This is scary

[EmmetK]

2 minutes ago, forky123 said:

15 May 18
14 Oct 20
22 Jun 22
11 Jul 22

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/americans-favor-continued-support-israel-sour-bidens-performance/story?id=103969016

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/15/poll-americans-israel-hamas-palestinians-00121619

15 Oct 2023

15 Oct 2023

 

[forky123]

So 2 of 6 polls you linked are relevant. I guess that's 33.33% better than your usual performance.

[EmmetK]

2 hours ago, forky123 said:

So 2 of 6 polls you linked are relevant. I guess that's 33.33% better than your usual performance.

Wrong.

All six are relevant.
The four older posts relate to Trump's popularity with the Israeli people. A point that was brought up by another poster.
Since Trump has been out of office for almost 3 years THERE ARE NO current polls on the subject. So those are quite relevant.

The more recent two were to dispute the point brought up by another poster that given Israel's response to the Hamas atrocities, the American public is opposed to Israel's response.  As the polls show, that is patently false.

Batting 1,000.00

[Latbear4blk]

What a silly argument about polls. Some people's moral compass follows public opinion. 

[stevenkesslar]

14 hours ago, forky123 said:

Anyone advocating a ground offensive on the 3rd most densely populated place on the planet where two million people, the majority women and children, huddle under some of the worst conditions imaginable is a fucking idiot. What Hamas did was evil and they should be severely punished for it. A ground offensive is going to get a lot more people, mostly innocent, killed. 

Agreed.

Just to be clear, when I cited the Powell Doctrine I'm not advocating a ground offensive.  But it sounds like IDF has 300,000+ reservists on top of their regular forces getting ready to go in.  A bunch of them are probably going to die. 

My point with the Powell Doctrine is the least bad outcome if they are going to go in is that they define achievable objectives and then get out.  If they instead think they are actually going to obliterate Hamas, which is what the hawks are all screaming for, we're probably going to all learn that finding terrorists in tunnels is as easy as finding terrorists in caves.  My guess based on everything we know about Netanyahu is that he will plan to stay permanently with the intention of turning Gaza into a parking lot.

It seems to me like this comes right out of the bin Laden playbook.  Yeah, bin Laden got taken out eventually.  But it took the better part of a decade.  Good luck, Netanyahu.  

I'm being broken record about "the action is in the reaction."  But a favorite line from the civil rights movement is that if MLK didn't have Bull Connor, he would have had to invent him.  It's a weird idea, I know.  But a true one.  Images of a racist Southern bigot cop attacking innocent Black people with dogs just because they wanted to vote helped MLK.  And MLK knew it, and methodically planned on it.  

I've always thought the equivalent was this:  if bin Laden did not have George W. Bush, he would have had to invent him.  When I say that, I am specifically talking about the Iraq War, not Afghanistan.  There were theories that bin Laden's end game was to let the US be the bad guy and use the reaction to whip up revolution in the Middle East.  Some version of that played out.  It didn't help keep bin Laden from being dead at the bottom of an ocean.  But it birthed ISIS.  Part of my point is that we have no idea what horrors will emerge years from now after Hamas and Netanyahu conspire to open Pandora's box.  But it was not hard to predict that the Iraq War would open Pandora's box and measurably weaken the US's stature in the world.  It did.

Another reason I dredge up bin Laden is that Afghanistan was the war I and most Americans supported.  And yet even that ended badly.  In part because Bush 43 forgot or ignored what Bush 41 and Powell taught us about effective military campaigns.  The idea that we could occupy Afghanistan for decades and turn it into something completely different sounded good at the time to many.  It doesn't look so smart in retrospect.

In my eyes, Hamas looks like the true evil genius, compared to blundering bin Laden.  Bin Laden never ruled Afghanistan.  His fallback was always a cave or a safe house in Pakistan.  Hamas actually rules Gaza.  It's perfectly fine to say they promised to turn it into the Hong Kong of the Middle East, and they didn't do that.  But it completely misses the point.  They now have Gaza set up to spend years blowing up Israeli soldiers.  Or using them for target practice with snipers.  And they will. 

Meanwhile, Hamas leaders will be hiding and living in tunnels while the UN deplores the horrific conditions in the parking lot Gaza is being turned into.  Whatever the polls say today, they won't get more favorable to Israel if that is what happens.  I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Hamas is planning on, just like bin Laden did.

To underscore the point, I'll cite a particularly interesting Israeli hawk, who has written widely respected books on military strategy and actually killed enemies fighting in Israeli wars, Edward Lutwak.  The whole long essay is thoughtful, but here's the part most relevant:

Quote

As of this morning, the penetration of Israeli columns into Gaza has not yet started. They cannot hope to find Hamas leaders who have had years to prepare properly fitted-out, secret bunkers which may be known to Israeli agents, as well as their actual hideouts known only to themselves. Nor can they hope to find Israeli hostages who might be killed before their eyes if they come too close.

Quote

What they can do is destroy Hamas’s rocket factories, weapon depots and deep underground headquarters — indeed, the decision to go in at all depends on how many such targets have been identified, and not already effectively bombed. If the incursion does happen, the world will see new vehicles, weapons and techniques deployed for the first time that will reduce Israeli casualties to very small numbers. These include the world’s largest and best-protected armoured vehicle, the 65-ton Namer, which has active defences to intercept anti-armour missiles and rockets, in addition to both reactive and conventional armour.

