Israel-Gaza war

[afleitch]

The first international declaration that a Holocaust was occurring was made by the United Nations on December 17 1942. What the Allies could 'do' was very much tied in with the overall military response to the conflict.

They could’ve bombed the railways.  They didn’t because, to put it bluntly, they couldn’t care less about dead Jews.

F-ck sake man. Utterly crass.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true.  It wouldn’t have magically solved everything, but it would’ve helped.  Then you have the immigration/asylum restrictions, the post-conviction pardons/huge reductions in the sentences of most Nazis convicted at the subsequent Nuremberg trials to appease Adenauer, the way the British government at best willfully ignored reports about aspects of the Holocaust prior to the liberation of the camps at the end of the war, etc.  Respectfully, the governments and many regular folks in the countries simply didn’t care about dead Jews.  

It’s not crass to say so even if my bluntness offended your personal sensibilities, I’m just being brutally honest.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor then the US never would’ve gotten involved, if Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR then the latter never would’ve gotten involved (and Stalin was a vicious anti-Semite himself), and if Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France never would’ve gotten involved (and re: France: that’s without even getting into Vichy).  Every single Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could’ve been gassed and the allied governments wouldn’t have lifted a finger.  They might’ve made disapproving statements, but little more than that.  To pretend otherwise is extremely naive at best.

I see you've walked it back a bit.

Here's the issue; railway infrastructure is one of the easiest and pieces of infrastructure to rebuild and also one of the hardest to precisely target. The Bielefeld Viaduct for example, was a vital piece, if not the most vital piece of railway infrastructure. Fifteen attacks over four years didn't destroy it.

'Bombing the railways' would require a knowledge of where the camps were and what railways were used to transport those incarcerated. That information was patchy at best, to as late as spring 1944.

As for targeting the camps themselves when their location became known before their liberation people such as David Ben-Gurion are on record as opposing bombing places where there were concentrations of Jews.

The idea that the Allies didn't care about 'dead Jews' as part of the overall plan of liberating Europe is an unserious statement.

[lfromnj]

On a second point, long range bombers didn't really get there till the end of the war.
B29's weren't even used over Germany and only reached Japan by last few months. The B17 bomber had a range of roughly 2000 miles which is double the distance of London to Warsaw but that's cutting it close and definitely not what you want to fly with.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I’m at work, so I’ll respond to this later, but I’m genuinely not sure what you think I walked back or where you think I said to bomb areas with large concentrations of Jews like the camps themselves.  Nor did I claim bombing the railways would’ve fixed everything.  It’s one example of many of an action the allies didn’t take because they couldn’t care less how many Jews died.  Another example, as others have noted, is that they wouldn’t give refuge to Jews fleeing Europe or at least, did so only rarely.  It’s profoundly unserious and at best uninformed to claim the allies gave a rat’s a** about dead Jews while the Holocaust was happening.  If you want to argue they couldn’t have done far, far, far more had they actually cared one iota whether every Jew in Europe died, that’s your business, but you’re wrong. 

With all due respect, the Jewish people were on largely our own during the Holocaust aside from the Righteous Among Nations and to suggest otherwise is naive and extremely ignorant at best.  The Holocaust objectively had nothing whatsoever to do with the Allies decision to go to war nor with their plan/strategy to liberate Europe.  It was incidental to both these things as far as they were concerned.  Every Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechslovakia could’ve been gassed and if the Nazis stopped at Czechoslovakia and Pearl Harbor never happened, no one would’ve lifted a finger.

Btw, I see you completely ignored the second paragraph.  Ignoring facts simply because they don’t support your preferred narrative is not a great look

[lfromnj]

I think theres a couple of statements to put it.

1. Democratic nations did not do enough to take in Jewish refugees before the War began.*
2. They let Nazi Germany remilitarize at a rapid pace.
3. The Allies goal during the war itself wasn't to directly stop the Holocaust which they knew was happening but
4. Im not sure what exactly the Allies could have between 1942 to 1945 to exactly stem the Holocaust beyond what was done. The best way seems to have been to win the war as quickly as possible. It is true the camps could have been bombed but I remain somewhat skeptical of how much bombing them could have reduced Holocaust casualties while at the same time it would also redirect war resources that could have been used to end the war quicker. In the end I can't blame the Jewish people for feeling angry because of the first three points.

*rereading it, it seems at least the majority of Jews within Germany got out from Germany before the war. They unfortunately were still killed because they neighbored Germany.

[Horus]

Ignoring facts simply because they don’t support your preferred narrative is not a great look

Funny you say this, you seem to have a very specific narrative (guilty until proven innocent, antisemite until proven otherwise) that you refuse to let go of no matter what the modern or historical issue is at hand.

[afleitch]

I think theres a couple of statements to put it.

1. Democratic nations did not do enough to take in Jewish refugees before the War began.
2. They let Nazi Germany remilitarize at a rapid pace.
3. The Allies goal during the war itself wasn't to directly stop the Holocaust which they knew was happening but
4. Im not sure what exactly the Allies could have between 1942 to 1945 to exactly stem the Holocaust. beyond what was done. The best way seems to have been to win the war as quickly as possible. It is true the camps could have been bombed but I remain somewhat skeptical of how much bombing them could have reduced Holocaust casualties while at the same time it would also redirect war resources that could have been used to end the war quicker. In the end I can't blame the Jewish people for feeling angry because of the first three points.

Yes. All these points are valid. They couldn't stop the Holocaust, which they were well aware of, independently of wider war aims.

Part of that (of which my grandfather was part) was stopping the Axis from advancing across Egypt, the Suez and into Mandatory Palestine which the Italians had also been bombing.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The fact that the Nazis wanted to conquer most of Europe is kind of a defining feature of the Nazis. Without a constant stream of plunder to fund their war machine, without conquered Polish territory to hide their death camps and without constant expansion taking over major Jewish population centers or unwittingly "recapturing" Jewish refugees who had fled to France, Poland or the Soviet Union there would have been no Holocaust as we know it.

[afleitch]

I’m at work, so I’ll respond to this later, but I’m genuinely not sure what you think I walked back or where you think I said to bomb areas with large concentrations of Jews like the camps themselves.  Nor did I claim bombing the railways would’ve fixed everything.  It’s one example of many of an action the allies didn’t take because they couldn’t care less how many Jews died.  Another example, as others have noted, is that they wouldn’t give refuge to Jews fleeing Europe or at least, did so only rarely.  It’s profoundly unserious and at best uninformed to claim the allies gave a rat’s a** about dead Jews while the Holocaust was happening.  If you want to argue they couldn’t have done far, far, far more had they actually cared one iota whether every Jew in Europe died, that’s your business, but you’re wrong. 

With all due respect, the Jewish people were on largely our own during the Holocaust aside from the Righteous Among Nations and to suggest otherwise is naive and extremely ignorant at best.  The Holocaust objectively had nothing whatsoever to do with the Allies decision to go to war nor with their plan/strategy to liberate Europe.  It was incidental to both these things as far as they were concerned.  Every Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechslovakia could’ve been gassed and if the Nazis stopped at Czechoslovakia and Pearl Harbor never happened, no one would’ve lifted a finger.

Btw, I see you completely ignored the second paragraph.  Ignoring facts simply because they don’t support your preferred narrative is not a great look

Again examples have been put to you as to why that statement is profoudly false.

I didn't address your second paragraph which you re-iterate here because it is a counter factual.

But if there was no war and no mass German territorial expansion there would have been no Holocaust as we know it. Diplomatic relations, however tense, surrounded by independent and by independent democratic nations, including the exchange of people, diplomats, journalists and civilians that took place regularly between 1933 and 1938 would not have allowed for a secretive mass incarceration or mass slaughter of Jews and other large minority groups.

