Israel-Gaza war

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I still can't understand just how the Israeli intelligence didn't catch this. Such a huge attack must have taken months to plan.

Hamas and their allies positioned thousands of rockets, equiped and readied a huge amount of fighters. Just how was this missed?

They've had such an overwhelming advantage for so long that their capabilities atrophied. For the past decade they've been able to sit back and rely on largely automated systems to mop up Palestinian rockets with ease, the most effort being the occasional jet sent to flatten a building or two in response. The total ineffectiveness of prior attempts created a false sense of security (for comparison, more Israelis were killed yesterday than in every prior Hamas attack combined).

I still can't understand just how the Israeli intelligence didn't catch this. Such a huge attack must have taken months to plan.

Hamas and their allies positioned thousands of rockets, equiped and readied a huge amount of fighters. Just how was this missed?

https://twitter.com/ashoswai/status/1710987836390838692?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7...
Powered Paraglides for airborne assaults too !

And to think they only started with rocks 23 years ago.

Not the first time Palestinian saboteurs managed to catch the IDF with their pants down using paragliders. This time around they just combined it with two of the most cost-effective strategies of the Ukraine war: swarms of cheap rockets fired en masse to overwhelm the Iron Dome closely followed by swarms of cheap IED drones.

Palestine just reminded the entire world that their home is still a warzone, and just completely destroyed Israel’s reputation as a safe country to visit. The Israeli tourism industry is going to be dead by everyone but religious zealots and those connecting with family for a good while.

Had Fatah not have been in the way to side with Israel if there were a war in the West Bank, Palestine would have won this war. Abbas’s bantustan is the only thing blocking an end to this war. Good riddance the zealous Trump Administration finally put UNRWA’s money laundering scheme to the coffin.

All eyes are on what the supposed invasion of Gaza is going to look like, as if any other front opens up Israel will continue to get bloody and have territory be in jeopardy bit by bit. They could have ended this conflict in the 90s by recognizing Palestine but didn’t out of wanting the whole pie. Like Armenia and Cyprus before it, not reading the room has negative consequences.

Revealing that you view it as winning a war for Hamas to butcher innocent civilians, and as morally unacceptable for Israel to build walls to protect itself and kill those Hamas members in retaliation.

It is, already, a (coming) military defeat and political victory. The direct comparison that's been made repeatedly is to Tet.

I've seen the comparison thrown around a lot but it isn't quite the same. For one, the Viet Cong suffered absolutely calamitous and disproportionate casualties, whereas (at least so far) Hamas seems to have taken about as many losses as the IDF. While the Viet Cong threw their forces against entrenched American positions and were decimated in this case it's the Israelis that will have to attack through prepared Hamas defenses in Gaza. It's very easy to kill more Palestinians but even if the IDF turned Gaza into Grozny they may well lack the shock troops to clear out the rubble, an issue they've been plagued with since 2006.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's certainly a disgrace. We (the western world and its liberal values) will pay a high price for it

https://twitter.com/mattduss/status/1713210261996462512?t=bM7yVJGecfofH5zcd3hd5w...

No one with a brain buys the ~west cares about the liberal order~ propaganda discourse outside the West.

The West has propelled dictatorships and genocide when it saw that as aligned to their material self-interests. They use liberalism and democracy as an instrument only, not as a goal, especially in foreign countries.

If a democracy starts going against their interests on any matter, they will promote regime change undercover and more discreetly. If an autocracy starts doing that, then they will be more open about it and justify it as fighting terrorism or dictatorship in name of liberal values.

However, if a democracy or an autocracy aligns with their interests, they will treat as “liberal allies” no matter the horrors they may commit when they happen to be a dictatorship.

I don't buy most of your arguments, but no doubt that most of the folks attacking you without caring to address the fundamental question stressed above are, in fact, validating you

Most of us don’t have patience for a poster who (by his own standards) supports genocide of Ukrainians saying how westerners are bunch of hypocrites especially when most westerners here made upset about how Palestinians are treated

Upset but somehow no calls for no-fly zones, or sanctions, or sending supplies to Gaza, or treating Israel as a pariah state like South Africa. Mostly a lot of hand wringing and "what can you do?"s from the same people who were most enthusiastic about unending support for Ukraine. RV can make some pretty boneheaded and shortsighted posts but in this case he is absolutely 100% correct

"If only we had some sort of measure we use against countries that violated international law!"

