History in the making Part 2: War in the Middle East

RX Reven' said:

triumph7 said:

Apexcarver said:

NOHOME said:

 

Why?

There was only ever going to be one guaranteed and predictable response to the Hamas attack. Israel was going to kick the E36 M3 out of Gaza with zero regard for collateral damage. The entire western world would demand it and there would be to pause to consider other options due to politics.

And they were correct, first point to Hamas.

So, knowing they were going to get the response they wanted, what is Hamas' long game? Is this just a way to recruit the next generation of victim/haters who lost everything to the evil west? Or is there an actual attainable military victory to be had? 

Who stands to benefit from tensions and conflict in the middle east?   Who benefits best from a "Moslems vs Jews vs the west"?

• Iran - well, Saudi and Israel were on the cusp of peace, likely a casualty of this conflict. Iran is already suffering under internal pressures on human rights type issues, a new conflict allows their culture war to have an excuse. 
• Muslim extremists in general - poke them, they hit us, we can claim aggrieved status and get more recruits and power. 
• Russia?   *Distraction* might drive some combatants into their arms, just because the other side
• China?  Same as Russia, plus the west distracted from whats happening with Taiwan is a good thing for them. Might be able to get some middle east development contracts in the aftermath. 

If things escalate one of the biggest winners could be the American military/weapons industrial complex.

Yep...

I was focused on causal relationships, I think it would be drinking tin foil hat conspiracy kool-aide to think that there is a causal relationship wherein American military suppliers are proactively stoking an attack like that. 

As an aside, name any conflict even tangentially related to a country the US is cozy with that doesnt result in a win for the military industrial complex...   They are just poised to win no matter what I think.  I mean, world peace aside.  

Question is, will they be getting taxpayer money, or overseas money?  -likely both...

In reply to Apexcarver :

Yes, there is absolutely no need for commercial companies to stoke conflict and destruction around the world to make money...

....humans are very much capable of doing that all by themselves.

History, both recent and ancient is FULL of examples.

02Pilot said:

bobzilla said:

Noddaz said:

02Pilot said:

Noddaz said:

In reply to Javelin :

What if the real motive was to lure in a CSG and hit it to show the world how vulnerable the US is. 

That seems like a very high-risk/low-odds play, but let's say they sink it. What's the endgame? How does it advance Hezbollah's (who are much more capable of even attempting such a thing than Hamas) objectives? "Show(ing) the world how vulnerable the US is" doesn't really seem like much of a benefit to the Palestinians. Do they think the US is going to slink home and lick their wounds? I don't, and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near southern Lebanon if such an attack were attempted, let alone successfully.

It does sound like a movie plot.  But in the short term, the USA is nothing but predictable.  

What worries me more is what CBG we sent. This has the Ford which is still plagued with little issues like self defense and launching and catching aircraft. If we had sent a Nimitz class group in I wouldn't think twice about it. Sending in the untested Ford who spent all summer fixing issues is problematic to me. 

It is the only carrier in the Med right now, so it wasn't really a choice so much as the only available option.

Looks like they are thinking about a backup.

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in the Quran.

Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't it be better to say, "Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in how they interpret the Quran."?  I just want to be careful we're not lumping an entire religion on one extremist group. 

I'll fully admit that I've tried to understand the conflict.  I've read multiple articles on it and still come away confused.  Obviously, the actions of Hamas are atrocious, but I'm not 100% convinced a 10 fold response is the right response either, as you're punishing a larger group for the actions of the extremists?  I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance of the conflict in even thinking that, so my apologies if anyone is offended, as that's not my intent. I'm just dumb.

I'll be watching this thread to learn more and hope it stays civil and doesn't get locked as I find I learn a lot more from y'all than most other places.

-Rob

aircooled said:

In reply to Apexcarver :

Yes, there is absolutely no need for commercial companies to stoke conflict and destruction around the world to make money...

....humans are very much capable of doing that all by themselves.

History, both recent and ancient is FULL of examples.

No need, I agree. But I am certain that there are some that, lets say "assist" some situations to make more money and gain more power. They are just piggy backing on humanity's natural depravity. 

rob_lewis said:

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in the Quran.

Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't it be better to say, "Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in how they interpret the Quran."?  I just want to be careful we're not lumping an entire religion on one extremist group. 

I'll fully admit that I've tried to understand the conflict.  I've read multiple articles on it and still come away confused.  Obviously, the actions of Hamas are atrocious, but I'm not 100% convinced a 10 fold response is the right response either, as you're punishing a larger group for the actions of the extremists?  I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance of the conflict in even thinking that, so my apologies if anyone is offended, as that's not my intent. I'm just dumb.

