Israel-Gaza war

[Vosem]

Like, I'm sorry if I'm ragging on you, Modern Bourbon Democrat -- reading that post I think I wrote more than I intended to and also came across harsher than I intended to. I think it is useful to think about what would happen if Iran became much stronger, and ways that they could potentially strike at the US (or allies, most obviously not just Israel but Saudi Arabia). I just don't think they're currently at that level of strength, because if they were they would have behaved differently in other recent flare-ups, and I don't think help from Russia or China is forthcoming, because Russia has been unable to win in Ukraine and China has been unwilling to help them even though a Russian victory in Ukraine seems more obviously within their interests than an Iranian victory against countries which mostly aren't even that hostile to China.

[ProudModerate2]

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

These are two completely different battlefields.
You can not compare tiny, urban Gaza Strip, to much larger, mountainous Afghanistan.
The US had no/little military near Afgan. Israel borders Gaza, and IDF can mobilize almost immediately and enter.
Etc, etc.

[Cashew]

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

These things aren’t immediate

Entering Afghanistan required a tiny percentage of the American population. By contrast Israel is fully mobilized and each day the ground invasion does not happen the country spirals closer towards economic collapse while letting it's manpower go to waste.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

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 IDF has been preparing and openly discussing how difficult and grueling a ground campaign through Gaza will be but apparently they were just too dumb to realize that they just had to bomb everything and flood the tunnels. Among the top minds of Israel only General Vosem considered the possibility of using water, a solution Hamas will be powerless against because their top minds never considered basic countermeasures. Even more brilliant is the realization that this can somehow be done without ground troops! It's also good to know that Israel isn't subject to any time constraints; they can just keep hundreds of thousands of citizens mobilized indefinitely and this won't impose any cost upon the Israeli economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and high interest rates.

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.

You're really setting the bar for success pretty low there. By this standard Israel has already "won" the war with Hamas because they can bomb Gaza with impunity. They can just declare victory now and negotiate a ceasefire and hostage transfer if talk of "destroying Hamas" or "destroying Hezbollah" was just empty rhetoric and not the explicit goal of the war.

But I'll just point out that Hezbollah isn't just "occasionally inflicting casualties": in the past week alone they've killed or wounded dozens of Israeli soldiers and cost Israel enormous sums of money in damaged equipment along the border with constant ATGM attacks. They've already demonstrated greater sophistication and competence than ever and forced Israel to evacuate tens of thousands of citizens from the northern settlements. If Hezbollah was so much weaker than the IDF then the latter would have already launched a counterattack and disabled their capabilities entirely instead of waiting for the US to get into position. Or is restraint only a sign of weakness when it comes from Hezbollah?

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.

If you think those American military bases would be cutting off Iranian access and not the other way around in the event of a regional war under the current circumstances then I think you're wildly optimistic.

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.

Except it's been explicitly stated that the US will intervene against Hezbollah if they launch a full scale assault on Israel. Not exactly a sign of confidence in the superiority of the Israeli forces.

"If Iran/Hezbollah are so tough then why haven't they launched an overwhelming response before"

(summarizing a half dozen of your replies here)

Because America would respond overwhelmingly in reply. Hitting every Israeli military installation simultaneously with missiles or sinking an entire carrier strike group would be small comfort when the inevitable response arrived. After all, America doesn't have just one carrier. Under those circumstances, they'd rather tolerate the occasional strategically irrelevant airstrike than awaken the sleeping giant and risk total destruction.

But if they were already in an actual, existential war with Israel and the US as both have threatened recently then they'd have little reason to hold back. I don't see why you're trying to argue this point when even the most hawkish generals and the most hardcore of Zionists within Israel recognize that Hezbollah is on a completely different level from Hamas and Iran is on a completely different level from any of Arab regimes or ragtag terrorist groups faced by America over the past few decades. The North Koreans haven't started any wars recently but nobody doubts their destructive capacity if pushed to the edge.

