Hamas attacks southern Israel

[Ludicus]

… We could instead have expected some for of 'smart warfare' that does more to avoid civilian casualties, the way America has made us believe wars can be waged.

Like what? "anything that flies on anything that moves?"

But the Israeli government can't be expected to do anything else, because the Palestinians are expendable subhumans. If you have any doubts, ask Netanyahu,Ben Gvir and Smotrich.
Btw, do you know that, (according to the Times of Israel) Israeli officials held talks with officials in DR Congo and other African nations to accept Palestinians from Gaza? they were probably inspired by the British government, which sells asylum seekers to Rwanda. UK Supreme Court Finds UK-Rwanda Asylum Scheme ...
Edit,
After all, the Israeli government must be thinking at this moment, why can't Israel send the "sub-humans" to Africa, when the radical faction of the Tories wants the British government's law to send migrants to Rwanda to ignore international law? And now, just so you know if you don't already, British law also intends to give powers to British ministers to ignore urgent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights aimed at temporarily suspending the transfer of migrants and allow national courts to ignore some domestic and international laws—such as the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees—that would hinder these same transfers.

- --


Germans should thank their government for helping to make this happen. Bundesregierung prüft Lieferung von Panzermunition an Israel

[PointOfViewGun]

Perhaps our views do not diverge that much. Even a real casus belli can become more of a pretext. However I don't necessarily agree with the 'level of brutality' argument. I would agree that Israel's way of waging war is perhaps more destructive than we have come to expect from a western power. We could instead have expected some for of 'smart warfare' that does more to avoid civilian casualties, the way America has made us believe wars can be waged. But if there's one thing I do not suspect the Israeli military and intelligence services of it is tactical or strategical stupidity: I believe they realized that was exactly the war Hamas had been preparing for and they weren't going to give them what they wanted. Whether the civilian casualty toll will be higher because of it is something we will never know. The war will be far shorter though.

Your take on Israel's war in Gaza would be a gross misrepresentation of what's going on there. We're beyond wishing for smart warfare at this point. This isn't just some lack of choice for smart ammunition and targeting that we know Israel is very capable of. We have seen not just malicious action but also malicious intent in play in Gaza and the Israelis do little to hide it. Much of the destruction Israel has caused in Gaza is unrelated to Hamas presence. You also can't argue that Hamas wanted Israel to cause harm in Gaza that effect civilians a lot and then argue that Hamas wanted Israel to rely on surgical strikes and that Israel weren't going to comply with that. Israel did just that in targeting Saleh al-Arouri in Lebanon.

[Ludicus]

Biden admin again bypasses Congress to sell military equipment to Israel CNN
77 Groups Worldwide Back Genocide Lawsuit Against Against Biden in US Court

The lawsuit is headed for a hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California later this month.

Biden administration sidesteps 'genocide' claim in Bay Area lawsuit challenging U.S. aid to Israel.

In a final round of written arguments to a Bay Area federal judge, President Joe Biden and top aides have strikingly avoided saying whether they think Israel is committing genocide, with U.S. support, against Palestinians in Gaza
Instead, they say the courts should not interfere in disputes over U.S. diplomatic and military policy, and that the judge should not allow Palestinians and their relatives to testify at a hearing next week.

The Legal Case Against Joe Biden for Enabling Israel's Genocide Against Gaza.

As the judges at The Hague deliberate on South Africa’s indictment of Israel, a lawsuit against senior U.S. officials for supporting genocide is set to begin in federal court.
The Bay Area suit, filed Nov. 13, accuses Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin of complicity in genocide by providing billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel along with political support.

Biden faces growing internal dissent over Israel's Gaza war

Biden is facing pressure from his own staff and federal government workers, which could possibly make it more difficult to dismiss public opinion on the war. On Tuesday, 16 January, employees from around a dozen government agencies plan to stage a walkout over Biden's support for Israel's war in Gaza, which has so far killed more than 24,000 Palestinians.

Second administration official resigns in protest of Biden's support for Israeli war in Gaza.
-----

In short - Biden says he's trying to stop Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians, but at the same time bypasses Congress to speed up arms supplies to Israel. He insists that he wants an end to the fighting in Gaza, while vetoing ceasefire resolutions at the UN. Biden insists that he defends the rule of law while subverting the legal mechanism that can stop genocide.

----
Biden's ridiculous claim he was arrested trying to see Mandela-Washington Post

At least three times, the former vice president has told a tall tale about being arrested in South Africa.