Quote

Yet even with their use, there are no guarantees that any lasting result will be achieved. 

The last line is probably the most important one.  This at least suggests some achievable objectives that don't sound like "kill Palestinian women and kids and pave them into the parking lot."  But Lutwak is a realist who acknowledges that Hamas is as dug in as they can be.  Another point he makes in that essay is that Israel will quickly revert to having 30 guards at every checkpoint, rather than one or two who are easy to take out.  That will help.

The scariest thing he says, in my mind, is in a different essay:

Quote

Interestingly enough, the non right-wing political leaders in Israel, who have joined this new coalition government, made one condition. That is that the war would not stop until Hamas was gone; the war would not stop for any reason, either domestic pressure or international pressure. Here you had people who were viewed as liberals – which they are in many respects – but their condition to join the coalition was that there could be no abstract solution: Hamas has to be destroyed.

That's all well and good.  Part of me is proud of Israel, in the way I am proud that 88 % of Americans said after 9/11, to be blunt, "We have to take these fuckers out."  I'm not complaining that bin Laden is dead at the bottom of an ocean.  But it still doesn't change the fact that Israel is opening Pandora's box, just like the US did.  It's fine for Israel to be unified around the idea that "Hamas has to be destroyed," just like the US was about bin Laden after 9/11.  But Lutwak is sober enough to state "there are no guarantess that any lasting result will be achieved."   Ya think?  And that's coming from a hard core hawk who pretty much has the worst possible view of Arab and Palestinian leaders.  Wait til the UN and the EU chime in.

I think Hamas is the evil genius who is counting on the fact that no lasting result will be achieved.  Good luck, Netanyahu.  You might want to consult with George W. Bush.  Unity is awesome.  But this may not turn out as planned.

[Latbear4blk]

There are many differences between Israel and Hamas, but also similarities. Both are willing to take whatever it takes (as the local ally of genocides worded it) to attain their goals. Hamas is willing to kill innocent women and children, as they have done, and Israel is willing to kill innocent women and children, as they have done. Because both sides are crazy, there seems to be only one solution for this conflict: erasing one of the two sides from existence. 

I choose to stay away and wish the best for all innocent civilians on both sides.

 

 

[Latbear4blk]

If you have MAX/HBO, watch last night's John Oliver. The intro is a call for human empathy and common sense that unfortunately has no yet been uploaded to YouTube. 

[stevenkesslar]

Holy shit, Batman.  Is this even possible?

Why a Gaza Invasion and ‘Once and for All’ Thinking Are Wrong for Israel

by Thomas Friedman

Quote

I believe that such a move could turn Israel’s humiliating tactical defeat at the hands of Hamas, which included unimaginable barbarism, into a long-term moral and military strategic crisis. It’s one that could entrap Israel in Gaza, draw the U.S. into another Middle East war and undermine three of America’s most important foreign policy interests right now: helping Ukraine wrestle free of Russia to join the West; containing China; and shaping a pro-American bloc that includes Egypt, Israel, moderate Arab countries and Saudi Arabia, which could counterbalance Iran and fight the global threat of radical Islam.

I have to admit I have really mixed feelings about Friedman's article.

On the one hand, Friedman is spot on.  He succinctly stated all the best reasons this is probably going to be a disaster for Israel, and US global interests.  Especially if it's based on the Netanyahu Doctrine, which is basically "whatever it takes."

On the other hand, Friedman is my go to guy for being wrong about pretty much everything that really matters.  He was wrong in advocating for the Iraq War.  He was wrong about "the world is flat."  He missed that whole thing about the revolt against globalization.  Which led to, among other things, the rise of MAGA and Trump.  He was wrong about how if we could just bubble wrap seniors for a year or two COVID wasn't gonna be such a big deal.  So Friedman being against Israel invading Gaza is actually the first thing I've read that makes me think maybe an invasion actually makes sense.  🙄

On balance, I'd say maybe Friedman is like the broken clock that is at least right twice a day.  Luttwak at least acknowledges that taking Hamas out is impossible.  Building on that, Friedman is right that any war plan premised on invading to take Hamas out is going to be a disaster.  Too many tunnels.  Too much time.  His argument for "more surgical means to eliminate or capture Hamas's leadership" is an argument made right on time.  Even if his clock is still broken.  😉

[Lucky]

I don't think Biden should be visiting Israel right now.

[vinapu]

If it helps to cool some hotheads on both sides, why not? all depends of what message he will bring with him, hope it won't be pave  parking solution suggested by some here.

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, vinapu said:

all depends of what message he will bring with him, hope it won't be pave  parking solution suggested by some here.

They are already paving the parking lot, sadly.

Hundreds killed in Israeli airstrike on hospital, Hamas-run health ministry says

If confirmed, the attack would be by far the deadliest Israeli airstrike in five wars fought since 2008.

Quote

The health ministry run by Hamas said an Israeli airstrike on Tuesday hit a Gaza City hospital packed with wounded and other Palestinians seeking shelter, killing hundreds. The health ministry, which is run by Hamas, said at least 500 people had been killed. Photos purportedly from al-Ahli Hospital and shared widely on social video showed fire engulfing the building, widespread damage and bodies scattered in the wreckage. 

Quote

Israeli military spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said there were still no details on the hospital deaths: “We will get the details and update the public. I don’t know to say whether it was an Israeli air strike.”

