Jump to content

Israel-Hamas war thread


Brisketexan

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

The argument that what they're doing violates international law and that they often act without accountability is a legitimate one, but I don't really have a problem with what they did here. Minimal collateral damage.

Another thing I've been thinking about is I'm honestly not sure what this accomplishes in the long run. Obviously they spent a lot of time and money planning this, and it gives Hezbollah something to think about for sure, but ultimately what does it accomplish?

Are they trying to provoke open warfare with Lebanon or just thumb their noses at Hezbollah? I'm honestly unsure and I'd be curious to hear others' perspectives.

disruption of communication infrastructure that continues to push them backwards into more and more archaic and less efficient mechanisms. they had already pushed them back to the early 1990's.

completely new installation of communication protocols which takes lots of time and money.

further paranoia and guarding against a non-stop feeling of threat. attempting to enhance security is extremely expensive and laborious. slows things down considerably. that also leads to a temporary operational hurdle that makes them extremely ineffective or agile because they cannot coordinate efficiently.

the feeling that you are under threat 100% of the time regardless of where you are, when you are, who you are, what you are doing...demonstrating that they can get to you and instantly kill you by means you've never previously imagined and in your home with your family. it's psychologically deteriorating.

it, of course, further hardens the confrontation and ensures no peaceful coexistence in short and long term but unfortunately, we seem to have crossed that threshold for good.

 

eta: on the coordination point above, i do not think it is a coincidence that today we are seeing low level fighter jet flights over beirut and bombing runs all over southern lebanon in the immediate aftermath of them likely abandoning all their existing primary communication protocols.

Edited by sidis
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

 

eta: on the coordination point above, i do not think it is a coincidence that today we are seeing low level fighter jet flights over beirut and bombing runs all over southern lebanon in the immediate aftermath of them likely abandoning all their existing primary communication protocols.

I read somewhere a report that the initial plan was to coordinate detonation simultaneously with a more conventional attack but Israel had intelligence there was some suspicion by a couple of operatives that their pagers had been tampered with so Israel decided to go ahead and detonate earlier than planned.  In any event, I agree highly effective regardless for all of the reasons outlined above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Yep, all good points. I'm mostly skeptical about any of this being good news for peace in the long run. They seem to be barrelling toward total war on multiple fronts.

Oh, none of it is good news for peace in the SHORT RUN.  But crippling your enemy so you can score some decisive wins against them can be good in the long run.

The fight with Hezbollah is different than the fight in Gaza.  The fight with Hezbollah is a proxy war between state actors.  It actually has a chance of reaching some resolution after one side gains a material combat advantage.

Gaza, on the other hand....it's a fight of extermination/cleansing.  It will end when Gaza and the Palestinians in it are gone.  That's the only visible end-game on that front.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TEL AVIV—Israel launched a wave of airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon Thursday, as the militant group’s leader said two days of debilitating attacks on its members amounted to a declaration of war.

The strikes came moments before Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah began to speak about the attacks earlier this week that caused pagers and walkie-talkies carried by thousands of the group’s members to explode, killing 37 people and injuring nearly 3,000.

 

Edited by Bevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pagers got blowed up on Tuesday and walkie-talkies today. Does anyone have an expectation of what may or may not get 'sploded tomorrow?
Laptops maybe? Or nada? I guess speculating on that is the mindfuck part of these operations.
All I know is I'd be hesitant to set any alarms, turn on any TVs, run any microwaves, sit on any toilets, or start up any cars.

Ahmed!!!! You brought tabouli to the party???? Where did you get it why is it beeping?????
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, all good points. I'm mostly skeptical about any of this being good news for peace in the long run. They seem to be barrelling toward total war on multiple fronts.

There ain’t going to be peace as westerners think about it. There will always be some sort of insurgency and intel operations to disrupt. But peace and koombaya sing alongside and meditation circles? Not at a 95% regional level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am Israel I tell that UN gentleman that he is correct and we are willing to tell him all the details of the communications explosives.  In fact...it is so important that we do this immediately so we are going to give him a walkie talkie we have available so he can ask questions and we provide answers promptly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nothing To Add said:

If I am Israel I tell that UN gentleman that he is correct and we are willing to tell him all the details of the communications explosives.  In fact...it is so important that we do this immediately so we are going to give him a walkie talkie we have available so he can ask questions and we provide answers promptly.

Mailing a bomb to the UN isn't exactly what would be seen as a "good guy" move lol. Weird joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised y'all aren't talking about the big F U that Israel just gave Hezbollah. Just as Hezbollah was declaring war on Israel today and was about to launch a large scale strike, Israel conducted a wave of airstrikes against Hezbollah positions and helped subvert the attack.
 

 

Quote

TEL AVIV—Israel launched a wave of airstrikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon Thursday, as the militant group’s leader said two days of debilitating attacks on its members amounted to a declaration of war.

The strikes came moments before Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah began to speak about the attacks earlier this week that caused pagers and walkie-talkies carried by thousands of the group’s members to explode, killing 37 people and injuring nearly 3,000.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I'm surprised y'all aren't talking about the big F U that Israel just gave Hezbollah. Just as Hezbollah was declaring war on Israel today and was about to launch a large scale strike, Israel conducted a wave of airstrikes against Hezbollah positions and helped subvert the attack.
 

 

 

A couple of us predicted it above. Disrupt the enemy's communications and confuse/disable its leadership, then attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Wanting to kill UN workers is a pretty baseline Zionist take if we're being real 😉

UN workers get killed all over the place by lots of people of different backgrounds. Polio vaccine program in Pakistan was shut down because the UN personnel were being killed by islamists.

Not everything is zionist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yep, all good points. I'm mostly skeptical about any of this being good news for peace in the long run. They seem to be barrelling toward total war on multiple fronts.

This analysis hits on long-term your concerns:

Pager Attack Highlights Tension Between Israel’s Technical Might and Strategic Fog
In Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, Israel has shown it’s capable of extraordinary acts of espionage, but is struggling to define long-term goals, according to Israeli analysts and public figures.

The contrast between the dexterity of Israel’s latest attacks on Hezbollah and the uncertainty over its long-term strategy in Lebanon is the latest example of a fragility at the heart of Israeli statecraft, according to Israeli public figures and analysts.

To friend and foe alike, Israel appears technologically strong, but strategically lost. It is capable of extraordinary acts of espionage, as well as powerful expressions of military might, but is struggling to tie such efforts to long-term diplomatic and geopolitical goals.

“You see the sophistication of the technological minds of Israel and the total failure of the political leadership to carry out any moves of consequence,” said Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister.

“They are too preoccupied and obsessed by their fears to do anything on a broader strategic basis,” Mr. Olmert said.

Israel’s security services have infiltrated and sabotaged Hezbollah’s communications networks by blowing up pagers and other wireless devices this week, but Israel’s leadership appears uncertain about how to contain the group in the long term. Israel has conducted several clandestine missions and assassinations inside Iran, most recently of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh by infiltrating a guesthouse protected by the Iranian security establishment. At the same time, it has avoided making the political concessions necessary to forge formal alliances with most of Iran’s opponents in the region.

Its commandos have freed several hostages from captivity through complex special operations, even as its politicians have failed to secure a wider deal to rescue more than 100 others still held in Gaza. And while Israel’s world-leading Air Force has pounded Gaza, destroying much of the territory’s urban fabric and killing top Hamas commanders like Muhammad Deif, the Israeli government has not issued a detailed and viable plan for Gaza’s postwar future.

The result is a slow and repetitive military campaign in Gaza in which Israeli soldiers are repeatedly capturing and then withdrawing from the same pockets of land, with no mandate to either hold ground or initiate a transfer of power to a different Palestinian leadership.

Israel’s campaigns have come at considerable cost. By killing tens of thousands of Gazan civilians as well as several hundred Lebanese in its strikes on enemy combatants, Israel has prompted international outcry, drawn accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and tarnished its global standing without conclusively destroying Hamas, let alone Hezbollah.

For now at least, Israel’s choices have also undermined its chance to forge diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia, the most influential Arab country and one that could provide Israel with an extra diplomatic and even military buffer against Iran and Hezbollah. Talks to normalize relations with Riyadh have stumbled amid Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinian sovereignty in Gaza and the West Bank after the war.