If you think that getting into a serious, extended conflict in the Middle East to cover for Israel is somehow strategically beneficial then I'd love to see an argument besides "Israel is our Greatest Ally!" but don't pretend it would just be a cakewalk. The only ones pretending Iran and Hezbollah can't fight back are American Zionists trying to drag America into it on the false premise that there will be no cost to be paid. Anyone with military experience or competency knows otherwise, even the top generals of the IDF and at the Pentagon.

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1715525805722439685

[Angel of Death]

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

I only just realized the coincidence of dates here. I wonder if this was intentional.

[Vosem]

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 IDF has been preparing and openly discussing how difficult and grueling a ground campaign through Gaza will be but apparently they were just too dumb to realize that they just had to bomb everything and flood the tunnels.

If you, uh, actually skim the article you linked to you'll notice it agrees with me? It discusses the difficulties of "separating militants from civilians", and discusses the risks of flooding tunnels when they are likely to be inhabited by noncombatants. It essentially backs up every one of my points.

Among the top minds of Israel only General Vosem considered the possibility of using water, a solution Hamas will be powerless against because their top minds never considered basic countermeasures.

Uh, yes, you'll notice that developed countries rarely use subterrene warfare in substantial ways and this is because the easy response to tunnels is to flood them. The problem with this is that, if you are Hamas, you can be sure that tunnels are substantially inhabited by noncombatants. You can read the article you linked to for this point, if you'd like.

Even more brilliant is the realization that this can somehow be done without ground troops!

It can be done with very few, since water flows downhill all by itself and can be pumped uphill with machinery that Israel already has, since they desalinize extensively. Your initial post suggested that Israel would lose the stomach for continuing because they would take many losses among ground troops.

It's also good to know that Israel isn't subject to any time constraints; they can just keep hundreds of thousands of citizens mobilized indefinitely and this won't impose any cost upon the Israeli economy during a time of global economic uncertainty and high interest rates.

Where did I say that? But I don't expect this to be a serious problem; many countries have mobilized for extensive periods of time before, Israel included, and many countries locked down for COVID successfully. Israel is wealthier now than it was in the 1960s and can afford to stay locked-down/mobilized for longer.

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.

You're really setting the bar for success pretty low there. By this standard Israel has already "won" the war with Hamas because they can bomb Gaza with impunity. They can just declare victory now and negotiate a ceasefire and hostage transfer if talk of "destroying Hamas" or "destroying Hezbollah" was just empty rhetoric and not the explicit goal of the war.

Right, I mean, if Hamas is no longer capable of bombing Israel after this war, then that will be a victory, although given the larger scale of mobilization I expect Israel to be going for a more decisive victory than 2006.

But I'll just point out that Hezbollah isn't just "occasionally inflicting casualties": in the past week alone they've killed or wounded dozens of Israeli soldiers and cost Israel enormous sums of money in damaged equipment along the border with constant ATGM attacks. They've already demonstrated greater sophistication and competence than ever

Have they? I remember much more deaths and much greater sums of money spent 16 years ago, somehow.

and forced Israel to evacuate tens of thousands of citizens from the northern settlements. If Hezbollah was so much weaker than the IDF then the latter would have already launched a counterattack and disabled their capabilities entirely instead of waiting for the US to get into position. Or is restraint only a sign of weakness when it comes from Hezbollah?

No, actually restraint is a sign of weakness from any side. That Israel shows restraint at all, showing that it won't pursue particular styles of warfare, is a weakness. That it won't attack without the US's green light is also a weakness.

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.

If you think those American military bases would be cutting off Iranian access and not the other way around in the event of a regional war under the current circumstances then I think you're wildly optimistic.

I think this is nonsense; why would Iran have greater force projection into Iraq or Syria than a country which openly stations troops there? Again, you're acting like the country is secretly much stronger than its behavior suggests.

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.

Except it's been explicitly stated that the US will intervene against Hezbollah if they launch a full scale assault on Israel. Not exactly a sign of confidence in the superiority of the Israeli forces.

"If Iran/Hezbollah are so tough then why haven't they launched an overwhelming response before"

(summarizing a half dozen of your replies here)

Because America would respond overwhelmingly in reply. Hitting every Israeli military installation simultaneously with missiles or sinking an entire carrier strike group would be small comfort when the inevitable response arrived. After all, America doesn't have just one carrier. Under those circumstances, they'd rather tolerate the occasional strategically irrelevant airstrike than awaken the sleeping giant and risk total destruction.