I have a question:

How is Hamas supposed to be destroyed with Israel Sieging Gaza. Like there is no good solutions to this, but Gaza will have to be invaded and occupied 

Times of Israel: "For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces" – The policy of treating the terror group as a partner, at the expense of Abbas and Palestinian statehood, has resulted in wounds that will take Israel years to heal from by Tal Schneider https://timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

Haaretz: "Both the Egyptians and the Qataris are angry with Hamas, and they were going to cut all ties with them. All of a sudden Netanyahu shows up as a Hamas advocate, pressuring Egypt and the Qataris to continue” with the financial support." https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...transfer/0000017f-ded8-d856-a37f-ffd88a960000

Mil Intel Dir Yadlin Comments on Gaza, etc. June 13, 2007: "Yadlin said Israel would be "happy" if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state. He dismissed the Iranian role "as long as they don't have a port." https://web.archive.org/web/20140904145748/https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TELAVIV1733_a.html

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” – Benjamin Netanyahu https://archive.ph/ABPWd#selection-1144.0-1144.1

"How can we possibly deal with the terrorist group we propped up and supported for decades without slaughtering the civilians?"

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Upset but somehow no calls for no-fly zones, or sanctions, or sending supplies to Gaza, or treating Israel as a pariah state like South Africa. Mostly a lot of hand wringing and "what can you do?"s from the same people who were most enthusiastic about unending support for Ukraine. RV can make some pretty boneheaded and shortsighted posts but in this case he is absolutely 100% correct

"If only we had some sort of measure we use against countries that violated international law!"

Geeh I wonder why people might be more fine giving a conventional military sending arms to a place that would likely end up in the hands of a terrorist organization that just beheaded babies?

But giving air support to the terrorists who literally exterminated entire towns in Libya was A-OK I guess? Or the terrorists who eventually became Al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria?

And putting aside the very long precedent of having zero qualm arming the worst possible people, what about humanitarian aid? What about sanctions? What about literally any of the measures taken against so-called "rogue states" over the past several decades? If you discount the fact that Israel is Above The Law then there are a huge range of options short of sending Hamas military equipment. Why are these options never on the table when it comes to Israel?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Upset but somehow no calls for no-fly zones, or sanctions, or sending supplies to Gaza, or treating Israel as a pariah state like South Africa. Mostly a lot of hand wringing and "what can you do?"s from the same people who were most enthusiastic about unending support for Ukraine. RV can make some pretty boneheaded and shortsighted posts but in this case he is absolutely 100% correct

"If only we had some sort of measure we use against countries that violated international law!"

Geeh I wonder why people might be more fine giving a conventional military sending arms to a place that would likely end up in the hands of a terrorist organization that just beheaded babies?

But giving air support to the terrorists who literally exterminated entire towns in Libya was A-OK I guess? Or the terrorists who eventually became Al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria?

And putting aside the very long precedent of having zero qualm arming the worst possible people, what about humanitarian aid? What about sanctions? What about literally any of the measures taken against so-called "rogue states" over the past several decades? If you discount the fact that Israel is Above The Law then there are a huge range of options short of sending Hamas military equipment. Why are these options never on the table when it comes to Israel?

Libya and Syria are lazy whataboutisms considering the atrocities Gaddafi and Assad had/have done that the country you have as an avatar enabled (especially Assad). When it comes to humanitarian aid you already seeing that this is an issue with groundswell western support by the fact after being so gung-ho that Biden raised these concerns

So to be clear, you believe there's a point where a state commits enough atrocities that arming baby killing terrorists is justified after all? Could you define the line Israel would have to cross for a no-fly zone and arming Hamas to be the correct course of action? How about sanctions? Come on, lets now be vague and talk about "atrocities" somehow changing the calculus, tell me specifically: what crime committed by Assad or Gaddafi that the Israelis haven't would cause Biden to take a hard line? An illegal WMD program, perhaps a secret nuclear program? The number of civilians killed in the entire Libyan Civil War (at least the first phase) was somewhere in the high thousands to low tens of thousands. If Bibi surpasses that number will American F-35's intervene to end the bombing campaign? Is there any conceivable action that would result in sanctions being imposed on "America's Greatest Ally"?

If you haven't noticed my signature I'm not exactly a fan of Putin but he didn't defend Assad because of "international law" or "human rights" but because Assad was his ally. And all the evidence suggests that Biden isn't sending aircraft carriers to protect Israel from retaliation because of the "rules based international order" but for similarly amoral reasons. My point isn't "America is just like Putin, therefore Putin is justified", it's "America is just like Putin, therefore we live in a world of murderous amoral tyrants who only care about human rights so far as it benefits them personally"

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

To all the posters that are being critical of Israel. What would you have done if you were Israel After the Hamas abducted/raped/decapitated a ton of israeli children ?