I'm guessing it was a terror attack from Iran, killing innocent Palestinians?  Certainly it could not have been Israel, since they are always and only the victim.

Since Israel wants the world to think of this as their 9/11, I think it is instructive to reflect on some of what happened after the US 9/11.  

How US-Funded Abuses Led to Failure in Afghanistan

Quote

The primary and defining characteristic of the armed conflict in Afghanistan over the last two decades has been harm to civilians caused by massive human rights abuses and war crimes by all sides. These rampant abuses have in turn fueled the cycle of conflict in numerous ways, including by inspiring recruitment to the insurgency, rendering political dialogue nearly impossible, and undermining efforts to promote stability through better governance. Successive U.S. administrations have largely perceived human rights more as an obstacle than as an essential component of addressing Afghanistan’s problems. This approach has been catastrophic.

 

As one of the 88 % of Americans who supported an invasion of Afghanistan, I get it.  What the fuck else were we supposed to do?

But this is the diagnosis for Israel, too.  The point is that this is not the least worst solution.  It is more like the worst solution.  And it is what Israel is setting itself up for.  We can not possibly know what horrors will flow out of Pandora's box.  But anybody wise at least knows this is opening Pandora's box.  At least the US (and women and children in Afghanistan who were victims of The Taliban) got to enjoy a period of "liberation" before the human rights shit show started.  We didn't start the military campaign by turning a hospital full of innocent and wounded people into a parking lot.

Being against the Iraq War was very unpopular when it started.  I know I am equally in the minority in thinking it was an act of moral courage for Joe Biden to finally pull the plug on the failed debacle in Afghanistan.  Which, by the way, was set up WITH THE TALIBAN when Trump was POTUS.  People want to focus on the dozens of military killed by terrorists at the airport, and blame that on Biden.  Fair enough.  Had Obama listened to Biden and pulled the plug at the start of Obama's Presidency, instead of trying a surge, it would have prevented the vast majority of the 2,465 US military who died in Afghanistan.  Not to mention the deaths of allies and very large numbers of innocents due to human rights abuses.

Two different wars.  Call me an American, but I believe the US invasion of Afghanistan after our 9/11 was actually much more morally justified.  I do think our intentions were good, and our military was honorable.  The simple and profound moral similarity is that you shouldn't start a war you can't win, and that will only lead to more terrorism and more human rights tragedies.  I hope that is what Biden tells Netanyahu and his war allies, privately.

[stevenkesslar]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:01 PM, stevenkesslar said:

Hundreds killed in Israeli airstrike on hospital, Hamas-run health ministry says

If confirmed, the attack would be by far the deadliest Israeli airstrike in five wars fought since 2008.

Good news, bad news.

U.S. intel indicates Israel didn’t bomb Gaza hospital

Since I'm the one who posted the headline, which did attribute the claim to Hamas, I'll walk it back.  I think it is good news that Israel did not turn a hospital into a parking lot.  And it is also good news that Biden showed up and said he has Israel's back.  As opposed to saying he supports Netanyahu's policies.

Bad news is it still shows what happens when you open Pandora's Box.  And I get that if we are going to blame someone for starting it, that goes to Hamas.  But this is exactly what people have been saying so far through this thread.  A lot of innocent people are going to die.  And even a right-winger like Luttwak admits that taking out Hamas leadership through an invasion is a completely unrealistic goal.

[unicorn]

On 10/14/2023 at 9:25 AM, Kostik said:

Causes horror
Genocide of the Palestinian people

I certainly do not condone the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinian people. I donate generously to ANERA, a charitable group which helps Palestinians. I strongly condemn the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That being said, at least Israelis don't intentionally plow down innocent civilians, shoot women and children in the back while they're running away, nor take hostages. Hamas cares only about its narrow view of the world and sacrifices its own citizens towards that goal. I'd have had a lot more sympathy had they only killed Israeli soldiers. And that being said, I feel it was foolhardy to hold a music festival so close to the Gaza Strip, and on the 50th Anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, no less. To me, that came off as an insensitive provocation. As disgusting as Hamas's actions have been, the Israelis might also consider that Palestinians (other than Hamas) are humans, too. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

I strongly condemn the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Another part of what is going on that makes no sense is the idea that what happens in Gaza stays in Gaza. 

The conservative realists are at least saying that there is no way that a massive terrorist network like Hamas is going to be wiped out.  Especially when the horrific environment that breeds them is actually made more horrific.  It's common to refer to Gaza as an "open-air prison."  After this terrorist attack, it might be more useful to think of Gaza as an "open-air terrorist training camp."  If Netanyahu thinks he can stop that by turning it into a parking lot, he should consider the possibility that it will only make it worse.  (See:  Iraq, US invasion, rise of ISIS).

A few charts from Mr. "I Love Charts."

I found that helpful.  Because it helps to explain why both Israel, on the one hand, and Palestinians and the Arab world, on the other, feel outraged.  I won't post the other chart, since it would literally be overkill.  But Forbes says that between 2008 and 2020 the death toll from the Israel-Palestinian conflict was 5,592 Palestinians versus 252 Israelis. So for Israel losing five times as many people in one day compared to how many were lost in years of an entrenched conflict has to be a huge shock.  Whereas for Palestinians it's mostly just the same old same old.  

It's a weird thing about human empathy.  I can easily understand one group feeling, "Oh my God.  This is so horrible.  I feel so sorry for you."  And the other side feeling, "Now you know how we feel."  There are plenty of reliable news reports of how dozens of entire Palestinian families have been completely wiped up by Israel's bombing in Gaza just this month.