After all, he wasn't arrested, but he should have been (metaphorically, of course) arrested for not listening to Mandela. When Mandela was elected President, he thanked the international community for its help and added: "But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians."

[Vanoi]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/17/isol...-tensions.html

The Iranians are doing everything possible to escalate the Gaza war. Iran struck targets in Iraq claiming it hit a Mossad HQ. They also struck targets in Syria and Pakistan claiming to hit militant groups in both countries.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pakistan-...044100312.html

Pakistan has now struck back and hit militants in Iran with airstrikes.

Along with the Iranian-backed Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea, it's obvious Iran is doing anything it can to escalate the conflict and drag the US and the West further into the conflict itself.

[Muizer]

Your take on Israel's war in Gaza would be a gross misrepresentation of what's going on there. We're beyond wishing for smart warfare at this point. This isn't just some lack of choice for smart ammunition and targeting that we know Israel is very capable of.

On underground tunnel systems? How do you propose to eliminate those with smart bombs without hitting above-ground buildings and infrastructure? Hamas set itself up specifically to proof themselves against this and to effectively wage urban warfare. That is, a kind of warfare that presents inhabitants with the choice to either leave or get killed in the crossfire. Would that have been preferable?

We have seen not just malicious action but also malicious intent in play in Gaza and the Israelis do little to hide it. Much of the destruction Israel has caused in Gaza is unrelated to Hamas presence.

Speculative. It would be a mistake to confuse political rhetoric with military decision making.

You also can't argue that Hamas wanted Israel to cause harm in Gaza that effect civilians a lot

Which they indeed admitted themselves.

and then argue that Hamas wanted Israel to rely on surgical strikes and that Israel weren't going to comply with that.

Indeed, not Hamas. But protesters world wide seem to believe that was an option. You yourself for instance refer to the brutality of the way Israel is waging the war, which is only a meaningful statement if one assumes there is a 'non-brutal' way to wage war.

[PointOfViewGun]

On underground tunnel systems? How do you propose to eliminate those with smart bombs without hitting above-ground buildings and infrastructure? Hamas set itself up specifically to proof themselves against this and to effectively wage urban warfare. That is, a kind of warfare that presents inhabitants with the choice to either leave or get killed in the crossfire. Would that have been preferable?

Ugh, so much framing going on in your post. Gaza is not limited to tunnels and much of what Israel claimed on them turned out to be false; especially the supposed ones under the al-Shifa hospital which turned out to be minor tunnels that Israelis themselves built in the past. That turned out to be an embarrassing claim for Israel. Having tunnels under Gaza does not make destroying much of the structures as something to be OK with. Especially given that Gaza is a problem Israel itself created. It didn't become a very dense patch of land out of Palestinian's own skills with coitus. Much of the bombing is not related to destroying tunnels anyway. Your go to argument simply has no basis.

Speculative. It would be a mistake to confuse political rhetoric with military decision making.

Not speculative at all. We heard it from all levels of the government including the military. It's backed by the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza; from leveling entire neighborhoods and destroying public buildings unrelated to fighting to demolishing graves and monuments. No place in Gaza was safe for any civilian not because Hamas somehow planted a fighter on every square meter but because Israel chose to bomb random targets endangering civilians, schools, mosques, churches, hospitals, etc. What would be a mistake is to ignore facts of destruction from the ground and genocidal rhetoric from many levels of the Israeli administration.

Which they indeed admitted themselves.
Indeed, not Hamas. But protesters world wide seem to believe that was an option. You yourself for instance refer to the brutality of the way Israel is waging the war, which is only a meaningful statement if one assumes there is a 'non-brutal' way to wage war.

You're conflating your own words to dance around the contradiction you introduced. You can't claim that Hamas wanted Israel to cause harm to civilians in Gaza a lot and that they also expected Israel to rely on surgical strikes which minimizes civilians deaths.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Along with the Iranian-backed Houthis hitting ships in the Red Sea, it's obvious Iran is doing anything it can to escalate the conflict and drag the US and the West further into the conflict itself.

I agree but tbf both Iran and Pakistan claim to be striking Balochi “terrorists” in each other’s territory and these are longstanding conflicts in de facto ungovernable territory. I don’t pretend to know whether the US cares enough or could do anything about ethnic tensions in those places, or if Iran is including these in its Gaza calculus. I guess it could be related in the sense that Tehran wants to show it is a rising independent power and there’s nothing the US or Israel can do to stop it. However, conflict between Pakistan and Iran doesn’t exactly conflict with US or Israeli interests.

