If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel — neomac

I think I already mentioned that it was the US that deployed it's own forces to protect Israel. Not the other way around. — ssu

So what? My premise is that strategic interest of the US in the Middle East is to prevent the emergence of regional powers that challenge the American hegemony. On that occasion, as explained in the link, Israel despite being attacked by Iraq refrained from retaliating because this better served the American-led Arab coalition to counter Saddam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War — neomac

HAH HAH!!!
Well, I cannot fathom just what that supposed to be of an example of the "strategic alliance" that Israel had covert arms deals with Iran. For the US similar weapons deliveries was the Iran-Contra scandal, that shook Reagan's administration. So Israel makes shady deals with it's neighbors that vow to destroy it.

And the Osirak strike? Well, again here (just as with similar strike in Libya) Israel had first and foremost it's own agenda in having nuclear dominance in the region. Heaven forbid any kind of parity!!! Again read just how suspicious JFK was about the Israeli nuclear weapons program, but then that was before 1967. — ssu

Again, so what? What happened is still consistent with the logic I stated above. Israel can fit into the American strategic goals in the Middle East, like preventing the emergence of a regional power hostile to the American hegemony. Ideological conflicts can be put aside if there is a more threatening incumbent common enemy: do you remember when Hillary Clinton claimed “we created Al-Qaeda”?
You can be skeptical all you want about the efficacy of such strategies, that doesn’t make them less real.

I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough — neomac

But that's my whole point. This "solid" relationship happened only after 1967 and yes, there's bipartisan support. As I stated, the whole reason is that the US is the staunch ally of Israel is because both parties want to get votes and win elections. That's it. For the US it's a domestic issue. That's the key to this "strategic alliance". And that's why Biden or anybody cannot push Netanyahu around. Heck, he'll just voice his concerns to the both parties and it's hell for the US president. — ssu

Yes you claimed that it is a domestic issue. But what is that supposed to mean? First of all, that doesn’t exclude strategic concerns: indeed, all costly strategic foreign policies can have domestic impact in a democracy. Second, your explanation seemed to rely on the role of the Evangelical Christians supporting Zionism (which is not bipartisan as the support for Israel is). Now if your point is that Biden supports Israel because he will have greater chance to win the elections by pleasing Evangelical Christians, I countered: “Evangelicals support Trump not Biden, even if Biden decides to support Israel. If Biden wanted to compact his democratic front, assuming the anti-Israel front was significantly stronger among democrats, then it would be more convenient for Biden to not support Israel. ” (and BTW Biden is also catholic, not the ideal candidate for Evangelicals).

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. — neomac

Then give the example when Israel has done anything to help it's ally US. As I have stated, this "special relationship" with Israel started only after the six day war. And it's been quite one sided, especially when there's no threat of Soviet Union: no country in the region is armed by China as the Soviet Union did. There are no Chinese instructors in the Middle East. — ssu

If the question is about “ Israel has done ANYTHING to help it's ally US”, I gave you the examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
The alliance is strategic and it doesn’t need to focus exclusively on current military threats , so it concerns the emergence of anti-Western regional powers (like Iran) and the potential penetration of great power rivals in the Middle-East (like Russia and China), assuming that the US is reasoning as an hegemon.
If you are claiming that Israel is INFLUENCING American foreign policies that are AGAINST the American national interest, I would claim instead that the American support for Israel is solid, longstanding and bipartisan so that’s for me enough to claim that is in the American perceived interested to preserve Israel (or, if you prefer, that the pros to preserve an alliance with Israel are estimated to outweigh the cons) and that makes sense given how resourceful and geographically strategic Israel is in the Middle East.

The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying. — neomac

The US doesn't have any military bases in Israel. The US has military bases in Turkey, in Kuwait, the Gulf States. It has friendly ties to Egypt and Jordan. What is the geographic position so favorable in tiny Israel? And intelligence sharing. Really, all of these billions of dollars — ssu

I think the US-Israel partnership is more solid and resourceful than the partnership with Egypt, Turkey or other Arab countries which can support terrorism, flirt with China and Russia, and lack the democratic flavour Israel has. And even if the US has military bases here and there (I was talking about the military and intelligence projection of Israel, though), the challenges against American hegemony by regional and global powers are growing in intensity and number. So it doesn’t seem to be the best moment for the US to give up on one of its most powerful allies. Concerning the “all of these billions of dollars”, Israel may be as expensive and dubiously beneficial as any policy insurance. Given the stakes and the uncertainties, billions of dollars may never be enough though.