But if they were already in an actual, existential war with Israel and the US as both have threatened recently then they'd have little reason to hold back.

This feels absurd; Assad in Syria lost half of his country and still hasn't gotten much of it back, and you barely heard a squeak out of them. 4000 people were mobilized, and in my understanding actually fought pretty effectively, but you didn't hear this sort of thing. That conflict was obviously existential, yet Hezbollah did not respond in the way you're suggesting it obviously would. 2006 was a long time ago now, but the same goes for that period.

I don't see why you're trying to argue this point when even the most hawkish generals and the most hardcore of Zionists within Israel recognize that Hezbollah is on a completely different level from Hamas and Iran is on a completely different level from any of Arab regimes or ragtag terrorist groups faced by America over the past few decades.

Citing generals like this is very silly, because every military in the developed world tries to exaggerate the strength of its enemies -- that's how they get more money! Of course the Israeli military says Hezbollah is stronger than what its actual recent accomplishments show, or what neutrals estimate its power projection is. You wouldn't expect it to be any different.

Iran has not intervened on behalf of Hezbollah in 2006, nor did it intervene openly on behalf of Syria in 2012-2013, and its intervention in Iraq, aimed against ISIS, happened with more-or-less open Western toleration because of who its enemies were. The regime is clearly more rickety now and it is doubtful they would intervene if not directly struck. Even if they were directly struck, as in 2020, it doesn't seem like the reaction would be much more than tit-for-tat.

This is not going to be an existential war for Iran (...unless they invade Saudi Arabia or something). There's no reason for them to act like it would be an existential war. Their actual reactions to, like, top politicians getting assassinated have also suggested that they either don't want to, or are not capable of, fighting a large offensive war.

This conversation is about Hezbollah: I think they are not that strong and I think there is no reason Iran would launch an aggressive multi-country war to bail them out.

The North Koreans haven't started any wars recently but nobody doubts their destructive capacity if pushed to the edge.

If you think that getting into a serious, extended conflict in the Middle East to cover for Israel is somehow strategically beneficial then I'd love to see an argument besides "Israel is our Greatest Ally!" but don't pretend it would just be a cakewalk. The only ones pretending Iran and Hezbollah can't fight back are American Zionists trying to drag America into it on the false premise that there will be no cost to be paid.

Iran has not fought back in the past when Hezbollah was threatened with annihilation. Hezbollah has fought back and lost decisively in the past, and now frankly does not seem capable of what they used to be capable of in the past. Without actual Iranian intervention, which seems unlikely, there is not a reason to think the current war is likely to spiral into a regional conflict. Without its own ethical rules, there is not a reason to think reoccupying Gaza would be particularly difficult for Israel.

Anyone with military experience or competency knows otherwise, even the top generals of the IDF and at the Pentagon.

It is in these peoples' interests to exaggerate the strength of their enemies so they get more funding. How many times do I have to say it?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://twitter.com/AlnaouqA/status/1716955701497761976?s=20
Has had 30 family members killed by the IDF

[oldtimer]

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?

https://www.ft.com/content/75d27680-cdaa-46f7-b810-10b594bb0ad2

   “There is no plan for the ‘day after’. The [Israeli] system hasn’t decided yet,” said one person familiar with Israeli thinking. “The Americans went crazy when they realised there was no plan.”

That's some strong Bush Administration vibes there, plus the 10 year length estimates for the battle and you can see why it's been put off.

They might be realizing what many suspected, that Hamas wants them to invade Gaza and the attack was bait.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If you, uh, actually skim the article you linked to you'll notice it agrees with me? It discusses the difficulties of "separating militants from civilians", and discusses the risks of flooding tunnels when they are likely to be inhabited by noncombatants. It essentially backs up every one of my points.

That isn't the only reason flooding the tunnels is unrealistic, it's just an obvious one that precludes it as an option for political reasons. Netanyahu might be able to do what he wants to Gazan civilians but he might have a problem if he announces his plan is to drown all the hostages, so FP doesn't even need to consider the practical problems beyond that.

