The grand coalitions that are Team Blue and Team Red are changing sub-groups.
We may be in the process of seeing Red dump the "Money" sub-group and going with MAGA.
That might make the "pro-growth" voters independent, it might mean Blue picks us up. Basically we'll see what happens after Biden and Trump leave the stage.
We have no idea how many of those thousands of dead are civilians. Hamas claims all of them. Israel claims for every militant they're killing between one and two civilians.
If Israel is right, then this is not an "ongoing genocide".
As of December Israel had dropped two bombs for every person killed. That suggests they're taking steps to avoid killing civilians and are not attempting to "wipe out Gaza".
This is a brutal war. The civilians are caught up in it. By the nature of the fighting they're going to suffer.
Ethically, the question is whether or not 10-7 justifies a brutal war. That's a no brainer, the answer is "yes".
DavidTC: Hamas’ stated position is, at the farthest, ‘No Jews in the area that we claim as Palestine’, not ‘No Jews in the entire world’.
"Palestine" is defined as "from the river to the sea", i.e. "all of current Israel".
The Jews in Israel will flee or die. The "die" part was spelled out in their charter. They have made it clear, most recently on 10-7, that they consider all Jewish civilians to be targets.
Calling them a "resistance movement" ignores that what they're resisting is the basic existence of a Jewish state and the basic existence of Jews in that area.
The statement "Hamas has finally agreed" was serious spin, not sure from who.
The proposal they "agreed" to wasn't what Israel offered. Ergo they made a counter-proposal.
Big differences was they wouldn't have to hand over any living hostages in the first round (handing people over "dead or alive" means "dead"), the ceasefire would be permanent (although in stages), and Hamas would be left in charge of Gaza.
North: and they haven’t engaged in wild attacks on Israel despite constant settler provocation.
Almost like the settlers aren't the biggest problem and the two groups aren't the same.
Something like 90% of Gaza consider themselves to be refugees from the original war. When they talk about "settlements" or "the occupation", they mean all of Israel. They've been very clear on this point, they've been consistent on this point.
Hezbollah joined a multifactional government and faces pressure to not poke the bear.
Hamas literally was the government. A poll was done before 10-7 and the bulk of Gaza wanted Hamas to do something like that.
The people of Gaza wanted the war.
We are way beyond Trump supporter level of delusion on what the expected result was supposed to be. For that matter the people of Gaza still support Hamas.
A supposedly neutral reporter was explaining how Hamas should get a pass on it's various misdeeds (i.e. war crimes) because it represents the legit political asperations of the people of Gaza.
North: 50% of the extremity and drama of 10-7 was due to the Israeli’s... draw down
This is like saying 911 was the USA's fault for not putting metal doors in the airplanes.
It's true, there was a failure of imagination.
The Gazans have nothing to lose so of course they embrace maximalist rhetoric.
The current war showcases that they do have lots to lose.
They have lost more land with every war and with every failed peace offer where they could have set up a state.
It's not just rhetoric, they really do believe what they say and they really do act accordingly.
untangling Israel from Palestinian lands and ceasing its land grabbing from Palestinians is a huge strategic, moral and political boon for the State of Israel.
Agreed. But that won't lead to peace this generation and probably not the next several.
North: It is the Israeli rights deranged fetish for land
The people of Gaza talk about "the occupation" going on for 70+ years. They're very clear that the RoR needs to undo that. That the conflict is over that land.
Hamas' actions and charter back that up. Ditto the timeline of the conflict. Ditto the multiple refusals to make peace and set up a state of their own.
To think that we could settle this if we stopped the settlers is to believe the people of Gaza are lying about what they want and why.
only one side is capable of prosecuting a war.
10-7 showed otherwise.
And that comes with all the difficulties that insurgent combatants present.
This insurgency ran a gov which controlled millions of people. If they were a country then they'd be #142 or so. A hair less than Qatar. Their military budget is roughly $350 million a year.
The "failure" in Afghanistan depends on what the goals were. Killing OBL was enough reason to invade. Revenge and showcasing that 911 was a bad idea from the attackers point of view is a fine reason for a war.
The failure was in not leaving sooner.
Similarly, Israel had to invade and attack Hamas after 10-7.
Killing 100 Palestinians for every Jew Hamas killed and shattering Palestinian society is fine.
It's showcasing "this is what war with Israel looks like and what should be expected".
The real temptation for Israel is to stay there and run the place. That won't end well.
InMD: I’m not sure ‘sorry but we can’t think straight right now’ is a convincing justification for strategic military action.
The "convincing justification" for the war is 10-7.
A war that removes Hamas is also a war that shatters Gazania society, but that's fine. We've hit that point.
Hamas really are Na.zis. Claiming they should be left in charge of Gaza is the equiv of claiming Hit.ler should have been left in charge of Germany post ww2.
Israel doesn't need to kill every supporter of Hamas anymore than we needed to kill every supporter of Adolf.
The question asked was how long will the Israeli public support the war given how hard it is on them. The answer is "many years".
Philip: What the population of the nation state thinks is probably a very different matter.
I thought that and then tried to find out what the population really thinks. Far as I can tell, they view the war as fundamental for the survival of the state of Israel.
Yes, Bibi probably views it as fundamental for his own personal political survival, but that's a different issue.
The calls for Bibi to step down shouldn't be viewed as a lack of support for the war. We had unified public support for the 911 war until we decided to expand it to Iraq.
We had a lot less at stake and had fewer dead adjusted for population. The Israeli population would support the war for the next few years.
North: Israel wildly and disproportionately reacting to rocket attacks
Every time there is a rocket attack, between hundreds and tens of thousands of civilians need to take shelter.
What is a "proportional" reaction to that. Then after we have figured out what the reaction for one rocket should be, there have been thousands or tens of thousands.
Far as I can tell, we're in "all out war" territory right there. That would be the US's reaction to tens of thousands of our civilians being terrorized thousands of times.
FAICT, the only people in Israel to oppose the war are the families of the hostages. They have to use language like "make a deal" because saying "end the war" is a non-starter.
However Hamas never had the ability to return all of the hostages and they're mostly dead.
68% of Israeli Jews don't want aid trucks sent into Gaza because it will help Hamas. The killing of the peace activists at the music concert has sent the message that peace isn't an option.
However #6, i.e. make a deal that leaves Hamas in charge and doing the occasional 10-6, is viewed as a 2nd holocaust. Options can be horrible and still much better than that.
RE: #5
I think this was the US' idea. It seems breath takingly unrealistic but whatever.
RE: #3
For Gaza, the land was taken 70+ years ago. That's what the bulk of the population wants back. However with Germany, with the benefit of hindsight, I think our efforts and re-educating them failed and they changed their minds on their own.
RE: #4
Egypt is building "temporary" housing for them in case this happens. They are already a brutal dictatorship. They put them in camps, wait a decade for Hamas to come back, and then they go in and commit genocide when that's a problem. World would live with that.
However I think we'll see a corrupt dictatorship of some flavor.
I didn't give links to show Israeli support on my other post.
"There's a consensus in Israel that the war should continue until Hamas is not a military threat on Israel and does not control the Gaza Strip as such,"
What they think is letting Hamas govern Gaza gives them the resources to commit mass murder/terror.
The interesting question is what happens after Hamas is taken down.
The ideas I've heard are...
1) Set up a corrupt dictatorship (i.e. let the PA run things).
2) Multiple Clans running things.
3) De-nazification like Germany after WW2
4) Push all of them in Egypt
5) Have Saudi Arabia rule for a while.
From the Israeli point of view any of those would arguably be better than Hamas.
Israel keeps rejecting the "the war will end and then Hamas will continue terrorism" aspect to these proposals.
If that's still the hang up, then we will probably see a Rafa attack. The "deal" was made shortly after Israel ordered 100k civilians to leave.
Israel thinks it can kill about 10k Hamas soldiers in Rafa at the cost of a few tens of thousands of civilians. So we might see the number of dead double.
From Israel's point of view that probably looks like a bargain.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Class in 21st Century America”
The grand coalitions that are Team Blue and Team Red are changing sub-groups.
We may be in the process of seeing Red dump the "Money" sub-group and going with MAGA.
That might make the "pro-growth" voters independent, it might mean Blue picks us up. Basically we'll see what happens after Biden and Trump leave the stage.
On “Open Mic for the week of 5/6/2024”
Israel lives in a nasty place and does nasty things, some of them unnecessary.
That's going to give them bad marketing and in a black-hat vs white-hat worldview, whoever opposes them must get good marketing.
"
The emails was HRC acting guilty as all get out and also mishandling the political fall out at every stage.
To quote Obama, "Political Malpractice".
Far as I can tell, she created the server to hide stuff... if/when she had anything to hide. However that never actually happened.
So she had the cover up but not actually the crime. Part that actually caused the most trouble was her needing to explain what she was doing and why.
"
We have no idea how many of those thousands of dead are civilians. Hamas claims all of them. Israel claims for every militant they're killing between one and two civilians.
If Israel is right, then this is not an "ongoing genocide".