I'll be watching this thread to learn more and hope it stays civil and doesn't get locked as I find I learn a lot more from y'all than most other places.

-Rob

Very much the same for me Rob. The attacks by Hamas on civilians are absolutely deplorable and never should have happened. They have committed war crimes and are terrorists. 

But why this response?

This is an entire city block of civilian housing with zero military value. This is the kind of wanton destruction Russia is doing to Ukraine that we've been railing against. None of those dead civilians deserved that.

aircooled said:

In reply to Apexcarver :

Yes, there is absolutely no need for commercial companies to stoke conflict and destruction around the world to make money...

....humans are very much capable of doing that all by themselves.

History, both recent and ancient is FULL of examples.

Commercial companies are made up of humans, and there are also plenty of examples throughout history of wars fought for corporate interests or the "blending" of corporate and national interests. There are also plenty of examples of political decisions made against national interest in favor of corporate interests, its literally why most people hate lobbyists.

Not saying this war was started by companies just that I dont agree its as clear cut as you made it out to be.

Javelin said:

 

But why this response?

Because that is very much part of "the game".  Hamas knows Israel has to desperately try to avoid killing civilians, because it is all bad press.  Generally far worse press than when a Palestinian kills some Israeli, or when they launch rockets indiscriminately into civilian filled cities (which is clearly straight up civilian terrorism).  Because they know this, HAMAS (it's actually an acronym) puts all it's weapons, it's rocket launchers and it's hiding spots either in sensitive civilian areas, or even Mosques.

So what are the Israelis supposed to do?  There best option, so far, is to warn civilians to leave the target areas and then flatten the building, hoping they did not have time to remove all the weapons.  Otherwise, there is almost nothing they could attack... so then what?  Let them do it?  Or march in?

Currently... I suspect the Israelis are being more aggressive(!).  An example of this they recently flattened a Mosque.  Something that I don't think happens often, but was being used as a hiding place, because they don't think Israel will hit one.  Of course, destroying a Mosque will be portrayed as absolutely barbaric by the Palestinians (and many Muslims I am sure), but I suspect the Israelis are starting to not give an F at this point.  Why they flattened the houses shown above, I don't know, but I am pretty certain they do not have zero military value (from a terrorist hiding spot perspective). 

It's possible the Israelis are terrorizing the civilian population, but I doubt it.  It's doesn't really serve any purpose.  Possibly to encourage others to leave, but that still seems unlikely.

In reply to Javelin and Rob_Lewis:

I think we're looking at it from a different perspective than the Israelis.

We don't have the experience of living someplace surrounded by people that want to see our country wiped off the face of the earth, which makes the extreme response unsurprising. 

We are geographically isolated from our enemies, and that gives us a different perspective. The same way that as a white man in my 50s, I can't claim to understand the struggles of women or minorities and how it feels to be in their shoes.

It's unfortunate for the innocent civilians in this conflict, but the terrorists can/do hide among the civilians to use them as shields. 

rob_lewis said:

bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:

Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in the Quran.

Not to be pedantic, but wouldn't it be better to say, "Their lower status is laid out fairly clearly in how they interpret the Quran."?  I just want to be careful we're not lumping an entire religion on one extremist group. 

I'll fully admit that I've tried to understand the conflict.  I've read multiple articles on it and still come away confused.  Obviously, the actions of Hamas are atrocious, but I'm not 100% convinced a 10 fold response is the right response either, as you're punishing a larger group for the actions of the extremists?  I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance of the conflict in even thinking that, so my apologies if anyone is offended, as that's not my intent. I'm just dumb.

I'll be watching this thread to learn more and hope it stays civil and doesn't get locked as I find I learn a lot more from y'all than most other places.

-Rob

No I think hes correct or at least the part you quoted is. The lower status is pretty clearly laid out. Wether that lower status should be met with violence or peace is the part thats debated and generally dependent on interpretation. Hamas ties their religion to the group, its literally in the name "Islamic resistance movement" You cant separate the two. Im not saying that means all Muslim are terrorists, In fact I believe quite the opposite. Im just saying the religion AND THEIR INTERPRETATION, needs to be a part of the view, because it speaks to their motivation, which is useful in planning and understanding the conflict.

I also should say, and everyone be aware, the Palestinians have been screwed over in various ways over the years (essentially shuffled around and when they resist, they are suppressed / attacked).  An important part of that though is most all of these injustices where done 40, 50, 60 years ago.  Does not make them right, but its still been a while.

What has happened since then is mostly an endless series of revenge and response.

