Let’s go that path. More and more reject the path of violent retribution as a path. Your aim is elimination. Not degradation of popular support. Having a majority choosing to collaborate with an occupying force does not equal elimination of those fighting against an occupying force.
Nope! That’s why Hamas puts their operations under schools and hospitals. So that there’s no way to engage them without killing civilians.
??? How could you possibly make this claim?
Israel is in the process of accomplishing that goal. As I said in my old posts, that’s going to take a long time, and an occupation. Why would we get a fraction of the way there, not even get to the occupying stage, and declare that it didn’t work?
I didn’t say it “wouldn’t involve killing more people”. I said it isn’t ramping up the violence. An occupation is, in fact, a ramp down of violence from active fighting.
Also, “starvation” is an interesting claim. Do you have any evidence for it? And no, some humanitarian group declaring that Gaza is in a Stage Five Famine, Premium Edition is not evidence; neither is saying “Stage Five means XXX people die a day, so let’s multiply by the number of days and…”. Evidence is actual hard evidence of people who starved to death; which you won’t be able to provide because, aside from a small number of people with incredibly specialized dietary restrictions due to ongoing illness, no one in Gaza has actually starved.
I’ve explained quote literally dozens of times that the only way to eliminate a group like Hamas is to deprive it of oxygen by replacing it with another governing group. The first step for that is for there to be Palestinians who oppose Hamas who will be open to running the Strip after Hamas is gone.
You can’t eliminate Hamas without degrading popular support for them enough that the Palestinians get behind the group that replaces them.
It’s just not credible to me that killing so many civilians won’t have massive and unpredictable blowback consequences. It seems like the exact same sort of delusions that surrounded and enabled the second Iraq war.
True of the basic conflict, but the immediate engagement is fraught with revenge propaganda on both sides. The ‘1200’ icon appears frequently as Israeli justification for its’ actions.
What has Israel offered Gazans that would incentivize their peaceful co-existence?
The critiques of the war are eerily reminiscent of the Iraq war, yes.
The war in Iraq was badly handled and let to lots and lots of bad outcomes, but it seems like the worst of the outcomes was the way Iraq completely brain broke the American public to think that all foreign intervention is bad. It led to us sitting on our hands while Russia stepped into Syria (a fuckup that was only resolved by the luck, with Russia and Hezbollah getting fucked up at the same time - and which, it seems, will ultimately end with yet another Jihadi fanatic ruling Syria, but we all ignore that because he wears a suit). It led to the idiocy of our response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, both under Obama when Crimea happened and now under Trump. And it has led to this ridiculous “violence can’t solve anything” attitude towards the Gaza war.
I can draw a direct line between distrust of the “establishment” caused by Iraq, and the election of Donald Trump. What a fucking disaster. Y’all need to get over it.
What have the Gazans offered Israel that would incentivize their peaceful co-existence? Other than rockets, suicide bombings, stabbing attacks, and the largest terrorist attack in Israeli history?
Similarly, your rosy analysis both of the progress of the war and the prognosis for long term success are much like the arguments of the Iraq war supporters.
‘This time all those tens of thousands of civilian deaths will be worth it.’ (my paraphrase). Presumably you can imagine that many of us don’t find this very convincing or reassuring.
OK.
What went wrong in Iraq, do you think?
Starting an unnecessary war of choice that killed hundreds of thousands for nothing. To start with.
You avoid the question. The US murdered Japanese civilians by the hundreds of thousands and then occupied their country. There were still active Japanese factions that would destroy any Americans who touched their sacred soil. But the US offered them a place in the international trade economy without losing their cultural identity. It worked very well.
What incentive exists for the Palestinians to end their attacks on Israel?
Well, there you go. That’s the impact Iraq has had on the American public that I was referring to.
I think what went wrong in Iraq was leaving too early, before the Iraqis were ready to stand on their own. We did that because we lack the attention span to actually see a project like rebuilding Iraq (or Afghanistan) through, which led to ISIS.
That said, with help from America and from the rest of the world, ISIS was eventually defeated in Iraq, and it is now a functional, democratic country. It still has a long way to go, but it’s certainly better off than it was under Saddam.
Not to mention that Saddam’s downfall would contribute to the Arab Spring and the fall of other Middle Eastern dictators (although the US failed to capitalize on these developments, largely due to, once more, collective PTSD from Iraq. See: how we let Putin run the show in Syria).
The US started rebuilding Japan before the Japanese government agreed to surrender and Japan was occupied? That’s news to me!