 

As Pandora's box is opened, there ought to also be a big debate about the West Bank.

The Danger of Violent Escalation in the West Bank

Quote

The West Bank is rapidly becoming Israel’s most active front, with terrorist incidents increasing, extremist settler groups rampaging in response to the murder of Jews, and near-daily clashes becoming more intense as Israeli forces arrest armed youths planning further attacks.

Note that was written in June 2023. 

To oversimplify, the sound advice of the author is that Israel should be doing whatever it can to defuse this situation.  Invading Gaza is of course going to detonate the West Bank.  The author notes the usual suspects, like Hamas, and the usual networks, including Gaza and Beirut.  So I guess the least bad scenario is that rising terrorism in the West Bank is mostly because local thugs are just being local thugs.  The more likely scenario is that of course the known and well organized bad players will use public sentiment in the West Bank and the Arab world to set that powder keg off, too.  It won't be hard.

There's a great interview with former PM Ehud Olmert, who laid out that the only solution is political:  a two state solution.  What he said about being Mayor of Jerusalem is worth noting:

Quote

Olmert: Look, we were quite successful in eradicating the terrorists from the West Bank. That was a terrible, terrible time. I was mayor of Jerusalem in the years 2000 to 2002. I had to deal almost on a daily basis with suicidal attacks in coffee shops, in buses, in schools, in the streets, everywhere. This was one of the most difficult times in my life and in the history of the city of Jerusalem. And we stopped in a forceful manner, in a very, very smart and sophisticated way. But we stopped it. So you can sometimes reduce terror. If you do it in a big war, it’s more difficult, but I think it can be done. It may be very costly. It may be very costly to them and equally to us.

I'm sure Olmert knows way more than me about what it took to stop terrorism when he was Mayor of Jerusalem.  But whatever worked then, terrorism is on the rise now.  And there's every reason to think what has already been happening in the West Bank recently is about to get a hell of a lot worse, if the invasion of Gaza moves forward and goes like it is probably going to go.

I'd be interested in Olmert's thoughts about how you "sometimes reduce" terrorism in a "big war."  The first example that comes to mind for me is Hitler.  Hitler did start a war that he couldn't win, and he did lose.  And beating the Nazis did stop Nazi terror.  And it was very costly.  

This is why I think Hamas should be thought of as evil geniuses, even compared to Hitler.  It seems very clear that they want to start a war that they know they can't win.  But they also know they can't lose.   Even trying to make them lose would involve a regional war that inflames not only Gaza, but the West Bank.  And God knows where else as well.

 

 

[Lucky]

On 10/17/2023 at 4:43 AM, Lucky said:

I don't think Biden should be visiting Israel right now.

Well, I am glad that he made it safely home. Not sure what being there in person accomplished. The Jordan trip would have been helpful.

I hear they had to stop Kamala Harris from measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

[KeepItReal]

2 hours ago, Lucky said:

I hear they had to stop Kamala Harris from measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

Oh come on. Don't be like that. We both know Kamala won't be measuring for drapes. She has staffers to do that kind of thing for her. 

[Latbear4blk]

13 hours ago, unicorn said:

That being said, at least Israelis don't intentionally plow down innocent civilians, shoot women and children in the back while they're running away, nor take hostages

Ja! This is just not true. If they do not plow down intentionally innocent civilians, they are unintentionally very efficient at murdering women and children in mass. Check the numbers of Palestinian and Israeli civilian deaths in the last 20 years.

Hamas and the Israeli government, both are indefensible. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

If they do not plow down intentionally innocent civilians, they are unintentionally very efficient at murdering women and children in mass. Check the numbers of Palestinian and Israeli civilian deaths in the last 20 years.

I agree with both posts.  I think that one word is the key difference.  Hamas intentionally terrorized and slaughtered innocent civilians in the most intentionally brutal ways.  I don't think the IDF does that.  For that matter, there was not that much evidence the US Army intentionally slaughtered innocents in places like Afghanistan.  And the ones that did were punished. That is a key difference. 

I'm glad Biden went, and helped underscore that difference.  One small difference he made, for what it is worth, is he forced at least a temporary delay of any invasion to force more attention to humanitarian measures for innocent Palestinians. 

The polls say, among Democrats, Biden is facing more pressure from people who say Israel's response is "too harsh" (25 %) than "not harsh enough" (9 %). The plurality of Democrats says Israel's response is "about right" (32 %).  (Question is on page 92).  Among Republicans, the plurality says Israel's response is "not harsh enough" (40 %) and only 8 % say "too harsh".  Independents are almost equally split.  I think it is safe to say that if Trump were POTUS Netanyahu would feel more empowered to do "whatever it takes."  Biden will put more stress on the humanitarian issues that helped make Gaza and the West Bank open-air terrorist training camps in the first place.  It's also a good bet that if there is an invasion that causes mass casualties among Palestinians, the balance among Americans will shift further against Netanyahu's harsh terrorist training adventures.

Poll: 94% of Israelis say gov’t failing to protect them

Quote

The latest Israeli public opinion poll, published yesterday by the Walla news site, showed that as many as 56 per cent of Israelis believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should resign at the end of the war, including 28 per cent of right-wing voters, while 52 per cent believe that Defence Minister Yoav Galant should resign at the end of the war.

Survivors of kibbutz attack turn their ire on Netanyahu

A massive security failure and antagonism toward Palestinians means many Israelis think Netanyahu has to answer for Hamas’ attack.

Quote

Poterman highlighted the antagonism of Netanyahu toward Palestinians — the prime minister is allied with far-right parties and his national security minister has convictions for anti-Arab racism. Two days before the attack, Poterman complained a man from the Religious Zionist Party, HaTzionut HaDatit, constructed a hut in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The move was a PR stunt to “fool the people of Israel” that “we are the landlords and we can do whatever we want,” he said.

Those poll results really surprised me, and deepened my sympathy for Israel.   

At least in one important regard, this may be the opposite of America's 9/11.  Public support immediately rallied behind George W. Bush, and stayed there for a long time.  He was the hero, or at least the protector.  Not the villain.  It wasn't until Trump ran in 2016 that Republicans in particular could begin to tolerate, let alone agree with Trump, that perhaps Bush did not keep us safe on 9/11.

My assumption is that the most likely knee jerk response is that Israel will make all or at least some of the same mistakes the US did after 9/11.  Which Biden thankfully cautioned Israel not to do, in person.  Maybe they will actually listen.   It's not clear yet how much of this Israeli response is that Netanyahu was not tough enough, and now we need to pave Gaza into a parking lot.  And how much is a belief that Netanyahu's great achievement as a horrible leader is killing peace and turning both Gaza and the West Bank into terrorist training camps. 

There is no way that approach will change as long as Netanyahu is leader.  So for the time being my guess is the basic trend doesn't change.  Sadly.

[Latbear4blk]

1 hour ago, stevenkesslar said:

I agree with both posts.  I think that one word is the key difference.  Hamas intentionally terrorized and slaughtered innocent civilians in the most intentionally brutal ways.  I don't think the IDF does that.  For that matter, there was not that much evidence the US Army intentionally slaughtered innocents in places like Afghanistan.  And the ones that did were punished. That is a key difference.

I think my bad English blurred the sarcasm in my remark. I was implying that the Israeli government has intentionally murdered piles of innocent civilians. This is not some abuse from a crazy soldier with PTSD. For decades they have been bombing areas densely populated, knowing that innocent women, seniors, and children would died. They have been bulldozing houses and occupying land. This is not an isolated act but decades of terrorist aggression and territorial expansion. The key difference you are highlighting is just nuance. Hamas and the Israel government are two souless monsters terrorizing the Palestinian people.

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

I was implying that the Israeli government has intentionally murdered piles of innocent civilians. This is not some abuse from a crazy soldier with PTSD. For decades they have been bombing areas densely populated, knowing that innocent women, seniors, and children would died. They have been bulldozing houses and occupying land. This is not an isolated act but decades of terrorist aggression and territorial expansion. The key difference you are highlighting is just nuance. Hamas and the Israel government are two souless monsters terrorizing the Palestinian people.

If you are talking about the various Netanyahu governments, I agree. 

I'll ramp up the rhetoric.  Netanyahu deserves to burn in hell for eternity.  Why?  Because, to quote Bill Clinton, he killed peace.  And Clinton, as much as any US POTUS, can say he tried as hard as he could to fight for peace in Israel.  So I trust Clinton on this one.  Netanyahu killed peace.  I'd take it further and say Netanyahu wrecked Israel.  Whatever the best hope is, it won't happen with Netanyahu in charge. 

For the record, I hope Arafat is burning in hell for eternity, too.  I think he killed peace.  Burn in hell, Yasser.

I would not say the same for all Israeli governments, for all time.  I give Biden credit for making a few very basic things very clear.  First, Israel has the right to defend itself.  Period.  Second, that does not mean they can do whatever it takes.

I quoted former Israeli PM Olmert above, talking about the challenge of terrorism when he was Mayor of Jerusalem.  There's a word that I would say characterizes him.  And it is not "soulless."  My word would be "conscience."  Right now the big challenge of many US mayors is too many poor immigrants.  But that basically means people left some place they saw as a shithole to work and find a better life.  They are not suicide bombers.  So maybe NYC or Chicago needs more shelters.  But it is not a bad thing that poor people see the US as a refuge.  Olmert talks about how in Jerusalem on his watch Palestinian poor people wanted to blow themselves up and take Jews with them.  On an almost daily basis.  That is a much bigger moral and pragmatic challenge for a Mayor.  Olmert says, correctly, they did smart things to deal with a challenge no Mayor wants.  And what they did worked most of the time to reduce terror.  And 20 years later Olmert is saying the same things as before.  The only solution is peace, in the form of a two state solution.  To me there is a word for that.  Conscience.  

Biden is a moral and religious man.  My personal view is that he went to Israel to hug them, and to appeal to their conscience.  It was the right thing to do.  Good for him.  That said, Netanyahu is the leader of Israel  So I ain't holding my breath for acts of conscience.

What is interesting about that poll that says almost all Israelis feel insecure, and the majority feel the Netanyahu government failed them, is this question:  what does it mean for Israel to defend itself?  If the body count of dead Palestinians is higher than the body count of dead Israelis, does that mean they are secure?  I hope Israelis really debate that question.  Because I think Netanyahu wrecked their country.  He has been a horrible leader, that has now reaped what he sowed.  Apparently many Israelis agree.  So I am hating on Israel by saying that.