Basically the alliance with Israel serve one purpose: domestic politics in the US. Both political parties uphold the staunch special relationship at any cost to win elections, to woo especially the Evangelists for whom Israel is a biblical entity to be supported. Even the large Jewish population of the US (7,6 million) understands that Israel is a normal country and can be critical of politics in Israel, but not the whacky Evangelists who wait for the rupture and the second coming of the Christ. The Holy Land getting attacked rhymes well with that. After all, to the Evangelicals, the Jewish Israelites are Gods people too. Hence the support of Israel has nothing to do with security policy or global realpolitik. And Netanyahu knows this. — ssu

I think you are overestimating the importance of the Evangelical Zionism which is not only grounded in the American internal polarisation but also in Netanyahu’s attitude toward it (https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/evangelical-youth-losing-love-for-israel-by-35-percent-study-shows-671178).
Evangelicals support Trump not Biden, even if Biden decides to support Israel. If Biden wanted to compact his democratic front, assuming the anti-Israel front was significantly stronger among democrats, then it would be more convenient for Biden to not support Israel.

Basically here's the dire extrapolation of the catastrohy of the US foreing policy in the Middle East. It has gone all through the decades worse and worse falling to another lower level.

The 1950's was the height of US influence: The Middle East had a treaty alliance like NATO in the case of CENTO with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey aligned in the organization. Then Iraq had a revolution.

Next phase was worse, but still good: This was the "Twin Pillars" policy were Saudi-Arabia and Imperial Iran were the backbone of the US alliance in the Middle East. And then came the Iranian revolution where the most important, most armed ally in the region suddenly changed to be an enemy, a rogue state from the US.

Perhaps last the swansong of the US happened when the utterly reckless dictator of Iraq attacked it's former war financier Kuwait. The Bush the older could create a truly impressive alliance of not only all of the Western allies of UK, France etc and all of the Gulf States, but Morocco, Pakistan, Egypt even Assad's Syria sending a tank division. With approval from the Soviet Union, this was the pinnacle of US diplomacy and power. Luckily Bush took the advice of the Saudis and didn't invade Iraq. Yet the episode it went into the head of a tiny cabal called the neoconservatives.

Next phase was worse: Now the time of "Dual Containment", containing both Iraq and Iran (both former allies, do take note of that!), might sound as the lowest, but it got worse, far worse. After 9/11 for totally invented reason (a nuclear program that didn't exist anymore) the neocons had their war in Iraq and the US attacked and occupied an Arab country, even if just having attacked and occupied another country (Afghanistan).

Next phase was worse: The US stayed in Iraq with a small force, which now could be attacked by Iran and Iranian proxies and the relationship with the Iraqi government, the one originally installed by the US, is bad. The as Syria fell into civil war, you have US troops there alongside Russian troops, who have their own agenda.

If you simply extrapolate from the above the future is bleak for the US. It will continue standing with it's special-relationship Israel and simply alienate it's former allies. So when will Egypt become a rogue state? Or if the Saudi kingdom falls? In the end likely Israel will be the last place where the US can be.

Then surely Israel will have strategic importance. — ssu

The political elites of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are most certainly not pro-Hamas. The openness of Saudi Arabia to economic partnership with Israel was normalising the relations of Israel and part of the Arab world, EVEN IF the Palestinian cause wasn’t solved yet. Most certainly the Israeli reaction in Gaza raises socio-political concerns in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, because the muslim population is sensitive about the Palestinian issue. But how serious is the risk that Israel’s current retaliation is going to alienate Saudi Arabia and Egypt’ political elites? I think that this may be brought on the political table by the American informal network inside Israel to define a post-Netanyahu strategy (that might include smearing campaign against Netanyahu and prison, investments to reconstruct Gaza, etc.).
Israel will have strategic importance in both cases: if it succeeds in normalising the relation with other Arab countries, it’s a strategic success, if the normalisation fails is a strategic failure, Israel will remain the only ally with strategic importance in the Middle East.