Death toll is terrible in Gaza but I genuinely don't see how Hamas shouldn't be entirely blamed for that.

You can't just act like history began a week ago.

If I were Israel I wouldn't have funded and supported Hamas in the first place. Instead of crowding my citizens into Bantustans and propping up a fake opposition to justify ever escalating crimes I would recognize the reality that both Israel and Palestine are defacto a single state. I would grant all citizens within this territory equal rights regardless of religion, as is expected (even if it may not be enforced) of literally every developed country that isn't Israel. Palestinians would gain the right to freely travel, to buy property and to leave Gaza. Neither settlers nor West Bank Palestinians would be forcibly deported but all would be free to stay or live where  they please. Then whatever remained of Hamas and other terrorist groups could be dealt with the way civilized countries deal with terrorism: professional police and intelligence, not indiscriminate airstrikes. Or there could be some sort of Good Friday agreement to disarm militias without bloodshed.

South Africa experienced all sorts of atrocities at the hands of the ANC and other rebel groups. Necklacing is among the most brutal methods of execution and it was pioneered by the ANC. Yet despite the atrocities they were somehow able to end apartheid. Why should we not hold Israel to the same standard?

Upset but somehow no calls for no-fly zones, or sanctions, or sending supplies to Gaza, or treating Israel as a pariah state like South Africa. Mostly a lot of hand wringing and "what can you do?"s from the same people who were most enthusiastic about unending support for Ukraine. RV can make some pretty boneheaded and shortsighted posts but in this case he is absolutely 100% correct

"If only we had some sort of measure we use against countries that violated international law!"

Geeh I wonder why people might be more fine giving a conventional military sending arms to a place that would likely end up in the hands of a terrorist organization that just beheaded babies?

But giving air support to the terrorists who literally exterminated entire towns in Libya was A-OK I guess? Or the terrorists who eventually became Al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria?

And putting aside the very long precedent of having zero qualm arming the worst possible people, what about humanitarian aid? What about sanctions? What about literally any of the measures taken against so-called "rogue states" over the past several decades? If you discount the fact that Israel is Above The Law then there are a huge range of options short of sending Hamas military equipment. Why are these options never on the table when it comes to Israel?

Libya and Syria are lazy whataboutisms considering the atrocities Gaddafi and Assad had/have done that the country you have as an avatar enabled (especially Assad). When it comes to humanitarian aid you already seeing that this is an issue with groundswell western support by the fact after being so gung-ho that Biden raised these concerns

So to be clear, you believe there's a point where a state commits enough atrocities that arming baby killing terrorists is justified after all? Could you define the line Israel would have to cross for a no-fly zone and arming Hamas to be the correct course of action? How about sanctions? Come on, lets now be vague and talk about "atrocities" somehow changing the calculus, tell me specifically: what crime committed by Assad or Gaddafi that the Israelis haven't would cause Biden to take a hard line? An illegal WMD program, perhaps a secret nuclear program? The number of civilians killed in the entire Libyan Civil War (at least the first phase) was somewhere in the high thousands to low tens of thousands. If Bibi surpasses that number will American F-35's intervene to end the bombing campaign? Is there any conceivable action that would result in sanctions being imposed on "America's Greatest Ally"?

If you haven't noticed my signature I'm not exactly a fan of Putin but he didn't defend Assad because of "international law" or "human rights" but because Assad was his ally. And all the evidence suggests that Biden isn't sending aircraft carriers to protect Israel from retaliation because of the "rules based international order" but for similarly amoral reasons. My point isn't "America is just like Putin, therefore Putin is justified", it's "America is just like Putin, therefore we live in a world of murderous amoral tyrants who only care about human rights so far as it benefits them personally"

No and at no point in my post did I imply that only that invoking them to own the West is a bad example also Assad gassed civilians and as bad as Israel has been they haven’t gone down that road

They've only starved the civilians, demolished the hospitals, threatened ethnic cleansing, declared "there are no civilians in Gaza" and smoked their houses with white phosphorous (ie. a chemical weapon that isn't a Chemical Weapon). But okay, are you saying that if Israel used chemical weapons in combat that you'd support an anti-Israeli no-fly zone? Is that the magic line where mealy mouthed, half-assed requests for restraint from the Biden administration would transform into threats of obliteration and plans to remove the Netanyahu regime? The IDF can do anything in Gaza short of deploying WMDs and the "International Rules Based Order" won't so much as cut a cent of military funding, let alone threaten the sort of responses Iran has gotten over the past few decades?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

To all the posters that are being critical of Israel. What would you have done if you were Israel After the Hamas abducted/raped/decapitated a ton of israeli children ?