Some of which include:

1. How do you intend to flood Hamas positions without troops in Gaza? Do you expect the water to magically appear outside the entrances like manna from Heaven? Do you expect pumps outside Hamas tunnels to remain unmolested without any protection?

2. How do you prevent Hamas from responding with the usage of drainage systems or sealing off discovered entrances? The fact that they've used underwater tunnels for infiltration and have dealt with natural floods in the past suggests they're capable of dealing with flooding.

3. Have you considered how much water it would take to fill several hundred kilometres of tunnel even if Hamas just sat there letting you drown them?

Uh, yes, you'll notice that developed countries rarely use subterrene warfare in substantial ways and this is because the easy response to tunnels is to flood them. The problem with this is that, if you are Hamas, you can be sure that tunnels are substantially inhabited by noncombatants. You can read the article you linked to for this point, if you'd like.

Go tell the Turks fighting the Kurds about how easy it is to flood a tunnel. Or the Americans in Vietnam for that matter

It can be done with very few, since water flows downhill all by itself and can be pumped uphill with machinery that Israel already has, since they desalinize extensively. Your initial post suggested that Israel would lose the stomach for continuing because they would take many losses among ground troops.

And how exactly does this machinery appear next to Hamas tunnel entrances with zero resistance? It sounds like that would require a ground invasion and occupation, with all the costs that entails.

Have they? I remember much more deaths and much greater sums of money spent 16 years ago, somehow.

Israel didn't evacuate their northern border in 2006. Evidently the IDF rates Hezbollah a lot more highly than you do.

This feels absurd; Assad in Syria lost half of his country and still hasn't gotten much of it back, and you barely heard a squeak out of them. 4000 people were mobilized, and in my understanding actually fought pretty effectively, but you didn't hear this sort of thing. That conflict was obviously existential, yet Hezbollah did not respond in the way you're suggesting it obviously would. 2006 was a long time ago now, but the same goes for that period.

Hezbollah's enormous supply of ballistic missiles is great for hitting fixed targets in Israel, not so great for hitting highly mobile Jihadi irregulars with technicals. Again, if the Israelis didn't think Hezbollah could inflict serious damage then they wouldn't have bothered with an evacuation and they'd be charging in at this very moment to prevent further attacks.

Iran has not intervened on behalf of Hezbollah in 2006, nor did it intervene openly on behalf of Syria in 2012-2013, and its intervention in Iraq, aimed against ISIS, happened with more-or-less open Western toleration because of who its enemies were. The regime is clearly more rickety now and it is doubtful they would intervene if not directly struck. Even if they were directly struck, as in 2020, it doesn't seem like the reaction would be much more than tit-for-tat.

American officials have all but stated that they consider an attack from Hezbollah to be equivalent to a direct attack from Iran meaning it wouldn't just end with Hezbollah. Iran's influence over both the Iraqi government and the half dozen militias that actually control the country could still be used to inflict serious losses on American forces in the region even without a direct declaration of war, and under the current circumstances none of the typical anti-Iranian forces would stop them. Hell, Muqtada al-Sadr could even join in on the action and party like it's 2006. Iran can deliver a pretty significant portion of the pain of a direct conflict indirectly just by letting its allies do the dirty work and keeping them stocked up on drones and missiles.

It is in these peoples' interests to exaggerate the strength of their enemies so they get more funding. How many times do I have to say it?

Sure, and it's also in their interest to not underestimate the enemy and lead their forces to humiliation.

Look, we're basically hijacking the thread so I'll leave it here. Unfortunately it seems like we'll find out which of us is right about Hezbollah's capabilities soon enough. Hopefully a peaceful settlement arises before that and this argument can remain in the realm of theory.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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?

https://www.ft.com/content/75d27680-cdaa-46f7-b810-10b594bb0ad2

   “There is no plan for the ‘day after’. The [Israeli] system hasn’t decided yet,” said one person familiar with Israeli thinking. “The Americans went crazy when they realised there was no plan.”

