But the government is supporting it.
I’m not saying that it was guaranteed to happen, just that unlike moonmen, it is not an impossibility.
The problem with the move the population while we root out Hamas is that Hamas moves with the population. So they are never really moved out of the combat zone. They are just being moved into a smaller and smaller piece of the territory. Eventually there will be no “safe” place to direct them to.
Overall though I think Puzzlegals larger point is important. The goal of removing Hamas for Israels security is illusory. Hamas is as much a movement as it is an organization. Even if you totally wipe out its organizational structure, the underlying resentment against Israel will still be there and will if anything have increased. So even if Hamas is wiped out, some other organization will pop up that is Hamas by another name. The only military solution to the Hamas problem is a military solution that removes the Gaza population.
Sorry, I missed the part where the West Bank has had all the Palestinians driven out of it?
The government allows the settlements. I disagree with this stance taken by the government. That being said, the government is not driving all for he Palestinians out of the West Bank; it allows settlements in Area C, which is a very different thing. Still a policy I strongly disagree with, mind you; but it isn’t the same thing as driving the Palestinians out of the West Bank.
Some of the settlers believe that if they build enough settlements in Area C the Palestinians will eventually give up and leave, or perhaps God would come down to crown a new King of Israel and the Temple will be rebuilt. They certainly have the end goal of adding all of the West Bank to Israel. But the government’s refusal to evict the settlers from Area C is not the same thing as the government supporting their theoretical end goal of taking the whole West Bank.
Gaza is different, in that there is no room for anything like an “area C”, and trying to settle in Gaza would be suicidal.
That being said, if Gaza was exactly like the West Bank, then it still wouldn’t be an example of Israel trying to drive all of the Palestinians out, because despite hysterical bullshit claims, that’s not what Israel is doing in the West Bank, either.
Yeah, wars are impossible to win. That’s why Germany is still run by Nazis today.
Wars without clear and realistic objectives (a la Iraq and Afghanistan), and with leaders who want them to continue indefinitely, may indeed be impossible to win.
If you’re going to ask me to believe that an army that bends over backwards to protect civilians in this way is using Palestinian civilians to set off traps in tunnels* as a matter of policy you’re going to need to provide more evidence than the say-so of a couple anonymous schmucks.
The sources obviously weren’t anonymous to Haaretz, which verified they actually served in the units as claimed. My actual question was, what would it take for you to believe the IDF is more likely than not using human shields? Are you looking for a soldier to go on the record? Are you looking for a senior official to admit it? Video evidence? Testimony from Palestinians who allegedly performed the role? Are you just looking for a better explanation as to why?
Even if the IDF is “the most moral” ground force in the modern age, it still has a hell of a time with discipline. I remember all those IDF revenge videos on social media in the early days. I don’t think using detainees as canaries is something outright endorsed by the Chief of Staff but rather is a problem with mid-level officers that isn’t a priority for whatever reason, perhaps since the number of casualties involved is probably very low and it’s easier to conceal the activity. Compared to ignoring the obligation to evacuate citizens, which is public and would create a very high casualty count.
~Max
Interesting. So I’m guessing you don’t consider “remove Hamas from power” to be a clear and realistic objective?
What was the “clear and realistic objective” in World War 2? Surely “Remove Hitler and Tojo from power” isn’t any clearer or more realistic than removing Hamas from power…
Israel won the war in 1967, and 1993 and 2005. How will winning it again be any different this time.
I’ve opined before, and I will repeat it again: I don’t think Israel will be able to de-Hamas Gaza like the Allies de-Nazified Germany following WWII. The amount of public shaming of the underlying ideology required in '40s and '50s West Germany just isn’t feasible for Gaza given the continued influence of Iran in the region.
~Max
So the government is ok with taking some land, but not all of it? Is there some point at which you think they’d say, hold on, that’s too much? And is that point based on their own morals, or what they think they can get away with?
Netanyahu isn’t dumb. He knows that if he overtly took over significant area in the West Bank too quickly, or did things in Gaza like bomb neighborhoods without evacuating or move refugees completely out of the Strip, there would be international condemnation. There is a fine line to maintain plausible deniability.
While I’m sure there are some in government who explicitly want to drive Palestinians from Gaza, I don’t think that’s the official goal of the government as a whole. But I do think there is a prevalent attitude that if it were to happen as a byproduct of the current war, that would be an OK outcome. And because of this, I think there is much less attention paid to avoiding this outcome than there could be.
You may not have noticed, but in 1967 Israel was attacked by a host of foreign nations with organized militaries, all of whom are not attacking this time, because after losing enough wars, they learned that attacking Israel was a bad idea.
But at the end of the day, that will be up to the Palestinians. After this war, they will again have to choose: accept a two state compromise, or continue fighting for the idea that if they just pull off a big enough terrorist attack the Jews will all leave.
At some point they will run out of letters . . . or land.
Pretty much.
They haven’t allowed any settlements in Areas A or B, so there’s one apparent red line.
Their main concerns are probably antagonizing the Palestinians of the West Bank to the point that violence in the West Bank really picks up, and not pissing off the international community too much.
What point are you trying to make? Do you think any country makes decisions on where disputed borders should go based on morality rather than geopolitical considerations?
I don’t think anyone who is paying attention to the war thinks that there is a snowball’s chance in hell of 2 million Palestinians deciding to up and leave, certainly not as a byproduct to anything. Have you ever met a Palestinian? I don’t know of any culture on the planet that places more of an emphasis on staying put and hunkering down even in the face of extreme adversity.
Anyone who thinks that two million Palestinians are going to simply up and leave in significant numbers has never met a Palestinian.
The point is that they have achieved military victory in Palestinian territories multiple times. They will undoubtedly do so again but it won’t really change anything.
And you prove this point by showing that prior military victories have significantly changed the situation? Fascinating.
Through the use of military force, Israel has taken the Arab/Israeli conflict and reduced it to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and now the Gaza War. Careful observation will reveal that contrary to Hamas’ hopes, Oct 7 was not the start of a Third Intifada.
Well, I have Palestinian friends who moved to the US to escape oppression and have some actual economic opportunities. People make more personal decisions than some monolithic culture.
That’s the issue. Nation states with regular militaries can be defeated conventionally and generally surrender. With non-state actors it’s almost universally not that simple, and the amount of support they need from nation states to continue fighting even in the face of a massive counterinsurgency is comparatively smaller.
It’s also by the way a reason that I think “immediate cease fire” wasn’t really a realistic path either. IMO the path really was a more limited war primarily aimed at killing the very top officials in Hamas and addressing the security issues that allowed 10/7 to happen in the first place.
As far as I know Israel did nothing of the sort. The people who moved, had to find their own means of transportation to get away from the violence that they sometimes knew was coming. To say that Israel evacuated is that they provided the means for civilians to leave the bombing area, which did not happen.
//i\\
Man, can you imagine their faces if God comes down and says Allahu Akbar.
With Netanyahu and co in charge of deciding what that means? No, not at all.
Ahem: