Israel-Gaza war

[Agafin]

Hamas terrorists: We were told 'whoever brings a hostage gets $10,000'

Israel's Shin Bet security service and Police force jointly interrogated six detainees from Gaza who participated in the destruction and mass murder of October 7, 2023.

The footage from the interrogation was released on Monday and showed selected clips from six separate interrogations.

Each terrorist had a slightly different experience, but Israeli intelligence forces noted a number of common themes. All the Hamas agents were given explicit instructions to kill and kidnap civilians including the elderly along with women and children. While they did this, their commanders stayed behind in Gaza.

...

One of the terrorists told Israeli forces that "whoever brings a hostage back [to Gaza] gets $10,000 and an apartment."

They said that the plan had been to take over the towns they attacked and hold positions there once they had finished killing and kidnapping the residents.

...

The video released by the Shin Bet and the police shows the various Hamas operatives going into extreme detail about their activities on the morning of October 7. "The instructions were to kidnap women and children," said one. Another described an encounter with a dead body, saying: "Her body was lying on the floor. I shot her, and my commander yelled at me for wasting bullets on a dead body."

They made it clear that when it came to murder, they were not to distinguish between civilians and soldiers.

...

At the end of the video, each of the Hamas agents was asked if what they did was permissible in Islam. They all answered the same way: "No. Islam does not permit the killing of women and children."

This is so sad to me. I'm normally one of the most anti-hamas/Palestine person there is but this video kinda humanised these militants to me, which I assume wasn't the intention of the article. But like, how deep can the brainwashing really be? How could they possibly buy into the whole $10000 or the appartment bullcrap? And if they know it's against Islam, why do it? Even putting religion aside, how did they justify all of it to themselves? They seem to understand that killing civilians is bad, and even have remorse but some of the videos that were shot onsite almost seemed to show those people enjoying the killing.

Up until this point, I honestly imagined most hamas militants as raging lunatics, cartoonishly evil and sociopathic, and their actions on October 7 is consistent with that. But at least 2 or 3 of the people interviewed here look like they'd actually be capable of being good persons if things were different. They seem capable of telling good from bad or having empathy, and seem to be ashamed of their actions. The disconnect is so strong that I'm honestly wondering if this isn't just an act. Are they just sad that they got caught but would go right back to doing something "forbidden by islam" if they were freed? Or have they been tortured by the IDF to pretend to be sorry? Hard to tell.

[dead0man]

none of them bothered to ask, "so what do we think Israel is going to do after we murder a bunch of civilians and kidnap a few hundred women and children?  If past actions are any indication of their response, it's not going to be very good for our families.  What good will an apartment and 10k do me if I'm dead and it's rubble?  Wait, are we the baddies?"

[strangerinthealps]

Can we all agree to stop trying to use twitter as a news source?

It was never meant to be one.

It is a vehicle for free expression, and that is all.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/10/1204755129/video-game-clips-and-old-videos-are-flooding-social-media-about-israel-and-gaza

One viral video claims to show a Hamas fighter shooting down an Israeli helicopter — but it's a clip from the video game Arma 3. A video purporting to show an Israeli woman being attacked in Gaza was filmed in 2015 in Guatemala. An unverified voice message circulating on WhatsApp, along with the note "forwarded many times," says a military official has instructed Israelis to stock up on cash, fuel and groceries. Fake accounts posing as a BBC journalist and the Jerusalem Post newspaper spread false information widely before being suspended by X (formerly known as Twitter).

[strangerinthealps]

none of them bothered to ask, "so what do we think Israel is going to do after we murder a bunch of civilians and kidnap a few hundred women and children?  If past actions are any indication of their response, it's not going to be very good for our families.  What good will an apartment and 10k do me if I'm dead and it's rubble?  Wait, are we the baddies?"

None of the real fat cats behind Hamas are even IN Gaza. They are safely abroad.

Meanwhile, it is Iran pulling the strings. They convinced the Hamas terrorists that this would be a great victory (and it was, but for Iran, not for Palestine).

Iran got exactly what it wanted, which was to force a military response from Israel amid its fractured and often ignorant government.

The 10/7 attack has literally placed Israel in a Kobayashi Maru. Not responding to the attack is simply not an option for Israel.

For Netanyahu and his clown car alliance, his continued control and freedom literally hinge upon a strong military response to cover for his years of complacency and using Hamas as a convenient boogie man.

For Israel as a whole, the lack of a meaningful military response, which would end the control of Hamas in Gaza, would be a much larger defeat in the eyes of their enemies than 10/7, and leave them open to future such attacks, and embolden all their other Iranian backed attackers.

However, by attacking Hamas, especially with the huge ongoing misinformation campaign, they have effectively halted progress on the Abraham Accords and ensured another generation of motivated terrorists useful to Iran.

Iran is the big winner, as they have effectively destabilized an emerging world order that would have threatened their power and their ability to effectively move troops from their own border all the way to the borders of Israel and into the borders of their Israeli neighbors.

The Hamas terrorists were merely the pawns.

The whole, current '72 virgins' model for fundamental Islam really originated with The Old Man on the Mountain, Hassan-i-Sabbah and his Ismaeli sect known as the Hashisin.

Believe it or not, there used to be powerful Islamic nations that were NOT immersed in fundamentalism. Even though Islam was their primary religion, they were developed Nation-States with cultural heritages that far pre-dated Islam, and were similar to their Europian counterparts.

Hassan-i-Sabbah used a combination of drugs (hashish) and a pleasure place in remote Alamut Castle, to create the Fedayin (not from Dune) or Those Who Sacrifice Themselves. His Hashashin were convinced that they had visited heaven, and would return to those pleasures upon death.

In modern cinema, the villain Thulsa Doom in Conan the Barbarian was strongly based on Sabbah and his cult.

Using these fearless assassins, his sect were able to fend off powerful nations through targeted terror and assassination.

It is doubtful that any of the Hashashin culture survived their defeat by the Mongols, but their methodology was adapted more and more throughout the region, resulting in what you find today in the mind of the fundamentalist Islamic terrorist.

Though certainly not a tenet of Islam, the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam allows devout followers any sort of moral justification that they want, in that any sort of sin, act against the tenets of Islam, or crime is justified in resisting the infidel and establishing the global caliphate they seek.

It is terrifying, and goes far beyond brainwashing.

[Cassius]

I’m pretty sure most of Israel is on the same page regarding Bibi and Likud: a corrupt, authoritarian, petty, and above all incompetent leader who, judging from the international reactions a browse of Wikipedia garners, has led Israel into its worst national security situation since at least 1982 if not further back. Bibi and Likud have already managed to squander much of the goodwill and sympathy that Hamas’ barbaric attacks had gained Israel, and that’s before the ground invasion has even started. The absolute eclipse of Israeli soft power - and, to a shocking extent, hard power as well - that Bibi, Likud, and their even more horrifying coalition partners have been responsible for would justify an IDF coup in my opinion to save the country by trying and imprisoning those who were willing to destroy not just one but two nations in the pursuit of money and power. Oh, and draft every single eligible Haredi and send them in the first wave into Gaza because they’re responsible for this sh!tstorm too. I’m not surprised one bit that Bibi’s son is a draft dodger: like father, like son in putting their own desires ahead of their country’s. Maybe Israel could trade members of the extremist coalition for the release of hostages so that they could at least do one thing for their country before their inevitable and justified demise.

Surprised you posted this jaichind, Bibi seems like your type of guy.

Netanyahu the elder does at least have a very creditable military record.

[jaichind]

WSJ reports that Israel agrees to delay Gaza ground offensive for USA to have time to install missile defense systems to protect USA troops.

[Agafin]

WSJ reports that Israel agrees to delay Gaza ground offensive. 

They won't have as much suport for it later so perhaps its put off for good?

[Vosem]

Okay, but it doesn't just end with "Israel with a free hand automatically wipes out Hamas". For one thing, it isn't remotely a given that the IDF is currently capable of winning in its current state against well prepared Hamas positions and tunnels that have been found going as deep as 70 meters, well beyond the range of even the beefiest bunker busters. This isn't just my opinion, both American and Israeli officers recognize that the IDF is in no state to support a sustained offensive. Allowing Israel to take a heavy handed approach is one thing but if defeating Hamas required Western support I suspect the objections would quickly start piling up from all directions.

Hamas does not have an air force, and inasmuch as Israel can establish air superiority then that is game, except inasmuch as Israel or the West (or Western media) insist on Israel playing by rules that don't permit it to win. The territory is also currently surrounded and in a state of siege, and could in principle be starved out without a ground invasion. Tunnels can be easily flooded.

The issue here is not 'can Israel beat Hamas'. It very clearly can, and probably in a relatively short period of time. The issue is whether Israel is politically capable of doing the things necessary; the stronger Hamas actually is entrenched, the more likely the actions necessary would involve relatively large numbers of civilian casualties. This is why you see those on Israel's side complain about news coverage which focuses on those numbers; it prevents fighting the war, or escalation in particular ways.

The other problem here is that there's a whole chain of escalation that is just being brushed off. There's a very dangerous path that goes like this: Israel attacks Gaza and gets bogged down then Hezbollah attacks Israel, the US responds to Hezbollah by declaring war on Iran and then the Russians and Chinese, inexorably tied to each other through shared enmity of the US and energy dependency respectively, use the Iranians to indirectly fight America just as America has indirectly used Ukraine to fight Russia.

Why would this happen under the most dovish President in literally decades? I can imagine a tit-for-tat series of strikes (...as actually happened under Trump and did not lead to WW3), but I don't think these would escalate into a war. America does not want to fight a war against Iran. Iran does not want to fight a war against America, and even if it did is questionably even capable of provoking one.

Even if the Iranians and Hezbollah would rather not escalate, the tit-for-tit exchanges currently going on along the Israeli-Lebanese border could force their hand regardless.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

Everyone is talking about this purely in moral terms but even from a purely realist perspective it isn't clear that going "hands off" is going to do anything but escalate the situation beyond anyone's ability to control. Even if you don't care about Palestinian rights or war crimes you should recognize that if we fail to pressure our leaders to deescalate the situation now we could well end up replicating the mistakes that led to the First World War, except this time the Great Powers have nuclear hypersonic missiles.

I think this concern kind of makes sense in Ukraine, where we're arming a state which is directly fighting a nuclear power which has intercontinental missiles and which could actually decide to strike the United States if it wanted to. I don't think this concern makes sense in Iran -- what could they actually do? I think in the worst case scenario bomb and sink American ships, but the retaliation would be a bombing campaign, not an invasion.

Israel/Palestine is a very tug-of-war meme sort of issue that shatters the binary Red vs Blue tribal dynamic. The right might not have a pro-Hamas contingent but we're also seeing a divide between hardline Zionists like Ben Shapiro and isolationists like Tucker Carlson. Back in the day they'd just shove Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul in a closet whenever the topic came up but now their intellectual descendants can't just be ignored by the standard platitudes.

This is also a weird comment because Republican support for the Israeli state has grown a great deal since the 2000s. If anything these people have less influence now! (If they are harder to ignore -- which I think is possible -- it is only because social media gives everyone more of a voice than they would have had otherwise, and makes fringes appear larger).

I often complain about American media and commentators acting as if only America has agency, and other countries have none and only respond to America's actions, but these posts seem like they come from a different universe, where other countries have agency but America has none, and given a certain set of circumstances would inevitably launch a ground invasion of Iran or nuke Russia or launch a Third World War otherwise. But...why? There's no reason to think that, unless for some reason you're invested in Ukraine or Israel losing.

[jaichind]

WSJ reports that Israel agrees to delay Gaza ground offensive. 

They won't have as much suport for it later so perhaps its put off for good?

It is just a delay so USA can install anti missile systems to protect USA troops in the region

[Ferguson97]

Wow. WSJ reporting Israel will delay a ground invasion.

[Vosem]

Even if the Iranians and Hezbollah would rather not escalate, the tit-for-tit exchanges currently going on along the Israeli-Lebanese border could force their hand regardless.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

This seems... short-sighted at best. Much more experienced and much, much better armed now. Could overwhelm a lot of Israeli defensive systems in a way they could not in 2006.

Is there good evidence for this? There hasn't been a reprisal of bombing from Hezbollah in any way similar to what took place before 2006, in spite of Israel carrying out strikes against Hezbollah positions in Syria decently frequently over the course of the civil war; many individual months have multiple strikes recorded. It really seems like the organization never completely recovered from 2006.

[strangerinthealps]

WSJ reports that Israel agrees to delay Gaza ground offensive. 

They won't have as much suport for it later so perhaps its put off for good?

Negative. They can't afford to come up empty-handed on this.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People forget that we didn’t invade Afghanistan until nearly a month after 9/11.

These things aren’t immediate

[Vosem]

Even if the Iranians and Hezbollah would rather not escalate, the tit-for-tit exchanges currently going on along the Israeli-Lebanese border could force their hand regardless.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

This seems... short-sighted at best. Much more experienced and much, much better armed now. Could overwhelm a lot of Israeli defensive systems in a way they could not in 2006.

Is there good evidence for this? There hasn't been a reprisal of bombing from Hezbollah in any way similar to what took place before 2006, in spite of Israel carrying out strikes against Hezbollah positions in Syria decently frequently over the course of the civil war; many individual months have multiple strikes recorded. It really seems like the organization never completely recovered from 2006.

Is there good evidence for what? Not sure why Hezbollah not firing more missiles now says anything meaningful about the size of their stockpiles or how many men they have.

I think their record of fighting in Syria suggests a much less sophisticated organization than existed before 2006. It is physically possible that they've been stockpiling for some epochal future conflict, but I don't think that's normally how paramilitary organizations normally operate -- in particular, in some ways, the Syrian war was more existential for Hezbollah than an Israeli one would be, since they are supplied through Syria and the fall of Assad would have called into question their continued existence.

'Not firing missiles' when you're engaged in a war and are getting fired at does seem to imply that you don't have the capability to fire missiles back. I guess we can Trust The Plan, though.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah look to join forces.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2023-10-25/leader-of-lebanons-hezbollah-holds-talks-with-senior-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-figures


In this photo released on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2023, by the Hezbollah Media Relations Office, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, right, meets with Ziad al-Nakhleh, the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, center, and Hamas deputy chief, Saleh al-Arouri, in Beirut, Lebanon. Nasrallah met with top Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad officials, their first reported meeting since the Hamas-Israel war erupted earlier this month and clashes began along the Lebanon-Israel border. (Hezbollah Media Relations Office, via AP ) (Uncredited / Associated Press)

Following the meeting in Lebanon, a brief statement said Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah agreed with Hamas’ Saleh al-Arouri and Islamic Jihad’s leader Ziad al-Nakhleh on the next steps that the three — along with other Iran-backed militants — should take at this “sensitive stage” in the Middle East.

Their goal, according to the statement carried on Hezbollah-run and Lebanese state media, was to achieve “a real victory for the resistance in Gaza and Palestine” and halt Israel’s “treacherous and brutal aggression against our oppressed and steadfast people in Gaza and the West Bank”.

No other details were provided.

[Tintrlvr]

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah look to join forces.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2023-10-25/leader-of-lebanons-hezbollah-holds-talks-with-senior-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad-figures


In this photo released on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2023, by the Hezbollah Media Relations Office, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, right, meets with Ziad al-Nakhleh, the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, center, and Hamas deputy chief, Saleh al-Arouri, in Beirut, Lebanon. Nasrallah met with top Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad officials, their first reported meeting since the Hamas-Israel war erupted earlier this month and clashes began along the Lebanon-Israel border. (Hezbollah Media Relations Office, via AP ) (Uncredited / Associated Press)

Following the meeting in Lebanon, a brief statement said Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah agreed with Hamas’ Saleh al-Arouri and Islamic Jihad’s leader Ziad al-Nakhleh on the next steps that the three — along with other Iran-backed militants — should take at this “sensitive stage” in the Middle East.

Their goal, according to the statement carried on Hezbollah-run and Lebanese state media, was to achieve “a real victory for the resistance in Gaza and Palestine” and halt Israel’s “treacherous and brutal aggression against our oppressed and steadfast people in Gaza and the West Bank”.

No other details were provided.

How do the Hamas and IJ Gazan leadership get to Lebanon when Gaza is supposed to sealed shut?

[dead0man]

wiki says the Hamas pig lives in Istanbul

[strangerinthealps]

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah look to join forces.

Look to?

They have been meeting for years. They are all Iranian backed chess pieces using the same playbook.

[Vosem]

Even if the Iranians and Hezbollah would rather not escalate, the tit-for-tit exchanges currently going on along the Israeli-Lebanese border could force their hand regardless.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

This seems... short-sighted at best. Much more experienced and much, much better armed now. Could overwhelm a lot of Israeli defensive systems in a way they could not in 2006.

Is there good evidence for this? There hasn't been a reprisal of bombing from Hezbollah in any way similar to what took place before 2006, in spite of Israel carrying out strikes against Hezbollah positions in Syria decently frequently over the course of the civil war; many individual months have multiple strikes recorded. It really seems like the organization never completely recovered from 2006.

Is there good evidence for what? Not sure why Hezbollah not firing more missiles now says anything meaningful about the size of their stockpiles or how many men they have.

I think their record of fighting in Syria suggests a much less sophisticated organization than existed before 2006. It is physically possible that they've been stockpiling for some epochal future conflict, but I don't think that's normally how paramilitary organizations normally operate -- in particular, in some ways, the Syrian war was more existential for Hezbollah than an Israeli one would be, since they are supplied through Syria and the fall of Assad would have called into question their continued existence.

'Not firing missiles' when you're engaged in a war and are getting fired at does seem to imply that you don't have the capability to fire missiles back. I guess we can Trust The Plan, though.

They have in fact been stockpiling for an epochal future conflict.

Maybe. But maybe it means something that they could only deploy 4000 militants to fight in Syria, where if they had lost they would have been cut off from easy resupply. (Wikipedia cites Hezbollah itself claiming they have 100,000 militants, and Iran claiming they have 65,000, but the Gulf Research Council estimating 7,000-10,000 -- the latter seems much more reasonable given the scale of the Syrian intervention.) Maybe it means something that they have never responded to getting bombed by Israel in Syria, or that they never intervened in previous Israeli actions in Gaza -- of which there have been three large ones since 2006, throwing out the present hostilities.

It is generally within the interests of militaries to exaggerate the size and strength of their opponents -- that way they get more funding! I would look at the actual outcomes in warfare, and for countries just, like, GDP, to determine actual strength, and by those measures Hezbollah looked very impressive pre-2006 and like a remnant organization after 2006. I could be wrong, I suppose.

(Like, if Hamas becomes as quiescent after this war as Hezbollah has been since 2006, I think anyone reasonable would consider that a pretty decisive Israeli victory.)

[Jingizu]

I’m pretty sure most of Israel is on the same page regarding Bibi and Likud: a corrupt, authoritarian, petty, and above all incompetent leader who, judging from the international reactions a browse of Wikipedia garners, has led Israel into its worst national security situation since at least 1982 if not further back. Bibi and Likud have already managed to squander much of the goodwill and sympathy that Hamas’ barbaric attacks had gained Israel, and that’s before the ground invasion has even started. The absolute eclipse of Israeli soft power - and, to a shocking extent, hard power as well - that Bibi, Likud, and their even more horrifying coalition partners have been responsible for would justify an IDF coup in my opinion to save the country by trying and imprisoning those who were willing to destroy not just one but two nations in the pursuit of money and power. Oh, and draft every single eligible Haredi and send them in the first wave into Gaza because they’re responsible for this sh!tstorm too. I’m not surprised one bit that Bibi’s son is a draft dodger: like father, like son in putting their own desires ahead of their country’s. Maybe Israel could trade members of the extremist coalition for the release of hostages so that they could at least do one thing for their country before their inevitable and justified demise.

Surprised you posted this jaichind, Bibi seems like your type of guy.

Netanyahu the elder does at least have a very creditable military record.

When young, yes. Which makes this all the more damning for him.

[Meclazine for Israel]

When young, yes. Which makes this all the more damning for him.

Netanyahu is one of the few Israeli special forces ever to storm a plane full of fervent Islamic terrorists and shoot them all dead.

During the attack, he got shot in the hand by one of his Israeli colleagues.

He also served in both Israeli wars.

His son is most likely chasing Cuban models in Miami and posting about his McLaren sports car on Instagram.

There is no way possible he will be made of the same stuff as his Dad.

[Jingizu]

When young, yes. Which makes this all the more damning for him.

Netanyahu is one of the few Israeli special forces ever to storm a plane full of fervent Islamic terrorists and shoot them all dead.

During the attack, he got shot in the hand by one of his Israeli colleagues.

He also served in both Israeli wars.

His son is most likely chasing Cuban models in Miami and posting about his McLaren sports car on Instagram.

There is no way possible he will be made of the same stuff as his Dad.

Ah, need to add “and a terrible father” to my condemnation of him then

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Okay, but it doesn't just end with "Israel with a free hand automatically wipes out Hamas". For one thing, it isn't remotely a given that the IDF is currently capable of winning in its current state against well prepared Hamas positions and tunnels that have been found going as deep as 70 meters, well beyond the range of even the beefiest bunker busters. This isn't just my opinion, both American and Israeli officers recognize that the IDF is in no state to support a sustained offensive. Allowing Israel to take a heavy handed approach is one thing but if defeating Hamas required Western support I suspect the objections would quickly start piling up from all directions.

Hamas does not have an air force, and inasmuch as Israel can establish air superiority then that is game, except inasmuch as Israel or the West (or Western media) insist on Israel playing by rules that don't permit it to win. The territory is also currently surrounded and in a state of siege, and could in principle be starved out without a ground invasion. Tunnels can be easily flooded.

The issue here is not 'can Israel beat Hamas'. It very clearly can, and probably in a relatively short period of time. The issue is whether Israel is politically capable of doing the things necessary; the stronger Hamas actually is entrenched, the more likely the actions necessary would involve relatively large numbers of civilian casualties. This is why you see those on Israel's side complain about news coverage which focuses on those numbers; it prevents fighting the war, or escalation in particular ways.

On the contrary, short of dropping a nuke on Gaza Israel has no means to seriously disrupt Hamas through airpower alone. The real constraining factor isn't Isreali "restraint" but a total inability by the IDF to stomach casualties over the course of an assault. The ongoing bombing of Gaza has had zero impact on the capabilities of Hamas, as evidenced by their ability to launch raids into Israel at will (most recently with Hamas frogmen launching an attack on Zikim yesterday) and their rocket barrages only increasing in scale. The only way to seriously disrupt this is for foot soldiers to secure the whole city and with the tunnel networks that's going to be a slow and costly affair.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

In 2006 the Israelis lost battles where hundreds to thousands of IDF troops failed to dislodge dozens of Hezbollah fighters, the IDF failed to achieve any significant objectives and then withdrew out of occupied territory in disgrace. Not exactly "destroyed". If the Iranians wanted war with Israel it wouldn't be hard for them to strike considering they effectively control Iraq and Syria, providing a direct land route to the heart of the conflict.

Anyway, if everyone really thought Hezbollah was "destroyed" and incapable of harming Israel then the US wouldn't need to park multiple aircraft carriers nearby while making deadly threats. If Hezbollah as is weak as you think then why not leave them to the IDF?

I think this concern kind of makes sense in Ukraine, where we're arming a state which is directly fighting a nuclear power which has intercontinental missiles and which could actually decide to strike the United States if it wanted to. I don't think this concern makes sense in Iran -- what could they actually do? I think in the worst case scenario bomb and sink American ships, but the retaliation would be a bombing campaign, not an invasion.

They could target the several thousand Americans that would be stranded in bases, embassies and installations between Iraq and Syria. They could hammer Israel with hypersonic missiles. They could exploit the years of lax enforcement of the border to encourage operatives within the US to launch terrorist attacks or acts of sabotage against essential infrastructure. They could give their regional proxies enough rockets to turn Haifa and Tel Aviv into Gaza.

How many American casualties are you willing to accept on behalf of Israel? How many will the American public accept before questions start to be asked? Because even if China and Russia weren't dragged in directly it would be the bloodiest war for the US since Vietnam and with none of the public support generated by the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

This is also a weird comment because Republican support for the Israeli state has grown a great deal since the 2000s. If anything these people have less influence now! (If they are harder to ignore -- which I think is possible -- it is only because social media gives everyone more of a voice than they would have had otherwise, and makes fringes appear larger).

There is an enormous gap between supporting Israel in the abstract and being willing to commit the US to a regional war on Israel's behalf. Only a narrow majority of Republicans even support sending weapons so how many soldiers do you think they'll be willing to lose fighting a full on war on behalf of Israel? It's easy to virtue signal but how high of a priority is Israel to the average Republican today as opposed to 2003? If push comes to shove a huge portion of that support will be revealed as ephemeral.

[jaichind]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/blinken-says-he-asked-qatar-to-change-al-jazeeras-israel-coverage-report

"Blinken Says He Asked Qatar to Change Al Jazeera’s Israel Coverage: Report"

[Vosem]

Okay, but it doesn't just end with "Israel with a free hand automatically wipes out Hamas". For one thing, it isn't remotely a given that the IDF is currently capable of winning in its current state against well prepared Hamas positions and tunnels that have been found going as deep as 70 meters, well beyond the range of even the beefiest bunker busters. This isn't just my opinion, both American and Israeli officers recognize that the IDF is in no state to support a sustained offensive. Allowing Israel to take a heavy handed approach is one thing but if defeating Hamas required Western support I suspect the objections would quickly start piling up from all directions.

Hamas does not have an air force, and inasmuch as Israel can establish air superiority then that is game, except inasmuch as Israel or the West (or Western media) insist on Israel playing by rules that don't permit it to win. The territory is also currently surrounded and in a state of siege, and could in principle be starved out without a ground invasion. Tunnels can be easily flooded.

The issue here is not 'can Israel beat Hamas'. It very clearly can, and probably in a relatively short period of time. The issue is whether Israel is politically capable of doing the things necessary; the stronger Hamas actually is entrenched, the more likely the actions necessary would involve relatively large numbers of civilian casualties. This is why you see those on Israel's side complain about news coverage which focuses on those numbers; it prevents fighting the war, or escalation in particular ways.

On the contrary, short of dropping a nuke on Gaza Israel has no means to seriously disrupt Hamas through airpower alone. The real constraining factor isn't Isreali "restraint" but a total inability by the IDF to stomach casualties over the course of an assault. The ongoing bombing of Gaza has had zero impact on the capabilities of Hamas, as evidenced by their ability to launch raids into Israel at will (most recently with Hamas frogmen launching an attack on Zikim yesterday) and their rocket barrages only increasing in scale. The only way to seriously disrupt this is for foot soldiers to secure the whole city and with the tunnel networks that's going to be a slow and costly affair.

No, I don't think this is true. Most simply, the city can be leveled with conventional bombing and the tunnels flooded without any IDF casualties at all, or very few; breaking things is much easier than making them. Hamas has not demonstrated an ability to actually advance against an IDF which is actually there, and when a single rocket out of hundreds actually claims any lives in Israel this is accorded a victory.

The more restraint the IDF shows, in targeting specific buildings which it knows to certainly be military targets (or even in targeting specific floors and leaving others untouched, as it has been doing in this war), the more difficult a ground operation would be, leaving more opposition. The reaction to taking lots of casualties would just be an escalation...as actually happened last weekend.

But...how? Hezbollah was destroyed by Israel in 2006 and there is no particular indication that they've gotten stronger since then. Except by literally invading an American ally like Saudi Arabia, what could Iran even hypothetically do to launch a war?

In 2006 the Israelis lost battles where hundreds to thousands of IDF troops failed to dislodge dozens of Hezbollah fighters, the IDF failed to achieve any significant objectives and then withdrew out of occupied territory in disgrace. Not exactly "destroyed".

Prior to 2006 Hezbollah bombed northern Israel as routinely as Hamas bombs southern Israel today, and occasionally drew actual casualties. This has stopped even though Israel has continued bombing Hezbollah positions in countries besides Lebanon with total impunity. It's hard to think how the 2006 operation could have been more successful; I guess the IDF didn't literally get the militants to switch sides.

Hezbollah still exists; "destroyed" is sort of hyperbolic. But it's really clear that it does not have its pre-2006 capabilities, because if it did it would have used them over the past decade of regional warfare it participated in, particularly in 2012-2013 when the Syrian conflict seemed existential. (It's also really clear that it doesn't have 100,000 members, since even its allies aren't claiming that and when it tried to fight in Syria it produced...uh...4,000 militants.)

If the Iranians wanted war with Israel it wouldn't be hard for them to strike considering they effectively control Iraq and Syria, providing a direct land route to the heart of the conflict.

Given that both of these countries have active American military bases...no, I don't think so? Moreover, Iraq is home to militant groups that occasionally launch attacks into Iran itself, which really belies the "effectively control" part of it. Border crossings on the Syria-Iraq border are mostly controlled by the either Kurdish forces -- which are tied to those militant groups launching attacks into Iran itself -- or the interim SNA government. I guess it would be possible for the Iranian military to build roads or something, but they haven't done so.

Anyway, if everyone really thought Hezbollah was "destroyed" and incapable of harming Israel then the US wouldn't need to park multiple aircraft carriers nearby while making deadly threats. If Hezbollah as is weak as you think then why not leave them to the IDF?