Death toll is terrible in Gaza but I genuinely don't see how Hamas shouldn't be entirely blamed for that.

You can't just act like history began a week ago.

If I were Israel I wouldn't have funded and supported Hamas in the first place. Instead of crowding my citizens into Bantustans and propping up a fake opposition to justify ever escalating crimes I would recognize the reality that both Israel and Palestine are defacto a single state. I would grant all citizens within this territory equal rights regardless of religion, as is expected (even if it may not be enforced) of literally every developed country that isn't Israel. Palestinians would gain the right to freely travel, to buy property and to leave Gaza. Neither settlers nor West Bank Palestinians would be forcibly deported but all would be free to stay or live where  they please. Then whatever remained of Hamas and other terrorist groups could be dealt with the way civilized countries deal with terrorism: professional police and intelligence, not indiscriminate airstrikes. Or there could be some sort of Good Friday agreement to disarm militias without bloodshed.

South Africa experienced all sorts of atrocities at the hands of the ANC and other rebel groups. Necklacing is among the most brutal methods of execution and it was pioneered by the ANC. Yet despite the atrocities they were somehow able to end apartheid. Why should we not hold Israel to the same standard?

Upset but somehow no calls for no-fly zones, or sanctions, or sending supplies to Gaza, or treating Israel as a pariah state like South Africa. Mostly a lot of hand wringing and "what can you do?"s from the same people who were most enthusiastic about unending support for Ukraine. RV can make some pretty boneheaded and shortsighted posts but in this case he is absolutely 100% correct

"If only we had some sort of measure we use against countries that violated international law!"

Geeh I wonder why people might be more fine giving a conventional military sending arms to a place that would likely end up in the hands of a terrorist organization that just beheaded babies?

But giving air support to the terrorists who literally exterminated entire towns in Libya was A-OK I guess? Or the terrorists who eventually became Al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria?

And putting aside the very long precedent of having zero qualm arming the worst possible people, what about humanitarian aid? What about sanctions? What about literally any of the measures taken against so-called "rogue states" over the past several decades? If you discount the fact that Israel is Above The Law then there are a huge range of options short of sending Hamas military equipment. Why are these options never on the table when it comes to Israel?

Libya and Syria are lazy whataboutisms considering the atrocities Gaddafi and Assad had/have done that the country you have as an avatar enabled (especially Assad). When it comes to humanitarian aid you already seeing that this is an issue with groundswell western support by the fact after being so gung-ho that Biden raised these concerns

So to be clear, you believe there's a point where a state commits enough atrocities that arming baby killing terrorists is justified after all? Could you define the line Israel would have to cross for a no-fly zone and arming Hamas to be the correct course of action? How about sanctions? Come on, lets now be vague and talk about "atrocities" somehow changing the calculus, tell me specifically: what crime committed by Assad or Gaddafi that the Israelis haven't would cause Biden to take a hard line? An illegal WMD program, perhaps a secret nuclear program? The number of civilians killed in the entire Libyan Civil War (at least the first phase) was somewhere in the high thousands to low tens of thousands. If Bibi surpasses that number will American F-35's intervene to end the bombing campaign? Is there any conceivable action that would result in sanctions being imposed on "America's Greatest Ally"?

If you haven't noticed my signature I'm not exactly a fan of Putin but he didn't defend Assad because of "international law" or "human rights" but because Assad was his ally. And all the evidence suggests that Biden isn't sending aircraft carriers to protect Israel from retaliation because of the "rules based international order" but for similarly amoral reasons. My point isn't "America is just like Putin, therefore Putin is justified", it's "America is just like Putin, therefore we live in a world of murderous amoral tyrants who only care about human rights so far as it benefits them personally"

No and at no point in my post did I imply that only that invoking them to own the West is a bad example also Assad gassed civilians and as bad as Israel has been they haven’t gone down that road

They've only starved the civilians, demolished the hospitals, threatened ethnic cleansing, declared "there are no civilians in Gaza" and smoked their houses with white phosphorous (ie. a chemical weapon that isn't a Chemical Weapon). But okay, are you saying that if Israel used chemical weapons in combat that you'd support an anti-Israeli no-fly zone? Is that the magic line where mealy mouthed, half-assed requests for restraint from the Biden administration would transform into threats of obliteration and plans to remove the Netanyahu regime? The IDF can do anything in Gaza short of deploying WMDs and the "International Rules Based Order" won't so much as cut a cent of military funding, let alone threaten the sort of responses Iran has gotten over the past few decades?

Why do you keep putting words in my mouth like I’m okay with how Israel conducts itself?

