underground complexes used by the leaders of the terrorist organization Hamas to direct their activities and a tunnel that reaches the hospital, and allows entrance to the Hamas headquarters without going through the hospital.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/379276

In reply to aircooled :

As stated earlier. Hamas has no honor. 

Negotiating with them is a fools errand that will only end in more dead Isralis. 

Some before and after Gaza shots.  I had heard he Isrealis where taking down some of the taller buildings so they did not become sniper nests.  This is of course is more general destruction: