Discussion thread for the Hamas Attacks Israel thread, October 2023

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
3275

There’s an argument to be made that the US’ interest in the Red Sea specifically is not that much. Little of that shipping is US-bound. Indeed, in a different thread I argued that some of our partners need to take more responsibility there.

That said, you have to understand that no matter what the US does, half the world will be angry at it. That’s the starting point. But it can get worse from there.

If Netanyahu starts to look like a genocidal war-mongerer, the US will suffer the political (and possibly worse) harm every bit as much as Israel does. At some point, the interest of the US is not seeing all its other relationships turn to ash because it continues to back an asshole.

And note that I said looks like. Whether he really is or not is almost irrelevant.

3276

First off, there is a proposal for an additional $14.5 billion in US aid to Israel in the current budget, which is directly tied to the current war in Gaza. That amount of money may well be existential. Also, we have not established that the loss of even just the $3 billion a year is not an existential matter. You have claimed that, and it may be so, be we don’t know that for certain. A 12% cut in the military budget could be catastrophic in the middle of an active war.

Secondly several people here have noted before that US military aid is essentially in the form of vouchers that are used to buy US made armaments. That is true, but it isn’t like Israel is the only possible customer out there. We could send Israel’s money to Ukraine or put out a call for proposals to all of the current combatants around the world and say that $3 billion is available to anyone who is willing to do what the US wants as opposed to getting all lippy about it.

Regarding using the money as a lever - we have been pouring money into Israel for decades, and that doesn’t seem to be working in driving the current US agenda. So maybe removing the money will do better? We won’t know if we don’t try.

And third, I did mention the carriers in the Med, not the 5th Fleet for the exact reason that the Eisenhower is currently specifically parked off the coast of Israel because of the current was in Gaza. Does the removal of that carrier lead to Hezbollah or other actors in the region taking bolder actions against Israel? Maybe it does, and that certainly does sound like a possible existential threat to Israel. Perhaps enough to make the people of Israel take action now.

How does this serve US interests? Currently, the US government is officially in favor of a two-state solution. The Israeli Prime Minister just said he doesn’t support that. It seems to me that making the Israeli government change their anti-two-state position or change the government entirely would serve US interests for the future of that piece of real estate.

Finally, and just to be really blunt here, Israel facing an existential crisis is not an existential crisis for the US - or at least it really doesn’t have to be if certain political forces are ignored. The US uses financial and military pressure to change foreign governments all of the time, and Israel really shouldn’t be special in that regard. And in this case, it is super easy - we literally have to do nothing.

And to be even more blunt, at a certain level it really doesn’t matter to the US who lives in or governs the land currently within the borders of Israel. And please, that is not an invitation to reopen the discussion of Israel’s value to the US. I’ll concede all of them, but none of them are essential to the US. Or to put it in your terms, the continued existence of Israel is not an existential matter to the US. I would prefer Israel be part of a two-state solution in that region, but at a certain point, the US could decide that it isn’t worth the investment to continue propping up Israel.

3277

@WreckingCrew - I think you missed the point I was making.

Presumably, the reason you want the US to do these things is to stop civilian deaths, right?

I am saying that if the US leaves and this causes Hezbollah to attack and Israel to reraliate hitting many Lebanese civilians, that does the exact opposite of what you were presumably trying to accomplish, no?

3278

The current plan isn’t stopping civilian deaths, so why not try something else? There may well be some short term increases in civilian deaths before there is a lasting two-state solution.

And once again to get really blunt, the US poured billions of dollars and 58,000 lives into the defense of South Vietnam. Until we decided it just wasn’t worth the investment anymore. That did not work out well for millions of people living in Southeast Asia. This similarly could end up not working out well for a lot of people living in the Middle East. But hey, as Bibi said sometimes you just gotta say no to your friends.

3279

Cool, if you’re opposed to sending Israel aid, that’s fine; you’re within your rights. Write your congressman or something.

I don’t think it would have the effect you desire, but it’s up to you.

3280

I’m in a call with one of my Senator’s staffs every month for work. I’ll remember to bring it up.

I fully appreciate that my one voice likely will have no effect. What bothers me the most is that every possible solution to the Israel/Palestine issue is always brushed aside with some variation of we/they would never/ could never do that and here we are 75 years later fighting the same war. Someone is eventually going to have to do something they could never do to find a lasting peaceful solution. Why not now?

3281

I nominate . . . Hamas?

3282

Sure, they don’t get a free pass either.

3283

Do you believe that Israel can fight their way out of this to a lasting solution?

Because you like to make this false equivalency. Not one person that I’ve seen here thinks Hamas is OK.

As far as I can tell, and certainly for myself, the position is that you have to deal with the situation that is, not the one you wish it were. And that situation is an endless cycle of outrage.

3284

Follow up question: what is Hamas going to do to settle the West Bank issue?

3285

What false equivalency? The entirety of my post was that (a) WreckingCrew posted that “Someone is eventually going to have to do something they could never do to find a lasting peaceful solution. Why not now?” — and that (b) my reply was to suggest Hamas in response.

I don’t see how that’s a false equivalency; I don’t even see how it’s an equivalency: they said someone would have to do it, and I proposed — Hamas.

So: where is the false equivalency? I can’t even begin to address this until I know what the heck you’re talking about.

3286

When you propose Hamas, is that serious? Because I took it as sarcastic.

Perhaps False Equivalency wasn’t the right term. You seem to be applying back to others this idea that we think Hamas is just as genuine a partner in all this as Israel (hence why I asked if you’re being sarcastic when you offer up Hamas).

That is, the equivalency I was “accusing” you of was between Israel and Hamas. Nobody is arguing that Hamas is an adult in the room, here. The problem as I see it is that Israel is saying “Well, if Hamas won’t be the adult, neither will I”

Leaving no way out.

3287

It was serious.

3288

The IDF has completely failed it’s mission in the Gazza operation. Hamas is nowhere near being eliminated and no hostages have been recovered by the IDF. The only hostages freed were the result of a prisoner exchange which was available prior to, and all during, the Israeli incursion.

IDF performance has exposed a major weakness in it’s force. The ground troops are poorly trained and commanded. Even with little Hamas contact the IDF consistently looses 2 troops per day (Excel chart of published numbers):

The IDF claim of 20% friendly fire and non-combat loss is likely closer to 50% and is unacceptable to Israeli populace.

However, Netanyahu and the IDF have achieved their goals. Bibi is still in power and the IDF has avoided an investigation of its incompetence.

3289

Bibi’s goal was to remain in power through 22 Jan 2024? And the IDF’s goal was to avoid an investigation of its incompetence through 22 Jan 2024? What a coincidence! And what modest goals!

3290

And at what a great cost.

3291

Oh boy, they’re not doing it, are they? They must not be very good people.

Next!

3292

But it was WreckingCrew’s idea that someone is “going to have to do something they could never do”. Not something they merely haven’t done; something they, ostensibly, could never do.

In that context, any such proposal could — and, by definition, should — get dismissively handwaved away as Something They Could Never Do, or else it wouldn’t fit the parameters WreckingCrew laid out. But, if so, there’s no reason to jump to “Next”, because the next proposal that’d fit the Could Never Do framework could be dismissively handwaved away likewise.

So I’m not sure it’s time to say “Next” yet; if WreckingCrew is right about someone having to do “something they could never do”, then (a) it’d seem equally implausible for anyone to so try, and so (b) why not Hamas?

3293

You misread his post.

3294

If so, I apologize. But what I read was:

If that means something other than what I’d genuinely thought, then I can of course bow out of this side discussion.