One reason I like Luttwak, the Jewish hard liner who is good at military strategy who I also quoted above, is that he is blunt and honest.  So he says that the game is basically for Israel to grow.  And they have grown.  They went from a fragile state after the Nazi Holocaust to now being a sort of fortress nobody can penetrate.  What used to be a potential Palestinian state is now a checkerboard of Jewish settlements.  Luttwak is right, on his own terms.  And at least until last month, at least half of Israelis - including most of their own recent more conservative immigrants - agreed with Luttwak. 

So it is a moment of conscience for Israel.  If I had to bet, based on recent elections, i'd bet that the majority will say fuck these animals.  They are vermin.  Kill them.  Whatever it takes. That is Netanyahu's legacy.  

[unicorn]

14 hours ago, Latbear4blk said:

...For decades they have been bombing areas densely populated, knowing that innocent women, seniors, and children would died...

The reason for this is that Hamas is intentionally launching missiles from densely-populated areas, knowing full-well that the Israelis have no choice but to target the areas of the missile launches. Essentially all of the civilian deaths on the Palestinian side are due to Hamas. Hamas is responsible for both Israeli and Palestinian civilian deaths. And when Palestinians die, they point their fingers at the Israelis. Hamas kills Palestinians for their own benefit.

[stevenkesslar]

I thought this interview was spot on.  When I first read this State Dept. bureaucrat resigned, I thought of it as political grandstanding.  Which it is.  But it is interesting to hear why he did what he did in his own words.  Of course, we are talking about the State Dept., not the Defense Dept.  So a bias toward diplomacy is probably baked into the cake.  But this is a guy who has a pragmatic perspective on what it means to send US arms to countries who are far from perfect for decades - like Israel and Egypt.

‘There Are Options for Israel That Do Not Involve Killing Thousands of Civilians’

Quote

Paul: I said, “It’s been clear for decades that the only route to that future” — that future being peace — “is not through military victory, but through diplomatic compromise, not through creating fear, but through building trust, not through killing enemies, but through making friends, not through imposing suffering, but through inspiring hope. On all these counts, what is happening now in Israel is a tragedy not only for lives it is taking and also for the future, whose possibility it is foreclosing upon for yet another generation. … In this conflict everyone loses, and the longer it lasts, the greater the losses will be.”

Toosi: This is what you were telling your superiors in your email?

Paul: Yeah.

He also addresses what @Latbear4blk is saying.  Not his words, but how we are essentially feeding the beast.

Quote

Paul: Yes. “I know this is an unpopular opinion and too soon, but maybe the best thing for Israel right now is not security assistance in the sort of volume that makes them think they can afford to just ignore the Palestinian question and hope that, cordoned off, it will go away. Or to put it another way, if we weren’t giving them billions a year for decades, is it more or less likely they would have found it in their interest for the Oslo process to work and we wouldn’t be where we are today.”

It's an excellent point.  There's no reason to think that arming a country to the teeth somehow incents them to rush toward peace.

Paul raises another excellent point.  Which is that people in the State Dept., among others, have a pretty good idea of who the better players and worse players are.  The US knows which Israeli military units have a track record of civilian casualties, and could make decisions to arm on that basis.

That said, in this instance I don't agree with Paul, for all the reasons he cities about politics.

Quote

Political convenience? I think the Biden administration doesn’t want a battle with Republicans in particular, but also internal to the Democratic Party about Israel and are we pro-Israel enough and who’s the most pro-Israel?

Intellectual bankruptcy in the sense that we’ve seen for over 20 years that the commitment we made to Israel of security for peace, essentially, has not led to security or peace and in fact, leads to insecurity and makes peace further away.

Again, spot on.  Everything he is saying is pretty obvious to anyone being a realist.  If Republicans ran the show right now, there would be choruses of "whatever it takes."  Even though Paul is right that this is the policy that probably guarantees more Jewish babies will be beheaded and burned alive.  At least we showed those fuckers!  Speaking as a Democrat, there is no reason Democrats need to have a huge internal fight about Israel right now.  Any more than they need to have a huge internal fight about who the 2024 nominee should be.  Biden is proving in real time he is perfectly capable of handling a crisis.  I thank God Trump is not in charge.  Even moreso, I thank God George W . Bush is not in charge.  Bush 43 is the one who has a Netanyahu-like track record of sending in the cavalry with guns blazing.  But no long term plan for peace.

Mostly, the reason I disagree with Paul is this is not America's decision to make.  It is Israel's, which is a democracy.  And for now they've chosen the terrorist trainer, Netanyahu.  Who maybe now polls say they want to get rid of.  Because maybe they are getting the idea that the more Netanyahu they have, the more terror they have.  But this is the debate Israelis and Palestinians need to have.  Meanwhile, I'm fine with Biden doing the same kneejerk thing we have done for decades that hasn't worked. 

Paul himself said, correctly, his views are being expressed "too soon."  Whatever real opportunities for peace there are come after Netanyahu is gone.  And probably after the world recoils, yet again, from what Netanyahu is about to do.

[stevenkesslar]

I'll post these brand new polls about delivering weapons to Israel as an addendum to the post above.  I find these results encouraging. 

First, America is not actually that divided on these questions by party.  Both Republicans and Democrats sympathize with both Israelis and Palestinians.  There is enough of a debate in each party that there is plenty of room to meet in the middle.  If that is what we actually want to do.  (Spoiler alert:  that is what Biden actually wants to do, as he just said on TV.)