Presumably because the US has them, right? (Or to guard against embassy attacks and things like this, which have a long history in the region?) The point of having aircraft carriers is to demonstrate to everybody that you're willing to use them, which is why their locations are public knowledge.

I think this concern kind of makes sense in Ukraine, where we're arming a state which is directly fighting a nuclear power which has intercontinental missiles and which could actually decide to strike the United States if it wanted to. I don't think this concern makes sense in Iran -- what could they actually do? I think in the worst case scenario bomb and sink American ships, but the retaliation would be a bombing campaign, not an invasion.

They could target the several thousand Americans that would be stranded in bases, embassies and installations between Iraq and Syria.

This feels covered under my 'bomb and sink American ships' scenario, which I think would mean more loss of life than what you're positing. Again, they would just be met with airstrikes as in early 2020.

They could hammer Israel with hypersonic missiles.

Can they? Iran has only claimed to have these in 2023; my understanding is that the claim is sort of questionable and smuggling them to Lebanon (or Gaza!) would be very hard.

They could exploit the years of lax enforcement of the border to encourage operatives within the US to launch terrorist attacks or acts of sabotage against essential infrastructure.

This seems more plausible, but the answer to this would be more tit-for-tat stuff; assassinations within Iran tied to Israel or the US happen all the time. You could launch airstrikes without actually launching a ground invasion; this has been done many times, but in the past strikes within Iran itself, rather than targeted assassinations, have been avoided as escalatory.

They could give their regional proxies enough rockets to turn Haifa and Tel Aviv into Gaza.

But...like...can they actually? Why is Hezbollah actually firing fewer rockets rather than more, if all of this materiel exists?

How many American casualties are you willing to accept on behalf of Israel? How many will the American public accept before questions start to be asked? Because even if China and Russia weren't dragged in directly it would be the bloodiest war for the US since Vietnam and with none of the public support generated by the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

...no? Over the course of the entire war against ISIS the total number of American military casualties was 20, and support for the conflict remained high the entire time. In Libya it was single digits. In Yemen, also, under 100. We have literally bombed Iranian positions abroad before, and it did not lead to any kind of regional war. This is because Iran lacks the strength to actually prevent Iraq from hosting hostile militias, or to prevent Syria from hosting hostile militias, or to pump Hezbollah back to a level of strength that it had in very recent memory.

China or Russia could choose to do this, sure. Russia could, in principle, choose to spend a sufficient percentage of its GDP on the Ukraine War to actually win the conflict there; right now it is spending a smaller fraction than the US did in Korea. Somehow, however, they are choosing not to; they seem to think that high levels of mobilization would threaten the regime. China seems uninterested in sending any kind of aid to the Russian effort there, and Iran is a much less relevant partner for them -- the actual way China might escalate is by attacking Taiwan, which actually might lead to a hot war with the US. But that's true regardless of what happens in the Middle East.

This is also a weird comment because Republican support for the Israeli state has grown a great deal since the 2000s. If anything these people have less influence now! (If they are harder to ignore -- which I think is possible -- it is only because social media gives everyone more of a voice than they would have had otherwise, and makes fringes appear larger).

There is an enormous gap between supporting Israel in the abstract and being willing to commit the US to a regional war on Israel's behalf. Only a narrow majority of Republicans even support sending weapons so how many soldiers do you think they'll be willing to lose fighting a full on war on behalf of Israel? It's easy to virtue signal but how high of a priority is Israel to the average Republican today as opposed to 2003? If push comes to shove a huge portion of that support will be revealed as ephemeral.

Right, I don't think a ground war for Israel is a remotely realistic outcome here. (Literally where would it even be fought? Do you think Iran is going to invade Saudi Arabia? That really would trigger a ground war, but it isn't really "a war for Israel" at that point.) Russia has the capability to bomb the US if it wants to, but Iran does not, and most of the actions you're contemplating them taking are ones that they have not done in the relatively recent past when they would have made sense, suggesting that the capability does not exist.

Compared to 2003, the Republican Party is more evangelical (and frankly, the generation born before 1940 or so, which recorded much less support for Israel, is much more dead now than it was then), and there is much less actual resistance to 'Israel is an important ally' recorded in polling. It would be more divisive in the sense that Israel is much less popular among Democrats now, but you really underestimate how much more doctrinaire-evangelical the GOP of 2023 is.