And the elephant in the room I haven’t seen in any emerging analyses: what will India do? Iran and Pakistan are both aligned with China and India is not, but I can see India moving closer to Iran on this issue if things escalate, just to screw over Pakistan. So far though, both India and China have released very neutral statements.

In the interim, I think Iran getting embroiled in a war with Pakistan would be one of the luckiest things that has happened to the US or Israel since the US surrendered Afghanistan. #FreeBalochistan #AllahuAkbar

[Muizer]

You're conflating your own words to dance around the contradiction you introduced. You can't claim that Hamas wanted Israel to cause harm to civilians in Gaza a lot and that they also expected Israel to rely on surgical strikes which minimizes civilians deaths.

Where do you think I said Hamas expected Israel to rely on surgical strikes?

[PointOfViewGun]

Where do you think I said Hamas expected Israel to rely on surgical strikes?

Perhaps our views do not diverge that much. Even a real casus belli can become more of a pretext. However I don't necessarily agree with the 'level of brutality' argument. I would agree that Israel's way of waging war is perhaps more destructive than we have come to expect from a western power. We could instead have expected some for of 'smart warfare' that does more to avoid civilian casualties, the way America has made us believe wars can be waged. But if there's one thing I do not suspect the Israeli military and intelligence services of it is tactical or strategical stupidity: I believe they realized that was exactly the war Hamas had been preparing for and they weren't going to give them what they wanted. Whether the civilian casualty toll will be higher because of it is something we will never know. The war will be far shorter though.

[Muizer]

And what do you think those preparations were meant to achieve?

Edit this is taking to long, I'll give you the answer I would have thought quite obvious: to deny effective use of surgical strikes. Not to sit there and wait for them to happen. They prepared for surgical strikes and expected Israel to send in the infantry in response. That's what they were after: closing the gap in fire power, technology and training by preparing the ground for urban warfare.

[PointOfViewGun]

And what do you think those preparations were meant to achieve?

Edit this is taking to long, I'll give you the answer I would have thought quite obvious: to deny effective use of surgical strikes. Not to sit there and wait for them to happen. They prepared for surgical strikes and expected Israel to send in the infantry in response. That's what they were after: closing the gap in fire power, technology and training by preparing the ground for urban warfare.

You're not presenting a coherent line of argumentation. Why would Hamas specifically prepare for surgical strikes while expecting Israel to send in infantry?

[Ludicus]

Michael Lynk, who served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory from 2016 to 2022, wrote the following lines, published in an article titled "Can International Law Prevail in Gaza and Israel?": "There is no human rights crisis or military occupation in the modern world where international law has spoken so frequently and so clearly, primarily through hundreds of United Nations resolutions, as with the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

Netanyahu made it very clear today "to our American friends" and stated it outright that all of Palestine belongs to Israel, from the river to the sea.
And if Biden disagrees, so be it.
This has been Netanyahu's policy for the past twenty years, and Biden knows it very well.
The Middle East is turning into a volcano. The conflict will soon spread to Lebanon, as announced, and it will be prolonged as much as possible. The instability in the region greatly favors Israel's interests.
But until then, what do they do to the "sub-humans" of Gaza and the West Bank? Do they forcibly throw them into the desert? Do they continue to kill them with bombs, leaving them to die from hunger, diseases, and lack of medical care? Gaza is now an uninhabitable hell. Biden says he disagrees, but he will do nothing to the contrary, except continue to arm Israel.

[conon394]

Michael Lynk, who served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory from 2016 to 2022, wrote the following lines, published in an article titled "Can International Law Prevail in Gaza and Israel?": "There is no human rights crisis or military occupation in the modern world where international law has spoken so frequently and so clearly, primarily through hundreds of United Nations resolutions, as with the Israeli occupation of Palestine."

Netanyahu made it very clear today "to our American friends" and stated it outright that all of Palestine belongs to Israel, from the river to the sea.
And if Biden disagrees, so be it.
This has been Netanyahu's policy for the past twenty years, and Biden knows it very well.
The Middle East is turning into a volcano. The conflict will soon spread to Lebanon, as announced, and it will be prolonged as much as possible. The instability in the region greatly favors Israel's interests.
But until then, what do they do to the "sub-humans" of Gaza and the West Bank? Do they forcibly throw them into the desert? Do they continue to kill them with bombs, leaving them to die from hunger, diseases, and lack of medical care? Gaza is now an uninhabitable hell. Biden says he disagrees, but he will do nothing to the contrary, except continue to arm Israel.

It interesting how you view here where Israel is effectively sovereign is different than about Ukraine and now Taiwan that you would happily toss under the bus.

[Love Mountain]

It interesting how you view here where Israel is effectively sovereign is different than about Ukraine and now Taiwan that you would happily toss under the bus.

Probably because they're completely different situations lmao

[Ludicus]

It interesting how you view here where Israel is effectively sovereign is different than about Ukraine and now Taiwan that you would happily toss under the bus.

I was very clear in everything I wrote, but you don't seem to have understood anything I said.#26
And, btw, demanding a two-state solution is not a way of throwing Israel "under the bus".
---

EU ministers to meet Israeli, Palestinian top diplomats

…Diplomats say EU countries are also in the process of drawing up sanctions against “extremist” Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

Not going to happen in the next Monday. Why?
Because the neo-fascist Antonio Tajani, vice-president of the European People's Party, known for praising the good things that Mussolini did (1) says that systematic violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories is not a terrorist act.

(1) The neo-fascist once said "Mussolini did some positive things to build infrastructure in our country, he built roads, bridges, buildings, sports facilities and reclaimed large swaths of Italy from marshes. If we look at concrete facts, we can’t say he hasn’t achieved anything”.

There is more. Slovenian, Croatian leaders accuse Tajani of territorial claims and historical revisionism. EP President Tajani says "Italian Istria and Dalmatia" remark

Croatian top state officials strongly condemned Tajani’s words, with Prime Minister and leader of the ruling centre-right Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), Andrej Plenkovic, saying the statement has elements of territorial claims and revisionism. Slovenian Prime Minister Marjan Sarec said on Twitter that Tajani’s statements represented unheard-of historical revisionism. “Fascism is a historical fact and its objective was also the destruction of the Slovenian people,” he tweeted.

So, it's no wonder that the neo-fascist Tajani, who praised the "good things Mussolini did" and who longs for the time when Italy annexed Istria at the end of the First World War, is now saying that the systematic violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories is not a terrorist act.

[Love Mountain]

https://www.semafor.com/article/01/1...kes-on-houthis

China is warning the U.S. against escalating its attacks on Yemen’s Houthi rebels, as the conflict in the Red Sea increasingly threatens both Beijing’s economic and diplomatic interests.

The Houthis’ months-long campaign to restrict maritime traffic moving through key Middle East waterways is a particular threat to China, which is heavily reliant on the Suez Canal and Bab-el-Mandeb Strait to move Chinese products to European markets. China is also more dependent than the U.S. on oil and gas imports from countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Qatar.

This is funny though.

[Ludicus]

Netanyahu has refused all the proposals Biden has made to him: Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza in the post-war period? Nope. Two-state solution? Nope.Netanyahu spits in the face of the American administration, which he considers weak.
Netanyahu Spits In Biden's Face With Latest Comments

Worse still, it is now recognized that victory is not a realistic goal.
'Absolute Defeat' Of Hamas Is Out Of Reach, Israeli Military

One of Israel's most revered military commanders appears to contradict the goals of the offensive in Gaza as laid out by Netanyahu.
"Today, the situation on the ground in the Gaza Strip is such that the goals of the war are yet to be achieved."

[Muizer]

You're not presenting a coherent line of argumentation. Why would Hamas specifically prepare for surgical strikes while expecting Israel to send in infantry?

We have seen over the past decade that an advanced western army like the US' have built their military strategy around precision aerial strikes. The point of doing so is two fold
Firstly, it inflicts casualties on the enemy without much risk to their own forces. Secondly, the political cost is low with comparatively few civilian casualties even when targets are located in between civilian buildings.

This is the kind of war Hamas has prepared for. In their case (being on the receiving end) they have prepared to deny these advantages to Israel.

They have done so by moving their military infrastructure underground, and right under densely populated areas.

I suspect Hamas probably thought that having done so, Israel would politically speaking be compelled to send in the infantry without much support from the air or from tanks and artillery.

The IDF has called that bluff though, telling civilians "we're not going to give up our advantage in fire power, you better get out of the way"

They are paying a heavy political price for it. In that sense it's a win for Hamas. But they're not getting the urban warfare they hoped for.

And frankly, at the end of the day, it is quite doubtful it makes a difference in the total number of civilian casualties. It does have a big impact on IDF casualties though.