[Silent Hunter]

But if there was no war and no mass German territorial expansion there would have been no Holocaust as we know it. Diplomatic relations, however tense, surrounded by independent and by independent democratic nations, including the exchange of people, diplomats, journalists and civilians that took place regularly between 1933 and 1938 would not have allowed for a secretive mass incarceration or mass slaughter of Jews and other large minority groups.

Poland wasn't democratic at this point though - it was effectively a military dictatorship. It also was actively hostile to taking in Polish Jews expelled from Germany.

[KaiserDave]

I think a major issue here is the overemphasis on the concentration camps in discussing the Holocaust. But this isn't unique to any one poster, it's highly widespread in the discourse. A substantial portion (I think around one third) of the victims of the Holocaust were shot in the occupied Soviet Union, in what is referred to as the "holocaust by bullets." There is obviously nothing the Allies could have done about that except wage the war to a successful conclusion (and support the Soviet war effort by whatever means they could). Other posters have successfully argued why "just bomb the railroads" isn't a serious proposition, so I won't reiterate their case, I will only say that attempting to prove that bombing the railroads would have made any impact is extremely difficult (and as was stated, utterly impossible prior to mid to late 1944).

As for the larger question about whether Allied leaders cared about Jews and Jewish lives, I think there is certainly a case that they did not, but immigration policies are a much better example of this. The best thing the Allied powers could do to stop the Holocaust once it was underway was win the war, which they did. Lfromnj summarized things nicely.

[KaiserDave]

Bibi is now making up lies in order to justify the invasion. How many allies died fighting the Nazi's? I'm pretty sure that number is somewhere in the millions.

AFpost is a Neo-Nazi account, please do not spread Nazi propaganda outlets here.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The first international declaration that a Holocaust was occurring was made by the United Nations on December 17 1942. What the Allies could 'do' was very much tied in with the overall military response to the conflict.

They could’ve bombed the railways.  They didn’t because, to put it bluntly, they couldn’t care less about dead Jews.

F-ck sake man. Utterly crass.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true.  It wouldn’t have magically solved everything, but it would’ve helped.  Then you have the immigration/asylum restrictions, the post-conviction pardons/huge reductions in the sentences of most Nazis convicted at the subsequent Nuremberg trials to appease Adenauer, the way the British government at best willfully ignored reports about aspects of the Holocaust prior to the liberation of the camps at the end of the war, etc.  Respectfully, the governments and many regular folks in the countries simply didn’t care about dead Jews.  

It’s not crass to say so even if my bluntness offended your personal sensibilities, I’m just being brutally honest.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor then the US never would’ve gotten involved, if Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR then the latter never would’ve gotten involved (and Stalin was a vicious anti-Semite himself), and if Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France never would’ve gotten involved (and re: France: that’s without even getting into Vichy).  Every single Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could’ve been gassed and the allied governments wouldn’t have lifted a finger.  They might’ve made disapproving statements, but little more than that.  To pretend otherwise is extremely naive at best.

Instead of complaining about how not enough was being done to prevent the holocaust or how people were even lucky the US and USSR got into a war with the nazi's to end the bloodshed, it would be good for you to start care about genocides occuring today.

You complain not being done enough to prevent and stop the holocaust, and that not enough was done and that nobody would even lift a finger.

But do you lift a finger while a genocide today is ongoing. No, you don't care either. You think it's justified.

And unlike the Holocaust, we can do something about this and stop it.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The first international declaration that a Holocaust was occurring was made by the United Nations on December 17 1942. What the Allies could 'do' was very much tied in with the overall military response to the conflict.

They could’ve bombed the railways.  They didn’t because, to put it bluntly, they couldn’t care less about dead Jews.

F-ck sake man. Utterly crass.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true.  It wouldn’t have magically solved everything, but it would’ve helped.  Then you have the immigration/asylum restrictions, the post-conviction pardons/huge reductions in the sentences of most Nazis convicted at the subsequent Nuremberg trials to appease Adenauer, the way the British government at best willfully ignored reports about aspects of the Holocaust prior to the liberation of the camps at the end of the war, etc.  Respectfully, the governments and many regular folks in the countries simply didn’t care about dead Jews.  

It’s not crass to say so even if my bluntness offended your personal sensibilities, I’m just being brutally honest.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor then the US never would’ve gotten involved, if Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR then the latter never would’ve gotten involved (and Stalin was a vicious anti-Semite himself), and if Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France never would’ve gotten involved (and re: France: that’s without even getting into Vichy).  Every single Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could’ve been gassed and the allied governments wouldn’t have lifted a finger.  They might’ve made disapproving statements, but little more than that.  To pretend otherwise is extremely naive at best.

Instead of complaining about how not enough was being done to prevent the holocaust or how people were even lucky the US and USSR got into a war with the nazi's to end the bloodshed, it would be good for you to start care about genocides occuring today.

You complain not being done enough to prevent and stop the holocaust, and that not enough was done and that nobody would even lift a finger.

But do you lift a finger while a genocide today is ongoing. No, you don't care either. You think it's justified.

And unlike the Holocaust, we can do something about this and stop it.

That's exactly what Israel is doing - destroying those who would repeat the Holocaust piece by piece. But we all know you were going for Holocaust inversion here.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The first international declaration that a Holocaust was occurring was made by the United Nations on December 17 1942. What the Allies could 'do' was very much tied in with the overall military response to the conflict.

They could’ve bombed the railways.  They didn’t because, to put it bluntly, they couldn’t care less about dead Jews.

F-ck sake man. Utterly crass.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true.  It wouldn’t have magically solved everything, but it would’ve helped.  Then you have the immigration/asylum restrictions, the post-conviction pardons/huge reductions in the sentences of most Nazis convicted at the subsequent Nuremberg trials to appease Adenauer, the way the British government at best willfully ignored reports about aspects of the Holocaust prior to the liberation of the camps at the end of the war, etc.  Respectfully, the governments and many regular folks in the countries simply didn’t care about dead Jews.  

It’s not crass to say so even if my bluntness offended your personal sensibilities, I’m just being brutally honest.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor then the US never would’ve gotten involved, if Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR then the latter never would’ve gotten involved (and Stalin was a vicious anti-Semite himself), and if Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France never would’ve gotten involved (and re: France: that’s without even getting into Vichy).  Every single Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could’ve been gassed and the allied governments wouldn’t have lifted a finger.  They might’ve made disapproving statements, but little more than that.  To pretend otherwise is extremely naive at best.

Instead of complaining about how not enough was being done to prevent the holocaust or how people were even lucky the US and USSR got into a war with the nazi's to end the bloodshed, it would be good for you to start care about genocides occuring today.

You complain not being done enough to prevent and stop the holocaust, and that not enough was done and that nobody would even lift a finger.

But do you lift a finger while a genocide today is ongoing. No, you don't care either. You think it's justified.

And unlike the Holocaust, we can do something about this and stop it.

That's exactly what Israel is doing - destroying those who would repeat the Holocaust piece by piece. But we all know you were going for Holocaust inversion here.

Stop denying genocide!

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

The first international declaration that a Holocaust was occurring was made by the United Nations on December 17 1942. What the Allies could 'do' was very much tied in with the overall military response to the conflict.

They could’ve bombed the railways.  They didn’t because, to put it bluntly, they couldn’t care less about dead Jews.

F-ck sake man. Utterly crass.

I’m sorry you feel that way, but it doesn’t make it any less true.  It wouldn’t have magically solved everything, but it would’ve helped.  Then you have the immigration/asylum restrictions, the post-conviction pardons/huge reductions in the sentences of most Nazis convicted at the subsequent Nuremberg trials to appease Adenauer, the way the British government at best willfully ignored reports about aspects of the Holocaust prior to the liberation of the camps at the end of the war, etc.  Respectfully, the governments and many regular folks in the countries simply didn’t care about dead Jews.  