As of December Israel had dropped two bombs for every person killed. That suggests they're taking steps to avoid killing civilians and are not attempting to "wipe out Gaza".
This is a brutal war. The civilians are caught up in it. By the nature of the fighting they're going to suffer.
Ethically, the question is whether or not 10-7 justifies a brutal war. That's a no brainer, the answer is "yes".
"
DavidTC: Hamas’ stated position is, at the farthest, ‘No Jews in the area that we claim as Palestine’, not ‘No Jews in the entire world’.
"Palestine" is defined as "from the river to the sea", i.e. "all of current Israel".
The Jews in Israel will flee or die. The "die" part was spelled out in their charter. They have made it clear, most recently on 10-7, that they consider all Jewish civilians to be targets.
Calling them a "resistance movement" ignores that what they're resisting is the basic existence of a Jewish state and the basic existence of Jews in that area.
Put differently, they're openly genocidal.
"
The statement "Hamas has finally agreed" was serious spin, not sure from who.
The proposal they "agreed" to wasn't what Israel offered. Ergo they made a counter-proposal.
Big differences was they wouldn't have to hand over any living hostages in the first round (handing people over "dead or alive" means "dead"), the ceasefire would be permanent (although in stages), and Hamas would be left in charge of Gaza.
"
North: and they haven’t engaged in wild attacks on Israel despite constant settler provocation.
Almost like the settlers aren't the biggest problem and the two groups aren't the same.
Something like 90% of Gaza consider themselves to be refugees from the original war. When they talk about "settlements" or "the occupation", they mean all of Israel. They've been very clear on this point, they've been consistent on this point.
"
Hezbollah joined a multifactional government and faces pressure to not poke the bear.
Hamas literally was the government. A poll was done before 10-7 and the bulk of Gaza wanted Hamas to do something like that.
The people of Gaza wanted the war.
We are way beyond Trump supporter level of delusion on what the expected result was supposed to be. For that matter the people of Gaza still support Hamas.
A supposedly neutral reporter was explaining how Hamas should get a pass on it's various misdeeds (i.e. war crimes) because it represents the legit political asperations of the people of Gaza.
"
Details of the ceasefire proposal.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas
I find it hard to believe Israel will go for this. This would leave Hamas in charge of Gaza.
"
North: 50% of the extremity and drama of 10-7 was due to the Israeli’s... draw down
This is like saying 911 was the USA's fault for not putting metal doors in the airplanes.
It's true, there was a failure of imagination.
The Gazans have nothing to lose so of course they embrace maximalist rhetoric.
The current war showcases that they do have lots to lose.
They have lost more land with every war and with every failed peace offer where they could have set up a state.
It's not just rhetoric, they really do believe what they say and they really do act accordingly.
untangling Israel from Palestinian lands and ceasing its land grabbing from Palestinians is a huge strategic, moral and political boon for the State of Israel.
Agreed. But that won't lead to peace this generation and probably not the next several.
"
What is the definition of "Zionist" here?
"
North: It is the Israeli rights deranged fetish for land
The people of Gaza talk about "the occupation" going on for 70+ years. They're very clear that the RoR needs to undo that. That the conflict is over that land.
Hamas' actions and charter back that up. Ditto the timeline of the conflict. Ditto the multiple refusals to make peace and set up a state of their own.
To think that we could settle this if we stopped the settlers is to believe the people of Gaza are lying about what they want and why.
only one side is capable of prosecuting a war.
10-7 showed otherwise.
And that comes with all the difficulties that insurgent combatants present.
This insurgency ran a gov which controlled millions of people. If they were a country then they'd be #142 or so. A hair less than Qatar. Their military budget is roughly $350 million a year.
"
The "failure" in Afghanistan depends on what the goals were. Killing OBL was enough reason to invade. Revenge and showcasing that 911 was a bad idea from the attackers point of view is a fine reason for a war.
The failure was in not leaving sooner.
Similarly, Israel had to invade and attack Hamas after 10-7.
Killing 100 Palestinians for every Jew Hamas killed and shattering Palestinian society is fine.
It's showcasing "this is what war with Israel looks like and what should be expected".
The real temptation for Israel is to stay there and run the place. That won't end well.
"
Sorry, that should have been "removes Hamas from power".
"
InMD: I’m not sure ‘sorry but we can’t think straight right now’ is a convincing justification for strategic military action.
The "convincing justification" for the war is 10-7.
A war that removes Hamas is also a war that shatters Gazania society, but that's fine. We've hit that point.
Hamas really are Na.zis. Claiming they should be left in charge of Gaza is the equiv of claiming Hit.ler should have been left in charge of Germany post ww2.