You of course have to throw in a very heaping shovel full of religious fervor (on both sides, but it seems a bit more common on the Palestinian side) and straight up hard core racism/nationalism and of course a good amount of a culture of victimhood (essentially wanting to be a victim, or at least perceived victim).

Is it possible that Hamas is purely transactional? 

In reply to aircooled :

Terrorizing the civilians absolutely serves a purpose. Im not condoning it or even saying its a good idea, but its literally used in conflict all the time, and it actually works sometimes. Israel could completely break the moral and support for HAMAS with a show of force. If thats what they are doing its a dangerous gamble because it could also bolster support. Its in the same vein as threatening nukes. Its a "look how far we will go, we arent messing around."

aircooled said:

I also should say, and everyone be aware, the Palestinians have been screwed over in various ways over the years (essentially shuffled around and when they resist, they are suppressed / attacked).  An important part of that though is most all of these injustices where done 40, 50, 60 years ago.  Does not make them right, but its still been a while.

What has happened since then is mostly an endless series of revenge and response.

You of course have to throw in a very heaping shovel full of religious fervor (on both sides, but it seems a bit more common on the Palestinian side) and straight up hard core racism/nationalism and of course a good amount of a culture of victimhood (essentially wanting to be a victim, or at least perceived victim).

While true, there is also the geopolitical dimension to consider. If it were strictly about religion and/or racism/nationalism, the Palestinians would be able to draw on support from fellow Arabs and Muslims. While they do have some Muslim support, it is instructive to note that none of it borders them; almost no Arabs offer them more than lip service. Egypt was just as quick to close their Gaza crossing as was Israel, and the West Bank Palestinians haven't been able to get anything from the Jordanians for decades. Most of the states surrounding Israel slowly came to realize that peace was more valuable than supporting their religious or racial brethren in Palestine, and so they have been left in a situation where they have to take support from whence it's offered. Iran doesn't care one iota about the Palestinians themselves, and is certainly happy to fight to the last one of them, but it's also a long way from Israel, and the Palestinians provide a low-cost/low-risk way to hit their enemy. The Iranians would be leaving an option on the table if they didn't employ it, so it's hardly surprising that they did.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Yeah, good point.  I should have been more specific.  I was really more referring to the racism/nationalism within Gaza and Israel.

In reply to Opti :

Yes, it absolutely has been used before.  Very recently actually, and it almost always backfires. Rather than cower the population, it strengthens its resolve against the attacker.

The only purpose I could see in this case is that since the difference between a civilian and a HAMAS fighter can be a thin distinction, a huge show of force might discourage Palestinians from trying to fight.  Of course, as in most cases, it simply encourages and motivates them TO fight.

aircooled said:

I also should say, and everyone be aware, the Palestinians have been screwed over in various ways over the years (essentially shuffled around and when they resist, they are suppressed / attacked).  An important part of that though is most all of these injustices where done 40, 50, 60 years ago.  Does not make them right, but its still been a while.

What has happened since then is mostly an endless series of revenge and response.

You of course have to throw in a very heaping shovel full of religious fervor (on both sides, but it seems a bit more common on the Palestinian side) and straight up hard core racism/nationalism and of course a good amount of a culture of victimhood (essentially wanting to be a victim, or at least perceived victim).

I agree with you but I always find these conflicts and where peoples (those outside the actual conflict) support falls and the reasoning weird. Every piece of land in this world has been won by conquest or repression in some form or another, and when we look at a modern conflict people look in the past and choose an arbitrary date and decide when a piece of land became someones land. I think its useful in looking at what led up to a conflict or the belligerents motive, but I think its weird when a third party makes the argument that its X's land, becuase its always murkier than that.

In reply to Opti :

Absolutely.  Totally agree.

My question always is:  "And who did your people kill to get the land?"  

I wonder how much effort and aid this will siphon away from the Ukraine. Any reduction in aid to the Ukraine helps Russia greatly. Could Russia have had a hand in pushing the attack against Israel?

Netanyahu also made a huge error by supporting Hamas. In March, 2019 he said: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

There are some other things banging around in my head, but they deal with U.S. politics, and I won't go into them here.

aircooled said:

In reply to Opti :

Yes, it absolutely has been used before.  Very recently actually, and it almost always backfires. Rather than cower the population, it strengthens its resolve against the attacker.

The only purpose I could see in this case is that since the difference between a civilian and a HAMAS fighter can be a thin distinction, a huge show of force might discourage Palestinians from trying to fight.  Of course, as in most cases, it simply encourages and motivates them TO fight.

Well since this Israel conflict can trace some of its roots to the early 20th century, lets look there for an example. The US dropped 2 nukes on Japan killing mostly civilians, and Japan immediately surrendered.

