We were so close before that fucker assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. The Arab world also needs to step up, this can’t be just Israel’s job to find a solution
One military question I have that I don’t understand.
From what I’m reading, Egypt has opened the crossing from their side of the Egypt-Gaza border, but the Gaza side is closed by Hamas.
Hamas’s military advantage seems to be their ability to go underground, and their willingness to hide amongst civilians. They don’t seem able to stand against IDF at fixed points.
So why isn’t IDF taking a three-pronged approach:
- Telling everyone to clear 1000 yards (or whatever distance) from the border crossing.
- Sending in air support, with rockets if needed, to clear the area.
- Sending in soldiers to hold the ground.
Holding this border crossing seems to me like it’d be key to setting up the humanitarian corridors necessary: it’s a way for aid to get into Gaza. It’ll be dangerous for the soldiers on the ground–is that why they’re not doing this, or is there some other reason?
That would involve invading Egypt which is not going to happen.
Huh. From the United Nations statement above:
But from a WaPo article:
Wael Abu Omar, the Palestinian spokesman for the Rafah crossing, said Palestinian officials had not had any communication with their counterparts on the Egyptian side. Egyptian media outlets reported that Cairo would only allow foreigners to cross the border if aid shipments could be delivered to Gaza.
This may be a “fog of war” situation. In any case, I’m definitely not suggesting invading Egypt: my military question is contingent on Egypt’s side of the crossing being open, which maybe it isn’t. I was suggesting that Israel take that three-pronged approach on the Gaza side of the crossing, as they’re already bombing Gaza.
Agreed. The far religious right parties that Netanyahu panders to would turn Israel into a theocracy. The nationalists who pander to them claim to love our country but would cheerfully destroy everything that makes it meaningful. And collectively they lead us down a disastrous path with the Palestinian peace process. They all belong out of office, and many in prison.
Don’t forget that Egypt has strong incentives to prevent Palestinians from coming into their country. The current Egyptian government took over in a military coup from a guy who was ideologically aligned with Hamas, and there’s overlap between Egyptian dissidents and Hamas supporters. Egypt is worried that people opposed to their regime will slip in along with refugees.
I agree that Israel should provide protected places for refugees to go to, and that it should facilitate bringing supplies there. I just don’t understand how they are expected to do this without first establishing control of at least parts of the Gaza strip.
I read through the articles you’d linked (I’d already read some, like the WHO article). None of them actually explain how Israel is supposed to set up protected humanitarian corridors in territory it doesn’t control.
I agree with your third article that the “limitless destruction” of Gaza is not justified, but that’s also not what is happening.
Take this 24 hour deadline as an example. If Israel was going to wipe Gaza off the map with everyone inside the moment 24 hours passed, then yeah, that would be horrendous. And the moment they told people to evacuate, that had been the narrative. Israel is going to destroy Gaza in 24 hours! That’s not enough time for people to leave! Making them leave and then flattening their city would be ethnic cleansing!
Ok, but as is now obvious, that is not what Israel did. As I was saying the whole time, that would never be what they do, because despite a whole lot of rhetoric, that’s never been how Israel has behaved.
Hamas isn’t going to be destroyed. Even with all the bombings and shutting off the water supply and everything else Hamas is still going to come back, and the extremist ideology is definitely not going away.
I’m seeing reports that the water has been turned back on. I hope it’s true.
Axios is reporting it.
https://www.axios.com/2023/10/15/israel-resumes-water-supply-to-southern-gaza-after-us-pressure
Your viewpoint, even before the events of this week, would appear to be: Hamas are terrorists, they are evil, they can’t be negotiated with, therefore they have to be exterminated.
An attitude such as this would not have brought peace in Northern Ireland.
To quote:
Like it or not, to find a peaceful political solution to an issue such as this, one needs to negotiate and find agreement with people that one finds abhorrent.
The Wikipedia article I quoted from indicates that Hamas are, or at least were, apparently amenable to a negotiated political solution.