I don't think that the US has to do anything (and will do anything) about the internal Israeli politics. You see, this goes only one way: Israel influences US politics, not the other way around. If you say it does, please give me a concrete example. — ssu

Americans have their material leverages (like the American package of military aid), but I guess their diplomatic network can reach Israeli military-intelligence apparatuses as well as political opposition inside Israel to figure out a post-Netanyahu strategy.
Besides the Israeli lobby can be so powerful over American administrations because of the mostly bipartisan American interest in the region: Israel can still be instrumental to contain the risk of emerging regional powers in the Middle East as previously was to counter Soviet Union influence in the region. Here two examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_in_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

I don't recall Isreal and Bibi helping the US to defeat ISIS. Actually what I do remember is that islamists fighting Assad's forces who were wounded were helped by Israel: the islamists would simply leave the wounded on the Isreali side of the Golan Heights and Israeli soldiers would pick them up and take them to a hospital. Pretty honourable thing to do... but I'm not sure if they would have done the same for Syrian troops. In all, Israel and Bibi are just interested in themselves. — ssu

But you are talking about Netanyahu, I’m talking about Israel. The US is evidently committed to the survival and security of Israel in the region, not to a specific Israeli leadership. And my understanding is that Netanyahu political prospects have become pretty grim. Maybe Netanyahu “getting rid” of Hamas is the way Israel might get rid of Netanyahu as well as neutralise his toxic fanbase.

Umm... isn't the US and Egypt in good terms too? Wouldn't geopolitically the stability of Egypt be here more important? The Suez canal is in Egypt. Btw, those gas fields that Israel has aren't so important. And as Israeli is a very wealthy country, I guess it does have a lot of internet cables. — ssu

It’s not an aut-aut choice. The more the better. But I guess the US-Israel partnership is more solid and resourceful than the partnership with Egypt. The geographic position of Israel is relevant for military and intelligence projection, also against/for possible sabotage operations in a region that is dense of major routes critical to the World economy. That’s all I’m saying.

Reasonable guy that makes good points from someone who was up close with the group. He represents a badly needed moderate position. — schopenhauer1

A moderate position that Hamas is clearly willing to destroy also in Israel. Indeed, Hamas attack was targeting the Israeli population and audience politically opposing Nathanyahu and turn them into supporters of Nathanyahu's hawkish response:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/29/world/europe/israel-reservists-hamas-war.html

For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). — neomac

That would actually be the least of their problems.

The perpetual war in the Middle East simply has had and will have a destabilizing effect and unlike the US, European countries will have to deal with the flow of refugees because the Israel and the Levant is in the Mediterranean and not on the Caribian Sea. What will Bibi afterwards with the 2,2 million Palestinians as Israel likely kill only some tens of thousands of them in this war? Or, Lebanon, which basically is now bankrupt and facing, has already 1,5 million refugees from Syria. Hence if the war escalates into Bibi vowing to destroy Hezbollah, Lebanon turning into a battlefield can cause huge amounts of refugee flight again.

Then the war can destabilize countries like Egypt and not Lebanon, that do have a peace agreement with Israel and does have a population that generally despises what Israel is doing. When Egypt had it's brief encounter with democracy, the only organized opposition group won, which wasn't actually so eager anymore to hold on to the peace agreement in all cases. — ssu

Immigration, resident Muslim (or pro-Palestinian) electorate and Islamist terrorism are all potential issues ensuing from the conflict in Israel, sure. So containing the risk of escalation and pursuing a longer term solution for the crisis in the Middle East is desirable. But HOW? By launching an international criminal investigation against Nathnayahu? Impose economic sanctions against Israel? By letting the anti-Western propaganda galvanize the popular outrage in the Middle East and in the West? Hell no. By diplomatically pressuring Israel to stop? How is that supposed to work?
My idea is that when Nathanyahu’s compulsive response will exhaust its impetus, the US will have the best opportunity for diplomatically pressing his ousting as well as a significant change in Israel political strategy toward the Palestinian issue.

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed. — neomac

Russia has attacked already two countries and wants to annex large parts of Ukraine. Russia is a threat to EU and NATO member states. It's quite different than a terrorist organization. Hence there is no similar unified response from the EU as there was in this case as there was in the case of Ukraine. — ssu

I don’t need an argument for why they are different, but one for why they better be different, since there are non-negligible idealogical and functional links between the two crisis. They are both attacks on a Western-led World Order and they are reciprocally instrumental in dividing the West’s energies, attention and unity.