Here's the three poll questions I found most revealing:

The first poll reinforces my belief that Israel has now lost a pro-Israel US majority.  What I mean by that is NOT that we don't sympathize with Israel right after the worst terrorist attack in their history.  I mean that, even in a moment like that, you don't have 50 % of Americans - let alone a huge majority - saying we should send arms to Israel.  Whether it works in Israel or not, the Netanyahu Doctrine has failed in America.

While all three partisan groups are internally divided,  I take it as good news that a majority of Democrats and Independents tend to lean away from sending arms to Israel as the right response, and toward focusing on the humanitarian issues - both for Israel and Palestinians.  Biden is, as on all things, a transitional figure.  Certainly a President Sanders, and probably even a President Harris, would be prioritizing the 70 % of Democrats and 59 % of Independents who want to focus on things like humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

This poll is also a particularly good example of why Biden is suffering from a sort of Goldilocks polling principle.  Probably not by coincidence, the percentage of people who who approve of Biden's handling of the conflict (44 %) is exactly the same as the percentage who think our response is just right (44 %).  Everyone else is split between too little or too much support for Israel. 

This helps explain why on most issues Biden's approval rating is low.  Even though Trump and Biden have been essentially tied in the horse race polls all year.  Trump clearly has a mostly unified MAGA Party behind him.  But they can't agree on much else.  Meanwhile, Biden has constant incoming fire from both the left and the right.  This issue is a great example.  As long as the economy and his health holds up, this is why Biden will win in 2024, I think.  People will vote for moderation and compromise over crazy and impasse. 

[Latbear4blk]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

knowing full-well that the Israelis have no choice

There is always a choice. Terrorists always argue to have none. Lies.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, Latbear4blk said:

There is always a choice. Terrorists always argue to have none. Lies.

I'm going to keep posting thoughtful and verbose content on the subject that I think connects lots of dots. 

Speaking of which:

The Rise and Fall of Suicide Bombings in the Second Intifada

Yoram Schweitzer

Schweitzer headed the IDF's international counter-terrorism unit in the 90's and has been an expert on the subject ever since.  The period this paper covers focuses on the period during 2001-2003 when suicide bombing terrorism spiked.  Which former PM and Jerusalem Mayor Olmert spoke about above.

There are in fact always choices.  Many, many choices.  I quoted Olmert because I generally agree that the choices made at the time were smart, and limited in scope.  They prioritized defense - like walls - and avoided killing women and children.  Arguably, that is why they were mostly viewed as successful in putting down a few years of suicide bombing escalation.

The whole essay is great.  And I think even-handed and objective in exploring the motivation of terrorists and youth, and how that fed from and reinforced the overall Palestinian public mood at the time.  Here is the most significant part regarding what Schweitzer thinks worked:

Quote

In the end, Israel succeeded in tackling the comprehensive challenge posed by its enemies in the suicide terrorism camp. A combination of defensive measures – such as solid interceptive intelligence to stop attacks before they were carried out, effective security areas based on coordinated efforts by the army, police, and civil guard, and especially the construction of the security barrier in areas vulnerable to infiltration from the territories to Israel – joined offensive moves based on operational intelligence that allowed for systematic arrests and targeted killings of initiators and perpetrators of suicide attacks.8 Overall, the campaign against suicide terrorism – seen as a success in Israel – should be attributed to several factors: the reoccupation of the Palestinian cities in Operation Defensive Shield (April 2002), which enhanced the freedom of action on the part of the IDF and other security services in hunting down the perpetrators and their organizers and also significantly improved the level of intelligence gathering; the security barrier, which placed a physical obstacle in the path of suicide bombers on their way to Israeli cities; improvements in coordination and cooperation among the various Israeli security services; improved effectiveness in responses to warnings about terrorism infiltrations and significant reductions in the time necessary to apprehend suicide bombers before they achieved what they set out to do; and boosting the level of terrorists targeted for attack to organization leaders, thereby effecting deterrence.

A few general comments relevant to the choices Netanyahu faces.  And how and why he will likely fuck them up and simply provoke more terrorism and baby killing.

Even back then, 30 years ago, when Oslo and peace had much more cache, Hamas and Islamic Jihad were the known bad actors.  Their specific goal was to undermine the idea that peace was the solution.  And instead promote the idea that armed struggle was the solution.  The reason their pioneering slaughter activities did not catch on for years is that people wanted peace, and it seemed achievable.  

This adds substantial evidence to the idea that Hamas is way smarter than Hitler.  Hitler thought he could win.  But he did lose.  Hamas makes Hitler look like a rookie.  All the evidence suggests they know they can't win.  And they haven't won.  But they also know they can't lose.  And they haven't lost.  In fact, if you compare the Hamas of 2023 to the Hamas of 1993, Hamas is bigger and more powerful.  So right out of the gate, terrorism is all about undermining peace and promoting armed struggle.  Any response to terrorism that also undermines peace and promotes the idea that armed struggle is the path to victory inherently favors Hamas, and helps them grow.  Which they have done, for decades.  The Netanyahu Doctrine is a fundamentally pro-Hamas strategy in that it blocks peace and promotes armed struggle.  For decades this has consistently helped Hamas grow and become more powerful in their capacity to wage terror and armed struggle.  If Bibi Netanyahu did not exist, Hamas would have had to invent him.

