Israel-Gaza war

[Aurelius2]

i24 reports, an hour ago, that "Residents in the town of Eshkol near the Gaza Strip are reporting that Hamas terrorists have just crossed the Border and entered the settlement."

There does not appear to be a town of Eshkol; however, there is an Eshkol Regional Council which borders the western half of Gaza to its south.

[Ferguson97]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

I need you to understand that the forced removal of an ethnic group is not an alternative to ethnic cleansing. It is a form of ethnic cleansing.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

To occupy Gaza, which everyone here seems to agree (minus Snowstalker) is necessary, Hamas will have to be defeated. To do so, it will use essentially the entire population of Gaza as human shields, soldiers, and bombers. The occupation (here referring to the initial seizure) will only be done when the force to resist is temporarily crushed. Past that point, I do not believe any particular greater degree of force will have to be used than to occupy the Gaza Strip in the first place.

[Frodo]

Israel's experience with Gaza should serve as a counter-example to those who claim that withdrawing settlements from the West Bank (among other concessions) will lead to sustained peace between Israel and Palestine.  The past fifteen-plus years have convinced me that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a mistake with nothing to show for it, and that Israel will be better off reversing that decision, beginning with the elimination of Hamas (and other terrorist groups in Gaza) as an entity.  

[Ferguson97]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

To occupy Gaza, which everyone here seems to agree (minus Snowstalker) is necessary, Hamas will have to be defeated. To do so, it will use essentially the entire population of Gaza as human shields, soldiers, and bombers. The occupation (here referring to the initial seizure) will only be done when the force to resist is temporarily crushed. Past that point, I do not believe any particular greater degree of force will have to be used than to occupy the Gaza Strip in the first place.

If you actually believe this, then you are delusional.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Israel's experience with Gaza should serve as a counter-example to those who claim that withdrawing settlements from the West Bank (among other concessions) will lead to sustained peace between Israel and Palestine.  The past fifteen-plus years have convinced me that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a mistake with nothing to show for it, and that Israel will be better off reversing that decision, beginning with the elimination of Hamas (and other terrorist groups in Gaza) as an entity.  

The number of West Bank settlers is a record high at over 500k, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

And I thought I was a pessimist.
I don't think Haley/Ryan really falls into the same bucket as Mattrose here. I'll be kind and say what he's proposing is...creative.
It's far from clear that it's really necessary.
It is true ethnic cleansing half a million is less bad than two million dying. But I'd hope we aren't at the point that such ideas are the main set of options to proceed with.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. And I will be honest that before today my reaction would have been similar to that of many others here: staunch opposition. But I believe today marks a seminal shift in the history of the conflict, comparable only to the 1967 wars and the failure of Camp David. As much as I wish there was some other good option that ensured peace or at least minimized the death toll alongside a quasi-truce as existed up to now, both Hamas's demonstration of ability and Israel's inability to defend itself will mean that in the future, attacks like this likely become less an exception and more a norm. I think it a virtual guarantee at this point that the Israeli death toll from the invasion and the subsequent counterinvasion to come exceeds 1,000 dead, perhaps even twice or more than that. The Gazan and possibly Lebanese numbers? Maybe 10, 20x that? Imagine that being repeated year after year for the next several decades, whether in Gaza or outside it. The death toll would soar (if 20,000 people die in this conflict, that will be 15% of those dead since 1948). It very quickly becomes the case that the best, even only, answer, is resettlement. This isn't even for all of the area involved, just the Gaza Strip, the single most dangerous area because of location and ideology.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Israel's experience with Gaza should serve as a counter-example to those who claim that withdrawing settlements from the West Bank (among other concessions) will lead to sustained peace between Israel and Palestine.  The past fifteen-plus years have convinced me that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a mistake with nothing to show for it, and that Israel will be better off reversing that decision, beginning with the elimination of Hamas (and other terrorist groups in Gaza) as an entity.  

The number of West Bank settlers is a record high at over 500k, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and expelled its own citizens in doing so.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

To occupy Gaza, which everyone here seems to agree (minus Snowstalker) is necessary, Hamas will have to be defeated. To do so, it will use essentially the entire population of Gaza as human shields, soldiers, and bombers. The occupation (here referring to the initial seizure) will only be done when the force to resist is temporarily crushed. Past that point, I do not believe any particular greater degree of force will have to be used than to occupy the Gaza Strip in the first place.

If you actually believe this, then you are delusional.

Why?

[Ferguson97]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

To occupy Gaza, which everyone here seems to agree (minus Snowstalker) is necessary, Hamas will have to be defeated. To do so, it will use essentially the entire population of Gaza as human shields, soldiers, and bombers. The occupation (here referring to the initial seizure) will only be done when the force to resist is temporarily crushed. Past that point, I do not believe any particular greater degree of force will have to be used than to occupy the Gaza Strip in the first place.

If you actually believe this, then you are delusional.

Why?

Why do you think that the Palestinian civilians would not resist their forced expulsion?

[Pericles]

Israel's experience with Gaza should serve as a counter-example to those who claim that withdrawing settlements from the West Bank (among other concessions) will lead to sustained peace between Israel and Palestine.  The past fifteen-plus years have convinced me that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a mistake with nothing to show for it, and that Israel will be better off reversing that decision, beginning with the elimination of Hamas (and other terrorist groups in Gaza) as an entity.  

This looks like the lesson that Israel will learn from this. They have tried learning to live with Hamas and it hasn't worked, so they are not going to try contain Hamas anymore but eliminate it.

However, it looks like this will take them further away from the lesson they should be learning. It is unsustainable to rely on minimizing the conflict with the Palestinians. The costs of making the concessions needed to end it are not ultimately higher than decades and centuries more of this. That said, there is not even an untrustworthy Palestinian leader like Arafat-who could a deal be made with even if the gap between the bottom lines of the two nations wasn't so wide?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, I don't support ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. My proposal is limited to the Gaza Strip, because its unique location and role in terrorism make its continued presence untenable. "Cleansing" is also the wrong word here: it implies that the goal is to "clean" land for some kind of eliminationist purpose, which I would never support. Rather, I support a population transfer/relocation of a specific population concentration to avoid the risk of further conflict. For an analogy, consider how Israel did the same with its own citizens in both 2005, when withdrawing from Gaza, and in 1977, when leaving the Sinai.

And what do you do after they inevitably violently resist against that forced relocation? Don't hide behind a historical comparison. Be specific.

To occupy Gaza, which everyone here seems to agree (minus Snowstalker) is necessary, Hamas will have to be defeated. To do so, it will use essentially the entire population of Gaza as human shields, soldiers, and bombers. The occupation (here referring to the initial seizure) will only be done when the force to resist is temporarily crushed. Past that point, I do not believe any particular greater degree of force will have to be used than to occupy the Gaza Strip in the first place.

If you actually believe this, then you are delusional.

Why?

Why do you think that the Palestinian civilians would not resist their forced expulsion?

Hamas will resist to the bitter end either way. The same amount of resistance would have to be defeated to occupy the Gaza Strip.

[Pericles]

And I thought I was a pessimist.
I don't think Haley/Ryan really falls into the same bucket as Mattrose here. I'll be kind and say what he's proposing is...creative.
It's far from clear that it's really necessary.
It is true ethnic cleansing half a million is less bad than two million dying. But I'd hope we aren't at the point that such ideas are the main set of feasible options to proceed with.

Palestinians in Gaza have only themselves to blame if Israel is forced to resort to such measures to protect its own citizens. If Israel abandons the peace process with the Palestinians of the West Bank, they need only point to Gaza if anyone asks why.  

War crimes are never justifiable, firstly. Secondly, Gaza is a dictatorship.

[Frodo]

And I thought I was a pessimist.
I don't think Haley/Ryan really falls into the same bucket as Mattrose here. I'll be kind and say what he's proposing is...creative.
It's far from clear that it's really necessary.
It is true ethnic cleansing half a million is less bad than two million dying. But I'd hope we aren't at the point that such ideas are the main set of feasible options to proceed with.

Palestinians in Gaza have only themselves to blame if Israel is forced to resort to such measures to protect its own citizens. If Israel abandons the peace process with the Palestinians of the West Bank, they need only point to Gaza if anyone asks why.  

War crimes are never justifiable,

No, but thanks to the Gazans' perpetual war footing, the status quo is unsustainable.  Something has to give.  I'd rather it be them.  

Secondly, Gaza is a dictatorship.

They elected Hamas to power in the first place.  After Israel withdrew.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Israel's experience with Gaza should serve as a counter-example to those who claim that withdrawing settlements from the West Bank (among other concessions) will lead to sustained peace between Israel and Palestine.  The past fifteen-plus years have convinced me that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made a mistake with nothing to show for it, and that Israel will be better off reversing that decision, beginning with the elimination of Hamas (and other terrorist groups in Gaza) as an entity.  

The number of West Bank settlers is a record high at over 500k, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and expelled its own citizens in doing so.

There were only 9k, so the settlers are still a record high. It's worth noting that only 2 countries (Monaco and Singapore) as well as Hong Kong and Macau are more dense than Gaza Strip, so there's not really much land available there.

[Devout Centrist]

Ethnic cleansing is never, ever the solution. My god.

[Stuart98]

And I thought I was a pessimist.
I don't think Haley/Ryan really falls into the same bucket as Mattrose here. I'll be kind and say what he's proposing is...creative.
It's far from clear that it's really necessary.
It is true ethnic cleansing half a million is less bad than two million dying. But I'd hope we aren't at the point that such ideas are the main set of feasible options to proceed with.

Palestinians in Gaza have only themselves to blame if Israel is forced to resort to such measures to protect its own citizens. If Israel abandons the peace process with the Palestinians of the West Bank, they need only point to Gaza if anyone asks why. 

War crimes are never justifiable,

No, but thanks to the Gazans' perpetual war footing, the status quo is unsustainable.  Something has to give.  I'd rather it be them. 

Secondly, Gaza is a dictatorship.

They elected Hamas to power in the first place.  After Israel withdrew. 

17 years ago! Hitler was also elected to power in the first place (yes yes the nazis only had a plurality not a majority I know I know) but nobody was calling Germany a democracy in the early 1940s.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

And I thought I was a pessimist.
I don't think Haley/Ryan really falls into the same bucket as Mattrose here. I'll be kind and say what he's proposing is...creative.
It's far from clear that it's really necessary.
It is true ethnic cleansing half a million is less bad than two million dying. But I'd hope we aren't at the point that such ideas are the main set of options to proceed with.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness. And I will be honest that before today my reaction would have been similar to that of many others here: staunch opposition. But I believe today marks a seminal shift in the history of the conflict, comparable only to the 1967 wars and the failure of Camp David. As much as I wish there was some other good option that ensured peace or at least minimized the death toll alongside a quasi-truce as existed up to now, both Hamas's demonstration of ability and Israel's inability to defend itself will mean that in the future, attacks like this likely become less an exception and more a norm. I think it a virtual guarantee at this point that the Israeli death toll from the invasion and the subsequent counterinvasion to come exceeds 1,000 dead, perhaps even twice or more than that. The Gazan and possibly Lebanese numbers? Maybe 10, 20x that? Imagine that being repeated year after year for the next several decades, whether in Gaza or outside it. The death toll would soar (if 20,000 people die in this conflict, that will be 15% of those dead since 1948). It very quickly becomes the case that the best, even only, answer, is resettlement. This isn't even for all of the area involved, just the Gaza Strip, the single most dangerous area because of location and ideology.

I'm about two-thirds Arab and most of my family is Muslim (giving me considerable insight into the Palestinian side of things here). All-in-all it's just a sad situation where the region is right about now. My instinct has always been leaning towards what I've felt is whatever is likeliest to maintain a peaceful status quo between Israelis and Palestinians, who both have a right to live there (and who both deserve a right to return). Sadly, communal tensions, lack of respect for what the other side thinks, and divisions among communities have rendered long-term peace impossible as things stand. I think you're broadly right on some aspects of this even if I do lean pro-Palestine if forced to choose (not a big fan of Hezbollah or Bibi especially).

The ideal solution at the moment would be clear de-escalation. But leadership on neither side has much interest in that. Things are not likely to substantially improve until people demand better leadership; Bibi and Hamas are just subpar, to put it kindly. As previously noted, I am pessimistic, though not to the full extent you are. In the long-run, if this does turn into a long battle over Gaza, then it might resemble the Syrian Civil War in some ways. Very grim, really.

Palestinians are themselves also divided. The issues involved are bad enough and entrenched enough that even if Israel really achieves the strong weakening of Hamas, that won't be the end of its problems. If will only end up making for itself new ones, very likely. In the meantime, the likes of Bibi and co would be well-advised to act less cockily and act with more regard to the Waqf of the Dome of the Rock and the Arab community around it, it really isn't worth the trouble it brings Israel. But that's more along the lines of "advisable things to do alongside all this".

Shalom/Salam

[Meclazine for Israel]

Al Jazeera

Mortars on Sheeba Farms from Hezbollah

https://youtu.be/vyV66iLbMo0

[SInNYC]

I have a very superficial knowledge on the conflict, so i have a few questions:

Does Hamas have a presence on the West Bank or is it only limited to Gaza?

If Hamas is such a threat, what stoped Israel from invading the strip and toppling the Gazan administration? They've conducted strikes and bombings there before, would a full on invasion be considered risky or undesirable in some way?

I know Hamas has support in Iran and Lebanon, but elsewere in the region is it seen as a legitimate authority of the palestinian organizations, or is Fatah the prefered one? Would anyone object to Hamas being ousted?

2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza.

2006 Palestine has first and final elections. Hamas does well in Gaza, Fatah, traditional leaders and party of current Palestinian President Abbas and ex-Palestinian President Arafat wins in West Bank. Later in 2006 Hamas seizes control of Gaza and effectively secedes from Palestinian Authority leadership, running a separate regime.

Since 2006, negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority have been rocky in part because the Palestinian Authority can't speak for Hamas and Gaza. Hard liners on both sides benefit from violence and the regular cycle over the last 17 years of "Hamas attacks out of Gaza, Israel retaliates" is good for the Israeli right and far right in terms of making security the main issue and good for Hamas because they recruit off of blown up buildings and such in Gaza and garner international sympathy. Meanwhile settlement continues to creep into West Bank and people conflate the mess in the West Bank with the different mess in Gaza.

Basically the entire world accepts the government of the Palestinians as the Palestinian Authority, which is run by Fatah. The only people who accept Hamas as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are people like Laki. Hamas has never accepted going back into the Palestinian Authority and is terrified of the idea of another Palestinian election, which is why they haven't participated in one since 2006, because they know Fatah will win and would have a claim to regain control of Gaza.

This is factually incorrect. Hamas won 74 seats while Fatah won 45 seats in the 2006 election. Hamas beat Fatah 45-17 in district-based seats, winning both the West Bank and Gaza. These numbers are all on wikipedia if you dont believe me. Haniya (Hamas) became the leader, but Israel (and the US) refused to recognize the election results since Hamas won. Israel also refused to release the PA tax money to a Hamas government. After some monkeying around by Israel and the US, they somehow got Fatah to take over West Bank, with Hamas in Gaza.

There was never another election but nobody, neither Israel, the US, nor Fatah wants another election, and its questionable whether anybody would accept the results of an election in which the wrong party won.

I dont like Hamas either, but lets not repeat the common revisionist history about these elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I have a very superficial knowledge on the conflict, so i have a few questions:

Does Hamas have a presence on the West Bank or is it only limited to Gaza?

If Hamas is such a threat, what stoped Israel from invading the strip and toppling the Gazan administration? They've conducted strikes and bombings there before, would a full on invasion be considered risky or undesirable in some way?

I know Hamas has support in Iran and Lebanon, but elsewere in the region is it seen as a legitimate authority of the palestinian organizations, or is Fatah the prefered one? Would anyone object to Hamas being ousted?

2005 Israel withdrew from Gaza.

2006 Palestine has first and final elections. Hamas does well in Gaza, Fatah, traditional leaders and party of current Palestinian President Abbas and ex-Palestinian President Arafat wins in West Bank. Later in 2006 Hamas seizes control of Gaza and effectively secedes from Palestinian Authority leadership, running a separate regime.

Since 2006, negotiations between Israel and Palestinian Authority have been rocky in part because the Palestinian Authority can't speak for Hamas and Gaza. Hard liners on both sides benefit from violence and the regular cycle over the last 17 years of "Hamas attacks out of Gaza, Israel retaliates" is good for the Israeli right and far right in terms of making security the main issue and good for Hamas because they recruit off of blown up buildings and such in Gaza and garner international sympathy. Meanwhile settlement continues to creep into West Bank and people conflate the mess in the West Bank with the different mess in Gaza.

Basically the entire world accepts the government of the Palestinians as the Palestinian Authority, which is run by Fatah. The only people who accept Hamas as legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people are people like Laki. Hamas has never accepted going back into the Palestinian Authority and is terrified of the idea of another Palestinian election, which is why they haven't participated in one since 2006, because they know Fatah will win and would have a claim to regain control of Gaza.

This is factually incorrect. Hamas won 74 seats while Fatah won 45 seats in the 2006 election. Hamas beat Fatah 45-17 in district-based seats, winning both the West Bank and Gaza. These numbers are all on wikipedia if you dont believe me. Haniya (Hamas) became the leader, but Israel (and the US) refused to recognize the election results since Hamas won. Israel also refused to release the PA tax money to a Hamas government. After some monkeying around by Israel and the US, they somehow got Fatah to take over West Bank, with Hamas in Gaza.

There was never another election but nobody, neither Israel, the US, nor Fatah wants another election, and its questionable whether anybody would accept the results of an election in which the wrong party won.

I dont like Hamas either, but lets not repeat the common revisionist history about these elections.

For what it's worth, the opinion polls show a close election between Hamas and Fatah. Although I'm sure Hamas would win right now after these latest events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Palestinian_legislative_election

[Aurelius2]

Talked to my grandmother. She is safe at this time and looking for a flight out. There is a safe room in the apartment of the cousins she is visiting. I knew this was the case but wanted to speak to her and hear her voice anyway. I can now finally sleep and get some rest.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Talked to my grandmother. She is safe at this time and looking for a flight out. There is a safe room in the apartment of the cousins she is visiting. I knew this was the case but wanted to speak to her and hear her voice anyway. I can now finally sleep and get some rest.

Good night, may both you and your grandmother get a good rest.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Live Feed from Israel

Tel-Aviv, Gaza and Jerusalem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpeB4A9rTFE

All pretty peaceful at the moment.

[Blair]

31 pages in one day and the thread is mostly just my ‘ignore list’.