If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena — neomac

I'm sorry, is Israel an ally of NATO? Has Israel committed ever troops or assistance to help any other country than itself? Is it a member of EU? First and foremost, the US is an ally to Israel that is basically the only advance country which the US funds. — ssu

Right, Israel is a Western ally as much as Japan can be, through the strategic cooperation with the US, the leader of the Western alliance. But the reason why the Western alliance with Israel is not getting any stronger is essentially because of the Palestinian issue. BTW many European states didn’t want to get involved in the Ukrainian war too and the reason why the Western alliance with Ukraine didn’t get any stronger is essentially because of Russia. And yet you seem to be for Western support in the case of Ukraine but not in the case of Israel because of the “humanitarian crisis”, right?
I think that if the West doesn’t support Israel the “humanitarian crisis” could worsen, for example because it would make the escalation in the area more likely.

AND a larger alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. — neomac

As the interview I above posted, yes, lot of that 14 billion weapons aid will go to weapons development.

But why not then do this with the allies that actually come to help the US in it's wars? Why not for example the UK? Give them the aid to make new joint ventures on new weapon systems with the British! They would be very happy if the "special relationship" with the US really would be a special relationship. They have a sound, well function military industrial complex I think better than Israel. Especially after the disaster of Brexit, they need friends. The British have gone with you to into Afghanistan, into Iraq, defended Kuwait alongside the US. Israel has not. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to help and improve the armed forces of your ally that for example can help you all around the World (like with AUKUS), including in the Far East?

Why not the British? They are easier and less problematic than Bibi.
skynews-japan-hiroshima-joe-biden_6160185.jpg

Oh but I forget: Israel's security and objectives are the objectives of the US. In that order. Because... Judeo-Christian heritage, because Israel is a democracy, etc. — ssu

To which I would add: the geographic location of Israel (like the proximity to the Suez Canal and its strategic relevance for the traffic of oil, gas, commerce, the internet cables), the expertise and means that Israel has dealing with Middle Eastern regional conflicts, the Jewish lobby in the US.
While UK was more useful to the US, before the Brexit, when it was inside the EU (because it could better support pro-American policies). But it’s not an out-out issue: both countries are good and effective American allies. Anyways, Israel is the most problematic ally.

Self-hating Westerners vs self-hating Palestinians (especially starting from minute 7):


Who will win the contest of moral outrage? Give me some pop-corn.

My understanding is that it is of vital interest for the West to be committed to a system of alliance between countries that share the same standards and treat each other by the same standards. Israel is a valid ally in that sense. — neomac

I think that Benkei and actually many others, including Western states do have questions if really Israel's standards are the same as ours. — ssu

I use the expression “having the same standards” as a conscious and convenient simplification to deal with a messy reality. After all I didn’t specify which standards I’m referring to, nor conditions for their assessment. So I’m perfectly aware that there is room to broadly question its application to the case of Israel. But that would be true for other Western allies (Turkey), Western countries (Hungary, Poland), and Western leaders (the US). For example if we are focusing on the respect of “human rights” as the core of Western foreign policy, it’s very much questionable that the US was/is respecting this standard in its past wars and supporting Israel now.
As far as I’m concerned, even if we take “humanitarian concerns” as a core Western standard (take also as a test case the illegal immigrants dying in the Mediterranean), I would still understand it in more “realist” terms: “human rights” are what states can more likely commit to enforce AT BEST within the territory they are effectively under their control. Beyond that, in the international arena, and most certainly in the case of contested lands, credibility&accountability of states’ commitments toward “human rights” remain the facto deeply constrained and disputable given the involvement of foreign authorities. A logic of alliance between sovereign powers is what replaces the logic of sovereignty in the international arena, whence the dilemma of the conflict between Israel and Hamas for the West.

Many countries in the West don't see themselves as "allies" of either party. — ssu

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed.
For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). So I’m not surprised to see public gestures meant to contain the risk of a political (given incoming elections) or social backlash. Propaganda serves also that purpose.

I question the "vitality" of being an ally here, just as if Iran would be an "existential" threat to the West either. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, “existential” or “vital” have to do with the security dilemmas we are having in mind. If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena AND a larger  alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. Most certainly for the US, the leader of the Western alliance.
Besides, let’s not forget the historical role played by European powers in the genesis of Israel. History of the christian anti-Semitism is haunting Zionism as much as the history of Western colonialism is haunting anti-Western countries, and the two tend to overlap in the case of Israel for the Arab world. So even condemning Israel now wouldn’t still condone Western historical responsibilities. Again, it’s on Westerners, to see what tradeoff between division and unity is acceptable in the face of anti-Western challenges.