Without being able to predict the future, Schweitzer foreshadowed this in his conclusions:

Quote

Nonetheless, it is clear that the success in stopping the suicide attacks was success in dealing with capability rather than the motivation to attack Israel on the part of the suicide bombers and their dispatchers.

And, almost prophetically:

Quote

On the other hand, there are [Palestinian] elements that see the military campaign, and especially the steep cost to Israel’s citizens, as a strategic success in that for the first time, Israel was forced to pay dearly for the extended occupation of the territories rather than simply enjoy its fruits.11 Hamas’ victory in the January 2006 parliamentary elections, its mandate to form the Palestinian government, and its becoming a significant element in political life can largely – according to Hamas spokespeople – be interpreted as proof of the justness of the path it spearheaded while bearing the suicide terrorism banner. Therefore, Hamas may claim that although Israel did in fact win the military campaign on a tactical level against the Palestinian military uprising in general and suicide terrorism in particular, at the strategic level the victory belongs to Hamas and those who remained faithful to the path of muqawama (resistance).

Ya think?

There are some parts of this that are just objective facts.  Hamas is bigger and more powerful than they were when they pioneered suicide bombings 30 years ago.  They did win political power in part because they were viewed as the bad asses that actually fought hard for Palestinian rights.  They have now brought the idea of making Israel pay for its occupation to a whole new and terrifying level.  94 % of Israel feels unsafe.  And a majority of them right now blame it on Netanyahu, at least according to one poll. 

You can say all we have to do is put this down, just like we did the suicide bombers 20 years ago.  Fine.  But look where that led.  It would be incorrect to say Israel won the battle, but lost the war.  I think the correct idea is that because the worst actors on both sides are growing in power, that means both sides are losing the war.   Not to mention the rest of the world is losing the war.  $100 a barrel oil, anyone?  Maybe $150 if we really let the hawks loose?  The definition of insanity is when you keep doing the same things that don't work again and again.

What is even more depressing is that the things that make the most sense don't even make sense.  Like targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders.

As Schweitzer notes, the Second Intifada was set off by the targeting killing of a Palestinian activist.  During the wave of suicide bombings, as Schweitzer notes in his conclusions, Israel started to target and kill Palestinian organization leaders.  One can conclude, as Schweitzer does, that it was one tool in the counter-terrorism tool box that was effective.  Certainly right now I think most people would agree that the IDF should focus on killing Hamas leaders, not innocent women and children.  

Unfortunately, if that is the main tool in the toolbox, I think we already know what the outcome is.  Not as a guess.  As an objective fact.

Hamas vows suicide bombings, ‘unprecedented response’ if Israel targets its leaders

Terror group threatens ‘regional earthquake,’ massive rockets attacks if Sinwar, other leaders hit; Egypt reportedly mediating between Jerusalem, Gaza to prevent escalation

7 May 2022, 8:27 pm

Note the date on that article.  Is there any way in which anyone can argue what just happened in Israel was the least bit surprising?

There's only one type of article about the terror attack I quit reading after a paragraph or two.  It's the "They Are Evil And Must Be Destroyed" articles that the hawks are pushing.  It includes all kinds of nasty undertones.  Like if I don't think Hamas being evil and being destroyed is the only thing that matters, it means I am evil and I supported The Holocaust.  Which doesn't explain why so many Jews, in the US and Israel, don't agree with the Netanyahu Doctrine, either.  Nor does it explain why the hawks, if they are so smart, failed to notice this evil shit for the last half century or so.  I've read article after article based on the ridiculous premise that somehow Hamas fooled Israel.  And now we've just come to find out all along they were wolves in sheep's clothing.  It's total and almost laughable bullshit. Perhaps it's the only way Israeli hawks can rationalize how badly they fucked up.

Hamas was incredibly clear to Israel and the IDF.  Fuck with our leaders and we'll burn your babies alive.  Fuckers!  Go ahead, fuckers!  Fuck with us.  Go ahead.  We will kill your fucking babies.  With glee.  Fuck with us.  Go ahead.  They almost goaded Netanyahu that clearly, and bluntly.

Do I support the policy of killing Hamas leaders?  Yes, of course. Did I mention that I'm glad bin Laden is dead at the bottom of an ocean?  But if this is all Israel can do, I think we don't even have to guess what the outcome is.  We have 30 years of experience on how and why it leads to more terror, and more armed struggle.

Israel and Netanyahu have lots of choices on how to respond to Hamas.  If Israel continues to kill peace and promote armed struggle, the certain outcome is more terror.  If Israel wants less terror, they need to make better choices and have stronger leaders than Netanyahu.

I've mentioned several times I hope Arafat is burning in hell for killing peace.  Now that I went into a treatise on terrorism I will add one more hypothesis.  Bill Clinton has said, even to this day, he does not understand why Arafat would not take a peace deal which former PM Barak agreed to which would have left Palestinians, and I think Israelis, way better off than they are today.  And probably stopped the rise of Hamas, period.  Clinton must be willfully ignoring what Arafat actually said, publicly.  Arafat argued that had he signed the peace deal, Hamas - or some other terror faction - would have killed him.  Which might have been true.  Hamas knows that the one thing that will fuck up armed struggle is peace.  So maybe they would have killed Arafat.  That said, it still makes Arafat a moral worm of a leader who failed his people, miserably.  Rabin was assassinated because he fought for peace.  If Arafat had been assassinated for peace, at least he would have a legacy like Rabin.  And not one as a weak and failed leader of his people.