Because I'm trying to figure out the point where not being okay with something transforms to demands for action. America wasn't just "not okay" with Gaddafi, they imposed a no-fly zone and removed his regime. America wasn't just "not okay" with the Iran, they imposed sanctions on the whole country. If we live under an "International Rules Based Order" then by any standard these represent *precedents*, not "whataboutism".

Why can't America treat Israel the way it treats other countries? Not with mere disapproval, but with action? Don't let me put words in your mouth, tell me what atrocity Israel could commit besides using WMDs that would make you advocate actual actions against the regime?

South Africa experienced all sorts of atrocities at the hands of the ANC and other rebel groups. Necklacing is among the most brutal methods of execution and it was pioneered by the ANC. Yet despite the atrocities they were somehow able to end apartheid. Why should we not hold Israel to the same standard?

They never did anything of the scale and type of what Hamas did a week ago. Their targets were generally military or police personnel and infrastructure.

You should look into the history of necklacing, the vast majority of whose victims were neither military nor police.

But the point is that there are no amount of atrocities that justify apartheid, end of story, full stop. There are countless examples across history where sectarian wars were ended by compromise despite horrific atrocities. I've already mentioned the Good Friday Agreement and even more recently the Tutsis didn't use their victimization during the Rwandan Genocide to justify an apartheid state to oppress the Hutus despite achieving near total military victory. Far more brutal conflicts than the Israel-Palestine conflict have been resolved through the stronger party making concessions to ensure a lasting and just peace.

The difference is that in those conflicts one side didn't have the unconditional backing of the world's sole superpower.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

To all the posters that are being critical of Israel. What would you have done if you were Israel After the Hamas abducted/raped/decapitated a ton of israeli children ?


Death toll is terrible in Gaza but I genuinely don't see how Hamas shouldn't be entirely blamed for that.

I would not go in and genocide a group of people because of terrorists. Responding to Hamas by becoming Hamas isn't the answer.

Do y'all know what a genocide is?? Cuz it isn't civilian casualties and that's it

Exactly.

But according to some users here...

...any military operation that results in more than a few dozen civilian casualties is a "genocide".
...any such operation carried out by the IDF is also "ethnic cleansing".
...any policy that deviates even slightly from secular modernity is "theocratic".

Well, it's one way to make these terms meaningless.

(By the way – the IDF is the only "genocidal" force in the world that actively seeks to minimize civilian casualties. It seems they haven't quite understood what their job ist... or they're terribly bad at it.)

In terms of rhetoric, multiple members of the Knesset have promised a "second Nakba" and other rhetoric that I think anyone would recognize as genocidal. The President literally claimed that there are no civilians in Gaza.

In terms of ordinance, the amount of explosives being delivered onto Gaza is more comparable to the 2nd Battle of Grozny than the War on Terror, with the IDF having dropped more bombs than the US Air Force throughout the entire Afghan invasion.

In terms of casualties, the number of children killed in Gaza already exceeds the number of children killed over nearly two years of intense and merciless combat in Ukraine.

Funny way of "actively seeking to minimize civilian casualties". I'm probably the biggest critic of the US military on this board but the IDF is making the USAF look like a humanitarian organization and the Russian Army like a model of restraint. The IDF's goal isn't to reduce civilian casualties but to fool its ignorant Western patrons into thinking that they deserve unconditional support.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1714339990883242161

Does that sound like a "misfired rocket" to you?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1714357150594588816

OOPS

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1714366327538794512

https://twitter.com/matt_boot_/status/1713568089021780327

When the Israeli president says "there are no civilians in Gaza" you shouldn't be surprised when the IDF acts like that's the case.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

That just seems like "it is possible for a motor failure on a Qassem to have caused this". More generally, the level of destruction and casualties here, and apparently the size of the explosion, are much greater than from a normal Israeli airstrike, or for that matter from a normal Palestinian rocket, so there needs to be a special explanation for why the explosion was so large and catastrophic, and everything that I've seen besides 'weapons depot' has been obviously wrong. 'Motor failure on a Qassem' is maybe not a ridiculous suggestion (though I haven't heard of a motor failure causing this large of an explosion), but this is basically one random tweet bringing it up.

There is, in fact, a very simple explanation: that the IDF dropped a bunker buster on the hospital. The video of the strike doesn't show any of the secondary explosions characteristic of a weapons depot.

You only need to work yourself into a pretzel if you start from the assumption that Hamas or PIJ did it and then work backwords. If you consider the possibility that Israel could be responsible then the size of the explosion is easily explained.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

We all eagerly await Israel's airtight proof that they didn't assassinate Shireen Abu Akleh bomb the hospital

EDIT: Another example of the IDF demonstrating their legendary capacity for honesty:

Last week, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN: "I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used."

1 week later:

Israel has admitted – after mounting pressure – that its troops may have used white phosphorus shells in contravention of international law, during its three-week offensive in the Gaza Strip.

One of the places most seriously affected by the use of white phosphorus was the main UN compound in Gaza City, which was hit by three shells on 15 January. The same munition was used in a strike on the al-Quds hospital in Gaza City the same day.

Under review by Colonel Shai Alkalai is the use of white phosphorus by a reserve paratroop brigade in northern Israel.

According to army sources the brigade fired up to 20 phosphorus shells in a heavily built-up area around the Gaza township of Beit Lahiya, one of the worst hit areas of Gaza.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

There is literally no way for Israel to win isn't there?
Launch a ground invasion -> fight on multiple fronts -> suffer heavy casualties -> get bogged down -> lose western support
Back down -> admit defeat -> restart an even more vicious internal unrest

I doubt they will lose Western support, Hamas has crossed a border which means the Western government will allow Israel a free hand as long as they don’t start a genocide. While this may not be popular among all Western populations, most people will not care enough to vote against theri governments over it.

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

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

War with Iran today would be absolutely nothing like the 2003 war with Iraq. In 2003 America's military was at its peak, flooded with motivated post-9/11 volunteers while Saddam's army was an overstaffed joke. American public support for the invasion was absolutely overwhelming, whereas there's already widespread opposition to arming Israel, let alone joining them in a regional war. Today, Iran is geopolitically more powerful than ever with allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and an enormous stockpile of rockets while America has spent the last two years sending its excess munitions to Ukraine and enriching the military industrial capacity with overpriced hardware at the expense of the sort of basic munitions that actually win wars. Whereas in 2003 America had allies across the region that provided staging grounds and logistical support for the invasion, today Israel has somehow managed to unite all the worst enemies of the Middle East against them: Turks and Kurds, Sadrists and Sunnis, Persians and Arabs. In the event of war with Iran thousands if not tens of thousands of American personnel across the region but particularly in Iraq and Syria would be instantly stranded in enemy territory and beyond any realistic hope of resupply. Iran is heavily mountainous and, like Hezbollah and Hamas, the Iranians have learned to use deep and sophisticated tunnels to make aerial bombardment ineffective. Actually defeating Iran would require a serious ground campaign across hostile terrain and that would require a draft.

Even if the Iranians and Hezbollah would rather not escalate, the tit-for-tit exchanges currently going on along the Israeli-Lebanese border could force their hand regardless. Just as the IDF is under political pressure to go hard against Gaza, Hezbollah is expected by its constituents (the Shiites of southern Lebanon plus some anti-Israeli minorities) to respond to each loss and atrocity with its own escalation in violence and so far they've demonstrated a skill at retaliation that far exceeds any past Arab army.

https://twitter.com/HadiNasrallah/status/1715501947375997064

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

I think this whole thing has the potential to cause a serious fracture on the left. You have about a 50-50 split between Palestine and Israel sympathizers, and people are facing serious consequences wrt  jobs, future prospects, and social standing if they are willing to criticize Israel.

I'm enjoying my popcorn as the establishment left is losing its marbles now that the far-left activist wing it has coddled, encouraged and wielded as a weapon for so long (so long as its activism was anti-white and anti-American, but NOT anti-Israel) is turning around to bite the hands that have fed it.

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

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1716574971206500570

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ⓐ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

[Ⓐ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.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

At this point, Biden needs to use any and all leverage the U.S. has to prevent Israel from this disastrous full-scale invasion…

I think you greatly overestimate America’s influence, because there is nothing that Biden can do. Nothing. After what happened on October 7, the ground invasion was always bound to happen. It is inevitable and any Israeli government that does not order it would be committing political suicide.

There are, in fact, several things Biden could do:

* He could publicly demand Israel adhere to the laws of war
* He could stop sending Israel ordinance to drop on Gaza
* He could stop sending Israel billions of taxpayer dollars
* He could withdraw the carriers and announce that he won't protect Israel if they provoke a reaction
* He could impose sanctions on the Israeli regime
* He could impose a naval blockade of Israel until they obey his commands
* He could impose a no-fly zone and obliterate the Israeli Airforce
* He could use those carriers to implement a regime change operation to replace Netanyahu with someone more pliable

Of course he won't do anything because he's senile and guided by traitorous advisors but don't pretend America doesn't have an enormous toolbox available to crush regimes that don't do what they're told.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

At this point, Biden needs to use any and all leverage the U.S. has to prevent Israel from this disastrous full-scale invasion…

I think you greatly overestimate America’s influence, because there is nothing that Biden can do. Nothing. After what happened on October 7, the ground invasion was always bound to happen. It is inevitable and any Israeli government that does not order it would be committing political suicide.