For some, the scrambled thinking is partly derived from the shock of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel. The attack was the bloodiest day in Israel’s history and may have left Israel’s leaders seeking short-term wins to atone for their lapses that day, at the expense of long-term planning for Israel’s future. With many Israelis traumatized by the attack, their leaders risk losing popularity and further tarnishing their legacy by promoting contentious compromises to bring Israel’s various wars to a close.

“Tactical successes can be obtained by professionals, but large-scale achievements have to be achieved by leaders,” said Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. “They must be able to bite their tongue, go against the grain, take unpopular decisions and political risks.”

For Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, Israel’s security must be prioritized at all costs, and Hamas and Hezbollah must be fully defanged — in part to restore the sense of deterrence and invincibility that Israel lost on Oct. 7 — before diplomatic compromises can be reached.

But to Mr. Netanyahu’s critics, true security cannot be achieved without a diplomatic vision that Israel’s allies and potential allies can accept; they argue that Israel’s successful operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran will only have limited effect in the long term if they remain divorced from a coherent national strategy. According to his opponents, Mr. Netanyahu has allowed political considerations — principally his need to prevent the collapse of his fragile coalition government — to supersede strategic decisions that are opposed by his coalition allies.

Mr. Netanyahu’s grip on power is dependent on a group of far-right lawmakers who are opposed to the kinds of compromises necessary to reach an endgame in Gaza and Lebanon.

Those lawmakers have threatened to collapse Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition if he agrees to a truce in Gaza that leaves Hamas in power. They also oppose plans to hand power to Hamas’s main Palestinian rival, Fatah.

In turn, the standoff in Gaza has led to the extension of the war along the Israel-Lebanon border, where Hezbollah says it will continue fighting until a truce is reached between Israel and Hamas.

Mr. Netanyahu’s allies say the attacks this week in Lebanon, coupled with the deployment of more troops to the Lebanon border, show a clear strategic effort to use increased military action to force Hezbollah to compromise.

“Even though these are tactical moves, it’s part of a bigger plan,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, a political strategist and former adviser to Mr. Netanyahu. After months of contained conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Mr. Shtrauchler said, “We’re going to go strong at Hezbollah.”

To others, the moves still feel inconclusive, stopping short of a decisive end to the deadlock through either force or diplomacy. On the one hand, Mr. Netanyahu has avoided ordering a ground invasion of Lebanon. On the other, he has rejected a truce in Gaza that could end the Lebanon war through mediation.

“Where is he going? How does he end the war?” asked Mr. Rabinovich, the former ambassador. “All these fundamental questions have not been answered, and in some cases not even asked in the public discourse.”

To Mr. Olmert, the former prime minister, Israel’s lack of strategy extends far beyond Mr. Netanyahu.

The problem is rooted, Mr. Olmert said, in a reluctance across Israeli society and its establishment to address or sometimes even acknowledge a conundrum within Israel — the question of Palestinian sovereignty.

“There is no endgame on any issue without the Palestinians,” Mr. Olmert said.

Many Israelis now reject the idea of a Palestinian state because they feel a sovereign Palestine, shorn of Israeli supervision, would be more able to mount the kind of attack that Hamas initiated on Oct. 7.

Even centrist and left-leaning leaders mostly see the resumption of peace talks as a non-starter, given that one of the two leading Palestinian factions, Hamas, killed more than one thousand Israeli civilians less than a year ago and the other, Fatah, is weak and discredited among much of the Palestinian population.

Without agreeing to a pathway to a Palestinian state, it will be difficult for Israel to solve most of its other strategic binds, Mr. Olmert said.

For example, it will be harder to plan for a postwar Gaza without showing more flexibility on Palestinian sovereignty, Mr. Olmert said: The only feasible Palestinian alternative to Hamas is the Palestinian Authority, the Fatah-dominated institution that administers parts of the West Bank.

By allowing the Palestinian Authority to govern in both Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would in effect reestablish political contiguity between the two territories, making it easier to form a Palestinian state that spans both places.