I think the reason it mostly fails today is because the public appetite for war is kinda low and that affects how wars are actually fought. Most people dont know what actual war is, its far away and "limited conflict." The existential threat, fire and brimstone war is largely a thing of the past to the majority of the world. So many developed nations support a little war and then it wanes (we can see this in the trends for public support of aide to Ukraine). We focus more on control and occupation nowadays, illustrated by 20 years the US spent in the middle east, not just outright destruction of the enemy. Its easy to use a limited conflict to bolster support because the stakes are relatively low and it plays into the oppression narrative.

Israel seems to be taking the fire and brimstone route with "they are human animals and will be treated as such," "even a mosque isnt off limits," and we will flatten EVERYTHING. Historically this is more effective than what weve seen in recent history. Trying to reduce civilian casualties helps reduce the backlash that would come with this tactic

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

I wonder how much effort and aid this will siphon away from the Ukraine. Any reduction in aid to the Ukraine helps Russia greatly. Could Russia have had a hand in pushing the attack against Israel?

Netanyahu also made a huge error by supporting Hamas. In March, 2019 he said: “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

There are some other things banging around in my head, but they deal with U.S. politics, and I won't go into them here.

It could play out a couple of ways. It could be seen as another step towards destabilization of the global status quo and revitalize people appetite for spending money in other parts of the world. This could also be helped by Israel being a long time ally, and a stabilizng force in an unstable region.

I think its more likely to hurt aide to Ukraine. Public opinion of aide to Ukraine is already hurt and polling is showing it. The US economy is in shambles and there are more and more calls to spend our resources here in the states, from both sides. This is another example of "geopolitics is messy and people are always at war why waste resources on it in a far away land." On the left (maybe i should say far left) its not even clear who to support, its almost a third rail. We have Pro Palestinian rallys happening in the US. Almost every tweet or announcement you see from a public figure starts with an acknowledgment of the Palestinians plight. Many people are afraid to just outright denounce the killing of a bunch of civilians because of the public backlash so they hedge.  Ukraine is a war that almost all of the US supported Ukraine (wether they supported aide or not) yet support for aide has waned and Israel is a war that a decent or atleast vocal part of the US doesnt agree with Israel. What Im saying is Ukraine and Israel are two separate issues, but the public discourse is currently about spending resources on a far away war and this will get lumped in with it and pushed on raw nerves and people will just say no.

I wasnt advocating for either position just how I think it will play out.

A note from ISW (Institute for the Study of War) on the Russian angle:

------

NOTE: ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin has and will continue to exploit the Hamas attacks in Israel to advance several Russian information operations about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, ISW has notably not observed any evidence — and does not assess — that the Kremlin supported, directed, or is involved in the Hamas attacks.

The Kremlin continues efforts to maintain Russia’s influence in the Middle East against the backdrop of the ongoing war in Israel. Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani at the Kremlin on October 10, marking the first meeting between the two since al-Sudani took office in October 2022.[67] Russian media reported that the meeting had already been planned before Hamas attacks in Israel began on October 7, but Putin and al-Sudani nevertheless reportedly discussed the situation in Israel, as well as the development of “multifaceted” Russo-Iraqi cooperation.[68] Putin told al-Sudani that he believes that the war in Israel is the result of US foreign policy failures and called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.[69] Putin’s remarks to al-Sudani do not necessarily represent an inflection in Russia’s posturing vis-a-vis the wider Middle East. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized on October 9 that Russia benefits from conflict and instability in the Middle East, which is consistent with ISW’s running assessment that the Kremlin has and will continue to exploit the war in Israel to advance information operations and bolster Russia’s geopolitical reputation.[70]

I did misspeak as I do not know how the Quran rates the value of children. But for women at least they are just a tool at the disposal of men. 

Qur’an 4.34: “Men stand superior to women in that God hath preferred some of them over others, and in that they expend of their wealth; and the virtuous women, devoted, careful (in their husbands’) absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.”

I would guess that Palestinian men who do not support or fight with Hamas would be considered expendable as well. 

Regarding the mosque attack, I expect that Israel is not going to avoid hitting places of worship just because of optics. This time they said  " berkeley you guys. You hide in a mosque and we will blow the mosque up and to hell with public opinion."

Try to think like they think.  A lot of people in the middle east don't think like we do, not even a little.  Their values and ideals make no sense to us and vice versa.  

Have y'all checked out the "squad's" activities in the last 96 hrs......hmmm open borders

I mean, we shouldn't get political, but it seems like mocking the same arguments about stopping US support for Ukraine as we're just funding violence.