It’s not crass to say so even if my bluntness offended your personal sensibilities, I’m just being brutally honest.  If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor then the US never would’ve gotten involved, if Germany hadn’t attacked the USSR then the latter never would’ve gotten involved (and Stalin was a vicious anti-Semite himself), and if Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, then Britain and France never would’ve gotten involved (and re: France: that’s without even getting into Vichy).  Every single Jew in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia could’ve been gassed and the allied governments wouldn’t have lifted a finger.  They might’ve made disapproving statements, but little more than that.  To pretend otherwise is extremely naive at best.

Instead of complaining about how not enough was being done to prevent the holocaust or how people were even lucky the US and USSR got into a war with the nazi's to end the bloodshed, it would be good for you to start care about genocides occuring today.

You complain not being done enough to prevent and stop the holocaust, and that not enough was done and that nobody would even lift a finger.

But do you lift a finger while a genocide today is ongoing. No, you don't care either. You think it's justified.

And unlike the Holocaust, we can do something about this and stop it.

That's exactly what Israel is doing - destroying those who would repeat the Holocaust piece by piece. But we all know you were going for Holocaust inversion here.

Stop denying genocide!

Again, we all saw you defending the actual act of genocide on 10/7. We don't have goldfish memories. You can't gaslight us.

[GoTfan]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

I honestly think that one of the reasons he's dragging this out is because it hurts Biden politically. Once Trump wins, he will have free licence to do what he wants, no limits.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

I honestly think that one of the reasons he's dragging this out is because it hurts Biden politically. Once Trump wins, he will have free licence to do what he wants, no limits.

Netanyahu doesn’t care who wins in 2024, he just wants to keep power and stay out of prison.  Everything he does should be viewed through that lens.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

I honestly think that one of the reasons he's dragging this out is because it hurts Biden politically. Once Trump wins, he will have free licence to do what he wants, no limits.

Netanyahu doesn’t care who wins in 2024, he just wants to keep power and stay out of prison.  Everything he does should be viewed through that lens.

Yeah, I also don't think he particularly trusts Trump, nor should he. Trump apparently holds a grudge against him over him refusing to acknowledge the fake election results.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

I honestly think that one of the reasons he's dragging this out is because it hurts Biden politically. Once Trump wins, he will have free licence to do what he wants, no limits.

Netanyahu doesn’t care who wins in 2024, he just wants to keep power and stay out of prison.  Everything he does should be viewed through that lens.

Yeah, I also don't think he particularly trusts Trump, nor should he. Trump apparently holds a grudge against him over him refusing to acknowledge the fake election results.

Trump is way more likely to agree to a Golan Heights-style buffer zone in Gazan territory than Biden would. If Biden agreed to it, he'd be LBJ-level dead for segments of the party and his support internationally would dissipate highly (I know Gaza is not a state like Ukraine is, but while this Israel-Gaza War has exposed American geopolitical hypocrisy some, it'd be Biden endorsing in this instance what we are condemning Russia is doing in Ukraine). Trump unlike Biden doesn't give a sh*t and it'd be popular with his supporters.

I just get the feeling we'll see a redux of 1980 and Iran and either on November 6th, 2024, or on January 21st, 2025, Israel will announce a stop to active military operations. I can't discount American domestic politics from decision-making Israel is doing in this conflict.

[CumbrianLefty]

Was reading about this conflict yesterday combined with Russia-Ukraine from a geopolitical perspective and what this does to "rules-based order". Here's my amateur armchair geopolitical take on what Netanyahu's grand goal in this is:

Netanyahu has stated complete elimination of Hamas is his goal, that cannot be achieved in my opinion for the same reasons the U.S. discovered carrying out the Afghan and Iraq wars against their own asymmetrical opponents. Therefore, Netanyahu's real goal in my opinion is to keep the conflict going until November. If the war is still going in November, it's a salient issue and Biden is put into a tough spot of any hard position he takes will be opposed by people that should be voting for him. In the event of a Trump victory, a new Trump administration would probably agree to Israel setting up a buffer zone in northern Gaza manned by Israeli military a la the Golan Heights with Syria. The buffer zone would be large enough to prevent Hamas incursions into Israel via underground tunnels or tube artillery. This would be almost universally condemned everywhere else, but Israel have clearly made the calculation that as long as the U.S. has their backs, no one else matters.