Without at least some progress toward Palestinian statehood, it will also be harder for Israel to forge formal ties with Saudi Arabia, since the Saudi leadership has made clear that concessions to the Palestinians are a prerequisite for normalization. And by forging such an alliance, Israel could firm up its standing in the region and make Iran and its Hezbollah proxy warier of antagonizing Israel, since Saudi Arabia also shares Israel’s wariness of Tehran, Mr. Olmert said.

“Hezbollah and Iran won’t suddenly become Zionists, but it will change the balance,” said Mr. Olmert. “It will make life for Israel much easier to deal with such challenges.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

To friend and foe alike, Israel appears technologically strong, but strategically lost. It is capable of extraordinary acts of espionage, as well as powerful expressions of military might, but is struggling to tie such efforts to long-term diplomatic and geopolitical goals.

Great thesis statement, and spot-on.

My entire career has been "handle adversarial shit."  And the most important question I ask and tease out with every client once they are in a fight is "what do you want to accomplish."  A LOT of times, the answer is the equivalent of "I want to blow up their pagers and make them bleed."  And I let the client tell me that, it's important and cathartic.  But you have to follow it with an "okay, let's presume we can make that happen....then what?  Because my question is really 'what do you want your world/business to look like when this case is over?'"

The ultimate answer then ends up being something like "I just want to be able to move on down the road, and conduct my business without them messing with my employees/supply chain/whatever."  Okay.  THAT is helpful to know.  NOW, let's talk about how we will use some of the tools available to us (litigation, or if you are Israel, military and diplomatic power) to get you there.

It's always about the ultimate goal.  And honestly, it's really hard to see that Israel is working towards any discernible and/or acceptable goal.  Its actions in Gaza are most consistent with a goal of "destroy all of Gaza and terrorize all Gazans so they leave."  It's not a good look, and it's not likely to advance them towards any goal that the rest of the world would get on board with.

RE Hezbollah, I can see some possible strategic goals being pursued, but really, it's all about Iran, and if/how Israel can get Iran to back the fuck off.  And I'm not sure how they can do that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

UN workers get killed all over the place by lots of people of different backgrounds. Polio vaccine program in Pakistan was shut down because the UN personnel were being killed by islamists.

Not everything is zionist.

Yeah I know I was making a tasteless joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Great thesis statement, and spot-on.

My entire career has been "handle adversarial shit."  And the most important question I ask and tease out with every client once they are in a fight is "what do you want to accomplish."  A LOT of times, the answer is the equivalent of "I want to blow up their pagers and make them bleed."  And I let the client tell me that, it's important and cathartic.  But you have to follow it with an "okay, let's presume we can make that happen....then what?  Because my question is really 'what do you want your world/business to look like when this case is over?'"

The ultimate answer then ends up being something like "I just want to be able to move on down the road, and conduct my business without them messing with my employees/supply chain/whatever."  Okay.  THAT is helpful to know.  NOW, let's talk about how we will use some of the tools available to us (litigation, or if you are Israel, military and diplomatic power) to get you there.

It's always about the ultimate goal.  And honestly, it's really hard to see that Israel is working towards any discernible and/or acceptable goal.  Its actions in Gaza are most consistent with a goal of "destroy all of Gaza and terrorize all Gazans so they leave."  It's not a good look, and it's not likely to advance them towards any goal that the rest of the world would get on board with.

RE Hezbollah, I can see some possible strategic goals being pursued, but really, it's all about Iran, and if/how Israel can get Iran to back the fuck off.  And I'm not sure how they can do that.

I can't say I'd argue with you on any of those points. But speaking to the Hezbollah situation, I'm not sure what Israel can accomplish in the long term other than maybe buying a decade or so of security on their northern border, which might very well be Bibi's intent. Israel has invaded southern Lebanon, what, 2-3 times since the late 70s? In each instance, the IDF invaded and fucked shit/people up with no other tangible results. They went in, wrecked shop, ended up in a stalemate, and went home, leaving Hezbollah still intact as both a political and military force.

I guess the thinking is "This time will be different." But how so? I did read/saw either yesterday or Tuesday an article/news story that touched on Hezbollah's political power in Lebanon where they take part in the government in some very confusing way but are more often described as a "state within a state" and basically control the southern tier of the country. In it, they put forth a position that public support for Hezbollah has deteriorated in the past few years as folks have become increasingly skeptical of the organization, with some conjecture that they somehow played a role in that big port explosion whose video we all gawked over a while back.  So, maybe Israeli intelligence has picked up on that and sees this as an opportunity that could very well be different. I dunno.