Israel doesn't need to kill every supporter of Hamas anymore than we needed to kill every supporter of Adolf.
The question asked was how long will the Israeli public support the war given how hard it is on them. The answer is "many years".
"
Philip: What the population of the nation state thinks is probably a very different matter.
I thought that and then tried to find out what the population really thinks. Far as I can tell, they view the war as fundamental for the survival of the state of Israel.
Yes, Bibi probably views it as fundamental for his own personal political survival, but that's a different issue.
The calls for Bibi to step down shouldn't be viewed as a lack of support for the war. We had unified public support for the 911 war until we decided to expand it to Iraq.
We had a lot less at stake and had fewer dead adjusted for population. The Israeli population would support the war for the next few years.
"
North: Israel wildly and disproportionately reacting to rocket attacks
Every time there is a rocket attack, between hundreds and tens of thousands of civilians need to take shelter.
What is a "proportional" reaction to that. Then after we have figured out what the reaction for one rocket should be, there have been thousands or tens of thousands.
Far as I can tell, we're in "all out war" territory right there. That would be the US's reaction to tens of thousands of our civilians being terrorized thousands of times.
"
InMD: Do you think a second Holocaust is actually possible against a nuclear weapons state...
Me? Of course I don't. I'm not Jewish and I'm not there.
But that's where Israel's head is at and will be for years.
They currently view Hamas as an existential threat. The idea that Israel is going to give up the war because it's hard for Israel is nonsense.
Israel thinks it's in a serious war for it's survival. That basic concept need to frame what is happening and what can happen.
"
North: They also know war is hard on them.
Not as hard as a second holocaust would be.
FAICT, the only people in Israel to oppose the war are the families of the hostages. They have to use language like "make a deal" because saying "end the war" is a non-starter.
However Hamas never had the ability to return all of the hostages and they're mostly dead.
68% of Israeli Jews don't want aid trucks sent into Gaza because it will help Hamas. The killing of the peace activists at the music concert has sent the message that peace isn't an option.
"
Agreed that all options are bad.
However #6, i.e. make a deal that leaves Hamas in charge and doing the occasional 10-6, is viewed as a 2nd holocaust. Options can be horrible and still much better than that.
RE: #5
I think this was the US' idea. It seems breath takingly unrealistic but whatever.
RE: #3
For Gaza, the land was taken 70+ years ago. That's what the bulk of the population wants back. However with Germany, with the benefit of hindsight, I think our efforts and re-educating them failed and they changed their minds on their own.
RE: #4
Egypt is building "temporary" housing for them in case this happens. They are already a brutal dictatorship. They put them in camps, wait a decade for Hamas to come back, and then they go in and commit genocide when that's a problem. World would live with that.
However I think we'll see a corrupt dictatorship of some flavor.
"
I didn't give links to show Israeli support on my other post.
"There's a consensus in Israel that the war should continue until Hamas is not a military threat on Israel and does not control the Gaza Strip as such,"
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/09/1236537541/israel-five-months-hamas-war
They view the war as existential. They know the war is hard on the Palestinians but whatever.
"
What they think is letting Hamas govern Gaza gives them the resources to commit mass murder/terror.
The interesting question is what happens after Hamas is taken down.
The ideas I've heard are...
1) Set up a corrupt dictatorship (i.e. let the PA run things).
2) Multiple Clans running things.
3) De-nazification like Germany after WW2
4) Push all of them in Egypt
5) Have Saudi Arabia rule for a while.
From the Israeli point of view any of those would arguably be better than Hamas.
"
Kazzy: The implication is that Hamas has been holding up any and all ceasefire agreements.
"Ceasefire" means: a temporary suspension of fighting
Hamas has been insisting that it won't release the hostages until it gets a "permanent ceasefire" with Israel withdrawing and not coming back.
So it doesn't want a "ceasefire", it wants to end the war. It has also promised to stage 10-7 again.
In a normal conflict the losing side would surrender and not call for the winning side to surrender.
"
The Israeli public is insisting on "deal with Hamas this time". The war is popular even if Bibi himself is not.
Put a dove in there and there's a good chance we'd still see a Rafa invasion.
"
Israel keeps rejecting the "the war will end and then Hamas will continue terrorism" aspect to these proposals.
If that's still the hang up, then we will probably see a Rafa attack. The "deal" was made shortly after Israel ordered 100k civilians to leave.
Israel thinks it can kill about 10k Hamas soldiers in Rafa at the cost of a few tens of thousands of civilians. So we might see the number of dead double.
From Israel's point of view that probably looks like a bargain.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.