I’m not blind to the toxic nature of Netanyahu’s government (as many Israeli denounced). I’m not trying to defend the Zionist ideology (with its ethnic-based notion of state) or the abuses of the Israeli colonisation. I doubt that we can still comfortably assess the proportionality of the Israeli response, even if we assume that it is going to be effectively eradicating Hamas inside Gaza (and analysts doubt that too).
I simply find it myopic and easy to exploit to understand the current events exclusively in terms of dead civilians accounting/accountability and demand for peace. In the Israeli crisis as much as in the Ukrainian crisis. The weight of the historical legacy and the geopolitical stakes for sovereign states can not just be trumped by a popular wish for peace or humanitarian concerns.
Another remarkable example to support this, while the Western anti-Americans keep whining over the Vietnam war today, yet Vietnam has now become another precious American military ally in the Pacific.

Over time Israel has become more cooperative on this — neomac

Overtime? Well, here will be the really huge problems, which will be quite important. After this the open air prison of Gaza cannot be just excluded like before. No outside force will likely come to Gaza. Or perhaps it might be a fig leaf of a UN mission, and when criminal gangs etc. rule the ruins of Gaza, it's going to be an example of how Palestinians cannot take care of themselves (or something like that). The question what happens next should be on the agenda, but it might not be. — ssu

I do not assume there is a solution for all problems, however desirable. My understanding is that it is of vital interest for the West to be committed to a system of alliance between countries that share the same standards and treat each other by the same standards. Israel is a valid ally in that sense. Hamas not and countries which support Hamas neither.
Besides Israel has shown a cooperative approach in conflict and toward the Palestinian claims of nationality and land on many occasions. And given the history of the jews in the christian and in the muslim world, I find psychologically obtuse to demand more.
I think the international environment around Israel, especially in the middle east should significantly change, to make more easy for Israel to soften its positions. The Abraham Accords were an opportunity in this direction. An initiative coming from the West. What was the response from the anti-Western Rest?

More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? — neomac

Hamas and Putin choose not to be Western, especially with all of it's decadent attention to human rights and democracy and the rights of peoples and minorities etc. Yet Israel isn't Hamas or Russia, but of course if they wish, they can go in that direction. Yet all the Israelis I've met are quite Western people and think of themselves as being West. They don't have the fear of their state as Russians do.

Hence that's not the issue. The issue is how a Western country handles this situation. Does it try to solve something or is it just more about revenge. Or is it just about "mowing the lawn" until the next Palestinian uprising happens. There are many choices. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, that is very much the issue, because Russia, China and Iran have found ways to exploit Western vulnerabilities (like freedom of speech, concern for human rights/life, a population of exploitable “useful idiots”) which they do not have and this gives them a very dangerous advantage over the West. Talking about revenge is underestimating a greater threat coming from an alliance of anti-Western and anti-Israel aggressive authoritarian regimes. That’s why the conflict has geopolitical significance.
Concerning the logic of feud and revenge (which the West managed to get rid of within the territories UNDER their control and over several generations) can lead to an eternal conflict as much as to a genocide. Or to a nuclear bomb. But for sure putting the moral burden of a peaceful resolution and all the moral costs in case of failure on one side, especially if previous attempts failed, may alienate instead of persuading reluctant allies. And mine is also a moral point.

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. — neomac

Well, then I hope you are never put to be an officer position in war, or basically given a rifle and fight in a war. Because it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army: you shoot to kill an armed enemy (before he shoots you) and you don't shoot one that has surrendered or civilians. Your enemy doing that doesn't change what my country ask of me. It all starts from as obvious things like if you have to kill something, then kill it and don't torture it.