There are, in fact, several things Biden could do:

* He could publicly demand Israel adhere to the laws of war
* He could stop sending Israel ordinance to drop on Gaza
* He could stop sending Israel billions of taxpayer dollars
* He could withdraw the carriers and announce that he won't protect Israel if they provoke a reaction
* He could impose sanctions on the Israeli regime
* He could impose a naval blockade of Israel until they obey his commands
* He could impose a no-fly zone and obliterate the Israeli Airforce
* He could use those carriers to implement a regime change operation to replace Netanyahu with someone more pliable

Of course he won't do anything because he's senile and guided by traitorous advisors but don't pretend America doesn't have an enormous toolbox available to crush regimes that don't do what they're told.

The first two of those points are good ideas in principle but which wouldn't have any practical effect. It's good to take a firm stance against war crimes, and Israel has more than enough munitions already for any operation against Hamas.

The second two points are debatably good ideas in principle, but which have no chance of actually getting Israel to call off it's counterattack. They would be going in even without American support. Even if the USA suspended all aid and removed all ships from the Mediterranean that wouldn't actually stop Netanyahu from invading Gaza to try to crush Hamas.

The last three points are absolutely insane and would result in a nuclear war. The fact that you bring them up at all makes me doubt that you're being serious here.

I said these are things he could do, not things he should do. Obviously trying to impose a no-fly zone on Israel (and everything past that) would be insane but it would be no less insane than trying to impose a no-fly zone on the Russian Airforce, something that a shocking number of people considered feasible at the time.

Anyway, I think you seriously underestimate Israel's dependency on the US in the event of conflict. They might have enough firepower to level Gaza but what about Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrians, the Iraqis and the Iranians? A war of attrition without any American backing would not favour Israel, to say the least, and everyone in the Israeli government knows it.

Biden has enormous leverage over the Israelis not because they need him to pummel Hamas but because they need him to protect them from the blowback. If he was willing to seriously threaten to end that support then he could at least open humanitarian corridors, get fuel and water to hospitals and force the IDF to stick to rules of engagement closer to Ramadi than Grozny or Stalingrad.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1718794059672940622

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

https://twitter.com/martyrmade/status/1718794059672940622

This is a strange post because, of course, when American conservatives have criticized Israel over the past month (ie, Mike Collins, "Keep Bombing Hamas"), it's mostly been to the effect that the response is insufficient, and it's easy to imagine a Republican Administration pushing the state to respond much more aggressively.

https://twitter.com/RepJasonCrow/status/1718396988222279835

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Okay, forget zero collateral damage, is there any hard limit you're willing to put on the tolerance for civilian casualties? If a single Hamas fighter is walking through a crowded market is it okay to drop a bomb on him and kill hundreds of people? If thousands are crowded in a hospital and you think that there could be munitions stored under the hospital, do you drop a bunker buster on the hospital and kill them all? If there are still civilians evacuating the combat area do you authorize tanks to just open fire on any vehicle while moving to attack the area you ordered an evacuation through to prevent the possibility that Hamas could drive a car into a tank? Are they in the clear to start dropping sarin or other chemical or biological weapons if they think it could reduce IDF casualties? Where do you draw the line? Because the one drawn by international law has been shown total contempt from both the IDF and its supporters.

and the incredible thing is that despite the unprecedented brutality and destruction it isn't even clear that the IDF has achieved any meaningful military benefit from their heavy hand. They've had zero impact on the ability of Hamas to continue launching rocket attacks and despite turning large parts of Gaza City into Stalingrad have had minimal progress with IDF ground forces constantly hounded by ambushes. Hamas fighters still freely travel through the supposedly destroyed tunnels to supposedly destroyed firing positions from which they launch their supposedly neutralized rockets with about as much as ease as one would have expected as if the IDF didn't bother with the preliminary bombing campaign at all. The only clear result of their terror bombings has been to totally destroy their reputation and credibility across the world and to produce a parade of easy propaganda for Hamas.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

There was a rumor yesterday that a Givati Brigade armored spearhead was ambushed. This is the official confirmation from the IDF.
https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1719585827188023593

Hamas released the video of smoking the APC a few days ago, the IDF is clearly slow rolling their release of casualties. Probably because they know the public would freak out if they understood exactly how badly things are going and how high the cost will be if they keep following the current strategy. They very clearly aren't prepared for extended urban combat.