The future with a Biden victory in November is less clear, but I see Biden's clear both sides-ism he's displaying currently completely disappearing once the election is over, probably to drive harder bargains with Netanyahu. However, pro-Israel post-November will still have a clear majority in Congress regardless of election results, and I think that drives some of Netanyahu's calculus in U.S. relations is he knows Biden is outvoted by Congress, could maybe even override a veto, if a near 50/50 body you only need a third of Democrats to override a potential Biden veto.

I honestly think that one of the reasons he's dragging this out is because it hurts Biden politically. Once Trump wins, he will have free licence to do what he wants, no limits.

Netanyahu doesn’t care who wins in 2024, he just wants to keep power and stay out of prison.  Everything he does should be viewed through that lens.

He knows that Trump will make things easier for him, so wants Orange Man to win. I'm not saying the above is his *primary* motivation, but its surely not non-existent either.

[lfromnj]

Also although it wasn't the core objective it wasn't like the Allies didn't try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Wallenberg#Mission_to_Budapest

Following the report's publication the administration of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to the newly created War Refugee Board (WRB) in search of a solution to the genocide against Jews. US Treasury Department official Iver C. Olsen was dispatched to Stockholm as a representative of the WRB and tasked with putting together a plan to rescue the Jews of Hungary. In addition to his duties with the WRB, Olsen was also secretly employed as the chief of "Currency Operations" for the Stockholm station of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the United States' wartime espionage service.[35]

In search of someone willing and able to go to Budapest to organize a rescue program for the nation's Jews, Olsen established contact with a relief committee composed of many prominent Swedish Jews led by the Swedish Chief Rabbi Marcus Ehrenpreis to locate an appropriate person to travel to Budapest under diplomatic cover and lead the rescue operation.[26] One member of the committee was Wallenberg's business associate Kalman Lauer.

The committee's first choice to lead the mission was Count Folke Bernadotte, the vice-chairman of the Swedish Red Cross and a member of the Swedish Royal Family. When Bernadotte's proposed appointment was rejected by the Hungarians, Lauer suggested Wallenberg as a potential replacement.[26] Olsen was introduced to Wallenberg by Lauer in June 1944 and came away from the meeting impressed and, shortly thereafter, appointed Wallenberg to lead the mission.[21] Olsen's selection of Wallenberg met with objections from some US officials who doubted his reliability, in light of existing commercial relationships between businesses owned by the Wallenberg family and the German government. These differences were eventually overcome and the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs agreed to the American request to assign Wallenberg to its legation in Budapest as part of an arrangement in which Wallenberg's appointment was granted in exchange for a lessening of American diplomatic pressure on neutral Sweden to curtail their nation's free-trade policies toward Germany.[35]

So the US was willing to give up on some of its direct war goals in this scenario in order to help save a few thousand Jews.

I think further discussions on this can be moved the history subforum.

[MyLifeIsYours]

https://twitter.com/_ZachFoster/status/1753050356106330471

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

https://twitter.com/_ZachFoster/status/1753050356106330471

60% of Israelis hold the opinion that Israel should conduct itself in the manner of just about every war in human history. But the Israeli government is going further to deliver aid.

Also, Foster might not be as bad as posting Corbyn or Waters, but he's up there - infamously playing the "Jews are a privileged overclass" to dismiss antisemitism concerns.

[Comrade Funk]

Like a lot of people here, they don't really consider Palestinians worthy of human rights. It's no surprise they want them to starve in a desert. Just a total albatross of an "ally" who provide nothing but headaches.

And when the hell did "other awful nations did it too" become an excuse? Last I checked, regardless if you supported the wars or not, the United States at least tried to build semi-functioning nation-states in Iraq/Afghanistan. They never starved the civilians. Only nations partaking in genocide go that far.