Back to the larger question on the Israeli government's vision and strategy: It is my personal belief that much of their actions, especially concerning the West Bank and Gaza are all ultimately self-destructive and place the country in a weaker position globally. Sure, they've repeatedly proven they can kick their immediate neighbors' asses, but their lopsided and heavy-handed military actions and "security" policies virtually ensure the continued regeneration of neighbors who hate them alongside the long-term erosion of support from Western allies.

At some point, an Israeli leader will have to make a diplomatic compromise with the Palestinians, or they'll never have peace. That is if they actually want it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say I'd argue with you on any of those points. But speaking to the Hezbollah situation, I'm not sure what Israel can accomplish in the long term other than maybe buying a decade or so of security on their northern border, which might very well be Bibi's intent. Israel has invaded southern Lebanon, what, 2-3 times since the late 70s? In each instance, the IDF invaded and fucked shit/people up with no other tangible results. They went in, wrecked shop, ended up in a stalemate, and went home, leaving Hezbollah still intact as both a political and military force.
I guess the thinking is "This time will be different." But how so? I did read/saw either yesterday or Tuesday an article/news story that touched on Hezbollah's political power in Lebanon where they take part in the government in some very confusing way but are more often described as a "state within a state" and basically control the southern tier of the country. In it, they put forth a position that public support for Hezbollah has deteriorated in the past few years as folks have become increasingly skeptical of the organization, with some conjecture that they somehow played a role in that big port explosion whose video we all gawked over a while back.  So, maybe Israeli intelligence has picked up on that and sees this as an opportunity that could very well be different. I dunno.
Back to the larger question on the Israeli government's vision and strategy: It is my personal belief that much of their actions, especially concerning the West Bank and Gaza are all ultimately self-destructive and place the country in a weaker position globally. Sure, they've repeatedly proven they can kick their immediate neighbors' asses, but their lopsided and heavy-handed military actions and "security" policies virtually ensure the continued regeneration of neighbors who hate them alongside the long-term erosion of support from Western allies.
At some point, an Israeli leader will have to make a diplomatic compromise with the Palestinians, or they'll never have peace. That is if they actually want it. 

Agree. But again define peace. There are way too many assholes for “peace”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:


Agree. But again define peace. There are way too many assholes for “peace”.

It's a good question. Just now in trying to come up with a good response, I'm reflecting on other "resolved" conflicts where two religious/ethnic groups have historical claims over the same parcels of land, and to be honest, it's difficult to come up with hopeful comparisons.

The best two that my admittedly limited (and extremely Eurocentric) library of knowledge can come up with are the Northern Ireland and Kosovo/Bosnia situations. Both peaces are shaky to varying degrees and were more or less the results of outside powers (US/NATO/EU) kind of forcing peace on them, but they're both holding steady for now. You would know about the former Yugoslavia shit better than me, for sure, and yeah I know there has been some Serbian rumbling.

I guess the naive optimist in me believes people can get along (or at least not be at each others' throats) once they gain some perspective. If (big if) a couple of generations from each warring side learn to live in peace and begin to prosper, they just might put some of their mutual hatred aside and focus on the greater good and their own well-being.

Sure, there will always be agitating assholes ready to shit in the punch bowl, but I can see no other way forward until the current belligerent leadership of all sides is out of power (I'm mostly speaking of the Israeli/Palestinian issue). The Iranian/Hezbollah situation is somewhat different given those two are completely tied at the hip, militarily and politically whereas I think Hamas is more isolated.

I doubt those are groundbreaking thoughts and they can certainly be pulled apart, but you asked my opinion so I wanted to give you my best, honest answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bibi has said openly that he wants 60,000 people to return to their homes in the north. If looking for a motivation and end goal, I’d start there and work backwards. It would relieve some domestic tension coming from the fact that he isn’t getting hostages back alive. 

The goal of a north that is livable and not under rocket fire is one that can be filed under “reasonable, although likely hypocritical given Israel’s behavior in WB.” 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...