https://twitter.com/Sprinter99800/status/1719787646598197478

Clearly they need some Ukrainian or Russian advisors to teach them the basics of 21st century warfare. This is an army designed to beat enemies that can't fight back, like Jewish protesters in Jerusalem.

https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1719752311684071469

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's kind of astonishing how hard Israel lost the propaganda war. They clearly haven't handled the transition from 20th to 21st century media very well, whereas Hamas is on point: nothing but Israeli atrocities against civilians and Hamas attacks against military targets. It's a one-two rhetorical punch for the whole Islamic world, something like "here's why you should hate Israel" followed by "and here's how easily we could beat them if we fought back"

https://twitter.com/samknight1/status/1720873179638321263

On the military front the IDF seems to be sending in vehicles with zero infantry support (or the infantry are all hiding in the vehicles), a strategy pioneered by Russia at Grozny. As a consequence, Hamas fighters are able to freely pop out of bushes behind them and sprint right up to plant IEDs

https://twitter.com/HistoryLegends_/status/1720504879888687137

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

It's kind of astonishing how hard Israel lost the propaganda war. They clearly haven't handled the transition from 20th to 21st century media very well

1992: 45% of Americans support Israel
2022: 75% of Americans support Israel

What planet are you coming from? Israel only really started winning the propaganda war in the 21st century. The whole narrative which tries to emphasize that Palestine is morally superior to Israel because Israel bombs hospitals and refugee camps has been a dramatic failure everywhere.

I wasn't talking about Americans because Hamas is clearly operating under the assumption that America will always side with Israel no matter what. There are Americans who would still be trying to make excuses for them even if they dropped a nuke on Gaza. Their goal was to create a constant gap between the quietly pro-Israeli Arab regimes and their overwhelmingly anti-Israeli populations and in that they've achieved overwhelming success. Any Westerners they happen to convince are just the icing on the cake.

Though your evidence is pretty weak and even in the US there's pretty clear rising opposition. Polls put support for a ceasefire over 60% and support for arming Israel under 50%, and that was in the immediate aftermath of the attack before the bombing campaign and ground invasion began. It's also worth noting that nearly all of that overwhelming support comes from Boomers, with Boomer support for Israel sitting at almost 85% when Zoomer support doesn't even break 30%. So expect even the baseline "Israel vs Palestine" numbers to shift pretty rapidly over the coming decade as Boomers die off.

The gigantic protests and blockades against Israeli arms are also a sign that the political wind has shifted. Never before have so many assembled in favour of the Palestinian cause from outside the Islamic world. Over time that trend will only increase.

I sent Senator AFE and moderator KoppaDaQuick personal messages that they should be ashamed of themselves for openly supporting the terrorists of Hamas. Instead, they should support Israel and the Jewish People, who have been encircled and oppressed and killed for centuries by various enemies and who have every right to defend themselves and go after Hamas terrorists, now and forever!

Hey bud, if I "support" Hamas as you baselessly accuse me of, show me any one of my posts here where I do.

For the record in my case I don't believe you are supporting what Hamas is doing. However you're supporting a ceasefire. So you give them a free pass for what they have done. Like for you they can abduct civilians, rape them, decapitate them and Israel cannot destroy them and some kind of ceasefire should be imposed so Hamas will nicely be able to do the same thing in a few months/few years.


You really don't see how this ceasefire you want it to be implemented is going to make Hamas survive do you?

Literally every victorious war fought by Israel featured conveniently timed ceasefires to allow them to consolidate gains so it would be pretty ironic if they were dealt their worst defeat and then restrained by a ceasefire afterwards.

But regardless, I've got bad news for you: Hamas is going to survive regardless. Israel is incapable of achieving its stated goals. Eliminating Hamas would require years of occupation and counterinsurgency of which they've demonstrated zero capability. Being good at obliterating buildings with air strikes doesn't indicate any ability at being able to occupy the ruins with troops, let alone figuring out which Gazans are loyal to Hamas.

In the short run, the choice isn't "ceasefire or victory", it's "ceasefire now in a position of strength or ceasefire later after military humiliation like Lebanon 2006". Israel can try to implement a favourable and lasting peace settlement while they're still in a position of power, or they can delude themselves into thinking their relative superiority today will last forever and eventually their enemies will be the ones imposing the terms.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Israel could nuke, eradicate, and cleanse Gaza and many of its supporters would simply say it was necessary to prevent Holocaust 2...

One side has actually demonstrated in horrific detail that it will attempt to kill every member of the other side the second they get the chance, including babies, but yes, let's make up hypotheticals to demonize the Jews.

The IDF has a far worse baby-enemy combatant ratio than Hamas does and people are still defending them so...