I don’t think what you suggest would have been possible physically (disregarding politics and public opinion and such), but even if it was, when we take politics into account, maybe starting a war like that without anything close to certainty about the long term political will necessary to see it through was very stupid and morally unconscionable exactly because it ended up killing hundreds of thousands for nothing?
Huh? You don’t think it was physically possible for the US to remain in Iraq longer?
You consider the removal of Saddam “nothing”?
Iraq now has a future, which it is well on its way to reaching. America’s fuckup subjected the Iraqis to ISIS, which wouldn’t have happened if we had stayed longer; but ISIS is now defeated, and Iraq is continuing on its path towards a functional democracy and a member of the international community. That’s not nothing.
You think I sound like an Iraq War defender? Well, this “Iraq BAAAD” nonsense makes you sound like Dave Smith. You’re better than that, and I’ve seen you take far more nuanced positions that this.
I’ll put it another way. I don’t believe it would be physically possible for Israel to long-term occupy Gaza and forcibly turn it into a “good and peaceful neighbor” (I think this can only come with something akin to the Irish peace process). But let’s suppose it was possible, with ten or twenty or so years of intense occupation.
Has this Israeli government made this argument to the Israeli public? Have they laid out a long term strategy, with clear and honest long term costs of this strategy? Has the public debated upon and then accepted this strategy?
If not, how on Earth is it reasonable and moral to continue on this path, killing tens of thousands of civilians, based on a long term plan that has NOT been publicly laid out, much less accepted by the public? What gives you any confidence that the Israeli public has the political will for a very long and costly occupation that its leaders are not being honest about? ISTM that this is just a long term plan for an expensive failure, in lives and money, just like Iraq, even if we presume that it were physically possible.
Please be serious. You are better informed than that.
Huh?
Why are you taking what I said about Iraq and applying it 1:1 with no thought to Gaza?
That’s incredibly strange, considering that Iraq is a massive, diverse country with many different ethnic and religious groups vying for control, while Gaza is basically a city.
Iraq’s government failed to hold off ISIS without the Americans there because Iraq’s administrative government was simply not mature enough to run the country on its own yet. Many of the systems that are required for a country to function were recreated from scratch after Saddam’s removal, and it takes time to get everything operating smoothly. America left while Iraq’s new government was still learning to walk, with predictable results.
You’ll note that after being helped with ISIS and being given some more time to work out the kinks, Iraq now has a functional government, no further occupation required. America remaining longer could have helped prevent ISIS, but it’s a little silly to claim that it is physically impossible for America to have stayed long enough for Iraq’s government to mature when they have now done so. ESPECIALLY given the fact that WE DID send troops to Iraq again once ISIS showed up. So clearly, a deployment lasting into the 2020s would not have been “physically impossible”.
Gaza actually has much more administrative structure than many surrounding countries, due to the incredible amount of aid and UN resources that pour into Gaza. Unfortunately, Hamas has coopted much of that infrastructure (especially UNRWA education and health facilities); which is why I keep saying that it’s so important that Hamas is displaced. A different group needs to be managing the aid coming in and the administration of Gaza, because this would rob Hamas and other terrorist groups of all of their power.
So Gaza doesn’t need to be directly occupied by Israel for decades. It needs to be directly occupied for long enough that a non-terroristic administrative body can be set up, and then Israel will need to remain involved enough to prop up this body until it can hold its own.
That’s what I expect the upcoming elections to be all about, yes.
The current government is a coalition of groups with very different opinions on what should be done next. So if they want to remain in power, they can’t really address that point yet.
There is not a big push to remove the current government because the opposition groups largely agree that an occupation is the next necessary step.
I agree, let us be serious. Are you seriously claiming that the US began the process of rebuilding Japan before Japan had surrendered and was occupied?
Of course not. I am referring to the occupation and reconstruction of Japan.
Gaza and the west bank are territories under the total control of Israel.
In 2003, the US had about a ten to one ratio of population compared to Iraq. Now, AFAICT, Israel has less than five to one population ratio to Gaza.
There are plenty of other differences, but many are similarly in favor of suggesting it will be more difficult, not less, for Israel to have a successful long term outcome of occupying Gaza than the US and Iraq. Your certainty that this is possible, achievable, and even likely appears absolutely ludicrous to me based on what the Israeli government has said and done (and based on these past failures of the US and others). How on Earth are you so confident?
You are incorrect, and I’d recommend you learn more about this topic before you confidently say things that are so wrong.
The West Bank is split into different areas where the Palestinian Authority and the IDF have different levels of control.
Gaza is controlled by Hamas. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and hasn’t had “total control” of it since.
I was referring to the land not the population. Control of the population is under discussion.
What has Israel offered the Palestinians that would incentivize them to co-operate?