The events of this week will clearly make the idea of undertaking future negotiation with Hamas exceedingly difficult. Like others have commented, I’m not convinced that the military operation Israel is currently undertaking will eradicate Hamas. I would not be surprised if there are factions within Hamas that opposed or do not support the murderous actions undertaken against civilians this week. Hopefully, Israel still has some back channels to people in Gaza, and even Hamas, with which to negotiate, if the will is there. Otherwise, I don’t see the cycle of violence ending in this current generation or the next.
There are plenty of Palestinian individuals as well as organizations who are open to working with Israel towards a peaceful solution. Hamas is not one of them.
If you want to blame hardliners like Netanyahu for, by action or inaction, allowing this type of organization to come to power in a hope that it would weaken the Palestinian Authority and make peace untenable, I agree with you, and hope that wing of Israeli politics crashes and burns so hard that we never hear grom them again (unless it is to hear that they’ve been put in prison for corruption and negligence). Certainly the outcome of their policy should discredit them completely for the next several generations.
None of that means that Hamas can be reasoned with. The idea that they could be, and that a war in Gaza would be too costly to even contemplate, is exactly how Netanyahu justified the status quo from 2009 until now.
An attitude that the United Kingdom needed to be destroyed would also have prevented peace.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Turning on the water in the south is smart. They know Hamas doesn’t want the people in the north evacuating to the south, and Israel doesn’t want to hurt civilians.
By turning off the water for a couple of days to make people uncomfortable, then turning it on in the south, they are going to put a lot of pressure on Hamas to allow people to relocate. And if they don’t, then the guilt for letting people die of thirst is on them.
Just to be clear, “uncomfortable” here means “risking the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, especially people in hospitals, but also people who might contract waterborne diseases as the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation kicks in.”
Please be careful about minimizing things.
The provenance of this video (claimed to be produced by Hamas) seems uncertain, but there’s little doubt that humanitarian aid to Gaza has been subverted by Hamas.
One thing I’d like to hear, not just from you from but everyone attacking Israel’s tactics, is an explanation of what you’d have Israel do instead.
Destroying Hamas means invading Gaza and rooting them out. This means civilian casualties. Lots of them. It’s unavoidable. So Israel holds off on the invasion and gives the Gazans in the North 24 hours to evacuate. This also gives Hamas more time to move their arms caches and plant booby traps, some of which will inevitably kill IDF troops. So Israel is voluntarily sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers to protect Gazan civilians. But that’s not good enough either. That’s “ethnic cleansing” (despite the fact that, presumably, Israel will want these same civilians to return to the North once hostilities have ceased). So what would you have Israel do?
Absolutely. Yesterday I was listening to the BBC, and there was a spokesperson for one of the humanitarian aid agencies (I apologize, I forget which one). They said something that stood out to me: paraphrased, “The thing about humanitarian aid is that it’s offered unconditionally.”
Here’s something from the UN stating that:
As I stated earlier: humanitarian agencies are on the ground and ready to lend expertise. I would have Israel coordinate fully with these agencies.
So, I’ll turn it around on you. You say that “Destroying Hamas…means civilian casualties. Lots of them.” How many civilian casualties are acceptable to you, such that an action that would exceed that number would be unacceptable? At what point do you think Israel should hesitate and say, “Actually, that specific approach is going to lead to too many civilian casualties, let’s rethink”?
I hesitate to get involved in this conversation, but one major issue here is, I think what “destroying Hamas” actually means, whether that’s a goal that has a reasonable chance of success, and whether the status quo after that goal is achieved (by a particular method) would be better than the current status quo.
It’s not a given that destroying Hamas by any means necessary would leave a better world for Israelis or Palestinians. That’s a huge assumption based on… ?
Why do you frame this as though Israel is the only party with any agency here? Why shouldn’t Hamas rethink? Hezbollah rethink? Iran rethink? Egypt rethink?
Hamas could end this in the next fifteen minutes and save all the innocent Palestinians that they claim to be concerned about.
…I think Israel should comply with international law. I think, that they, at the very least, should comply with the requests that the World Health Organization has made.