But that's what any nation does in war. You may try to spare the civilian population of enemy territory, but you're not going to risk high casualties or big delays that may affect the ultimate outcome.

Ok having said all that, I do highly doubt that this war is worth it from an Israeli perspective. My only argument in their favour is that 1) they had sufficient grounds to do it. In a similar situation, any country would reserve the right to respond with a military campaign and 2) the way they go about it is sensible from a strategic pov. It does not have to be an expression of excessive or intentional brutality, if you consider the alternatives.

If my writing is confusing, try this. Slightly different argument, but paints the overall picture well.

Gaza’s Underground: Hamas’s Entire Politico-Military Strategy Rests on Its Tunnels

[PointOfViewGun]

We have seen over the past decade that an advanced western army like the US' have built their military strategy around precision aerial strikes. The point of doing so is two fold
Firstly, it inflicts casualties on the enemy without much risk to their own forces. Secondly, the political cost is low with comparatively few civilian casualties even when targets are located in between civilian buildings.
This is the kind of war Hamas has prepared for. In their case (being on the receiving end) they have prepared to deny these advantages to Israel.
They have done so by moving their military infrastructure underground, and right under densely populated areas.
I suspect Hamas probably thought that having done so, Israel would politically speaking be compelled to send in the infantry without much support from the air or from tanks and artillery.
The IDF has called that bluff though, telling civilians "we're not going to give up our advantage in fire power, you better get out of the way"
They are paying a heavy political price for it. In that sense it's a win for Hamas. But they're not getting the urban warfare they hoped for.
And frankly, at the end of the day, it is quite doubtful it makes a difference in the total number of civilian casualties. It does have a big impact on IDF casualties though.
But that's what any nation does in war. You may try to spare the civilian population of enemy territory, but you're not going to risk high casualties or big delays that may affect the ultimate outcome.
Ok having said all that, I do highly doubt that this war is worth it from an Israeli perspective. My only argument in their favour is that 1) they had sufficient grounds to do it. In a similar situation, any country would reserve the right to respond with a military campaign and 2) the way they go about it is sensible from a strategic pov. It does not have to be an expression of excessive or intentional brutality, if you consider the alternatives.
If my writing is confusing, try this.
Gaza’s Underground: Hamas’s Entire Politico-Military Strategy Rests on Its Tunnels

Nothing you said is confusing yet none of that explains the contradiction. There is a reason why you avoid addressing the contradiction you introduced earlier and continue to ignore much of the points that address your claims. They lacks merit. It was a goal of Hamas to bring in the Israeli army into Gaza for so long. Combined with the brutality of the Israeli actions its a blessing to Hamas of today and Hamas of tomorrow as it produces more support for fighting such a mechanism than it dismantles. In that regard Israel played right into their hands. Strategically it makes no sense at all for the reasons I pointed out already that you continue to ignore.

[Ludicus]

But that's what any nation does in war. You may try to spare the civilian population of enemy territory, but you're not going to risk high casualties or big delays that may affect the ultimate outcome.

So, are you saying that the high civilian toll in Gaza is cost of crushing Hamas? that's what the Israeli government says,but its not what we see and what the statistics/evidence show us.
Written by Israeli independent writers,'A mass assassination factory': Inside Israel's calculated bombing of Gaza

--
Edit,
US should 'reset relationship of unconditional support'

Members of Congress express disagreement after Netanyahu says he opposes creation of Palestinian state after Gaza war.
Leading progressive and Jewish members of Congress have criticized the US’s “unconditional support” for Israel after Benjamin Netanyahu declared bluntly that he was opposed to a Palestinian state after the war in Gaza and directly rejected American policy.
Meanwhile, 15 Jewish members of the House released a statement Friday saying they “strongly disagree with the prime minister” of the predominantly Jewish nation.

Biden: Two-state solution still possible with Netanyahu in power- Politico.

Biden’s remarks came a day after Netanyahu rejected the idea of an independent Palestinian state once the fighting in the Gaza Strip concludes, saying Israel needed “security control over all territory” which collided “with the idea of sovereignty.”

Democrats expressed horror at those comments. But Biden said he believed Netanyahu was not opposed to all two-state solutions.

By now, Biden must be thinking that Netanyahu should disappear as quickly as possible from the Israeli political scene, because of the embarrassment and electoral damage he is inflicting on him.
I think that Biden, despite everything, is now apparently more committed to the two-state solution than some European leaders. We'll find out next Monday.