That's some strong Bush Administration vibes there, plus the 10 year length estimates for the battle and you can see why it's been put off.

They might be realizing what many suspected, that Hamas wants them to invade Gaza and the attack was bait.

Even with their reserves, I would guess the IDF does not have enough trained troops to do it effectively.

[Blue3]

Since the Russia-Ukraine War thread is sticked, should this one be too? Perhaps once the ground invasion launches?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1717241394761269452?s=20
Totally unserious country.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1717241394761269452?s=20
Totally unserious country.

Hamas was created through the actions of Israel, while ISIS was created through the actions of the US. So there's a similarity there, but not one that either country wants to admit.

[NOVA Green]

Since the Russia-Ukraine War thread is sticked, should this one be too? Perhaps once the ground invasion launches?

I would say sticky it now, but unfortunately this thread has become way too two dimensional and frequently appears to be a bit more "spin zone", with the various usual suspects dominating the "air time".

Not to mention we are really not getting nearly as much real verifiable info as we were during the Russian Invasion of Ukraine 2.0 War, other than perhaps the initial Hamas assaults into Israel.

Vote to say wait, until the quality and the caliber of the discussion improves (Which it has to some extent over the past week).

[Meclazine for Israel]

Israeli's have entered Gaza overnight in a temporary incursion to attack Hamas sites.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-26/israel-gaza-updates-idf-reports-overnight-incursion-into-gaza/103022072


Video released by the IDF appeared to show armoured vehicles proceeding through a sandy border zone. (Reuters: IDF)

"Israeli ground forces operated within the northern Gaza Strip on Thursday, attacking multiple Hamas targets before withdrawing, the IDF said in a statement on what Israel's Army Radio described as the biggest incursion of the current war.

Video posted to X from the IDF appeared to show armoured vehicles proceeding through a sandy border zone. A bulldozer is seen levelling part of a raised bank, tanks fire shells, and explosions are seen near or amid a row of damaged buildings."

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

https://twitter.com/AlnaouqA/status/1716955701497761976?s=20
Has had 30 family members killed by the IDF

Every single Twitter exchange between pro-Palestine users usually goes like this:

White CooperUnion Student: I HATE JEWS!!!!1

Arab who lost half of their family to indiscriminate IDF Bombings: I hate Israel not Jews

[Red Velvet]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1717241394761269452?s=20
Totally unserious country.

Tribalism will make people create excuses for the wildest stuff they wouldn’t even think about doing otherwise, like acting Orban type of politics are funny if they come from Israel.

[CumbrianLefty]

https://twitter.com/AlnaouqA/status/1716955701497761976?s=20
Has had 30 family members killed by the IDF

Every single Twitter exchange between pro-Palestine users usually goes like this:

White CooperUnion Student: I HATE JEWS!!!!1

Arab who lost half of their family to indiscriminate IDF Bombings: I hate Israel not Jews

True enough, but there is also no denying that Israel likes to equate itself with all Jewish people when it suits them to do so - even though the same thing can be an AS trope with certain types.

[Jingizu]

As yet another tragedy continues to unfold in the Middle East, I can’t help but think of how both Palestinians (initially, then continuing) and Israelis (later, also continuing) could’ve made different decisions that could’ve avoided this. If Arafat hadn’t rejected Clinton’s offer and launched the Second Intifada…if Israel had never elected Bibi Netanyahu in the first place…and so much more. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

The War On Bad Journalism

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CywGxcsvliS/

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://twitter.com/davidsheen/status/1717430176147963972?s=20

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1717241394761269452?s=20
Totally unserious country.

aight you convinced me, you're right

[Helsinkian]

54 of the hostages, one quarter of all, are Thai, agricultural workers from the Kibbutzim.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1717241394761269452?s=20
Totally unserious country.

Tribalism will make people create excuses for the wildest stuff they wouldn’t even think about doing otherwise, like acting Orban type of politics are funny if they come from Israel.

Israel >>>>> Hungary >>>>>> Hamas 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://twitter.com/dereckapurnell/status/1717649466579194125?t=8tBvdk9nzHp_VqIg...