Now I don't know what you really meant, but if you have an objection to the application of laws of war because of the actions of the enemy, that we have now, you are the problem if you will go to level as the enemy. So why on Earth didn't the Allies start exterminating all German men, women and children afterwards? Why not sent then the Germans to Auschwitz, since they had already built the infrastructure for industrialized genocide. Why apply them some other standard then and make them feel how untermenschen were treated, neomac? And afterwards, do you think Germany now (assuming you'd leave some spear) was as today? — ssu

Dude, emotional or personal appeals do not work on me. You better put your effort in showing the flaws of my reasoning in its logic or its assumptions.
Notice that you wrote “it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army”, so it depends on how you are taught after all? Those who are taught otherwise, are free to do so? Or do you still want to effectively prevent them from doing so?
The objective in a war is not to respect the law of war or to win a moral argument in a philosophy forum but to win over the enemy. And things can get as ugly and brutal as one can imagine and historically happened.
So one needs a compelling argument for a more proportional military response if this compromises military efficacy: like waste of resources or more propitious opportunities, it doesn’t really grant military victory, it doesn’t politically benefit the winner in the longer run, it weakens the enemies’ support for protracted war, love of humanity. None of these arguments are a magic wand to fix the world, nor to trigger a consistent enough emotional response over time, nor spare us from abuses and exploitative intentions, nor unburden us from the weight of history and the constraints of current power balance.
As far as I’m concerned, laws of war (which are man-made and revisable) exist because all potential belligerents can see a significant benefit in respecting them if they fight among them and/or they can suppress and/or contain the threat coming from those who didn’t commit to such laws when it becomes imminent. Laws of war would be irrelevant if it would be mostly violated or not enforceable. Especially if trumping them makes victory over an enemy more likely.
The West is currently dealing with powerful regimes and ideologies which do not place the value in human life and law of war as Western countries keep doing. And if this gives them a significant strategic advantage in the conflict with the West this is a big trouble for the West.
Instead of your counterfactual, think of actually history: the US nuclear bombed Japan, was this proportionate? how is Japan today? Was the Allied bombing of Germany 1942-1945 proportionate? How is Germany today?
In any case, I don’t think that Israel doesn’t try to abide by the law of war in the current conflict, I’m also far from idealising Israel as if they couldn’t commit abuses. I simply think that the purpose of Hamas which doesn’t abide by the law of war is to make more difficult for Israel to accomplish the task of “minimizing” the civilian casualties in the same way it is possible in more conventional wars where all belligerents care for laws of war, and if the concern for reducing to the minimum civilian casualties would prevent Israel from effectively defeating Hamas on the ground, this approach would in the long run be self-defeating. BTW no other state in he West is living under the same imminent/potential conventional/asymmetric threats Israel is living in middle-east and this may bias our understanding of their situation.

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. — neomac

And that's simply just Hollywood nonsense. Throwing to hell the laws of war doesn't help you, it helps your enemy and undermines your cause and justification. — ssu

First, keeping laws of war may help somebody’s cause only to the extent states and people care about laws of war. Indeed not respecting laws of war didn’t undermine Hamas’ cause and justification. Their historical grievances against the West and their islamist ideology trump laws of war.
Second, I’m not advocating for throwing laws of war. I’m pointing out a problem of their relevance and application wrt the historical circumstances and power balance: if powerful enemies threat the survival of one of our allies, do not abide by laws of war, and can therefore manipulate the war conditions to spin a discrediting narrative against our ally with the precise intent of isolating our ally from our support, that doesn’t help our cause because we would alienate an ally and benefit powerful enemies’s cause, which use our standards, to divide us. And if their strategy succeeds replicate it against us.
Third, in terms of justification the West, there is a load of historical grievances and anti-western narratives so popular even within the West that the West reputation may be unrecoverably compromised. With or without laws of war (see as it is perceived the legitimacy of the war in Iraq no matter how proportional the battle in Felluja was). We can’t hope to win on the ground of justification for the simple reason that demographic trends, extremist ideologies, and state indoctrination in the Rest of the world do not play in our favour. So, my understanding is that the psychological warfare here is not much about how the West can do things better based on their standards, at this point, but about unity in the West against common foes and retort the anti-Western logic against those who promote it, as much as they try to retort our standards against us.

To take the laws of war seriously is important, because it's just an ignorant fallacy that they really would "tie you hands in boxing". You can kill and destroy the enemy quite well. And if you think the laws of war are a hindrance, well, then when having the boxing match just come there with shotgun and shoot your opponent full of lead until the bloody corpse doesn't move. He was such a loser in the first place just waiting for you with those boxing gloves on and thinking you would just try to hit him. As if there would be rules... sucker! — ssu

No idea what point you are trying to make here.

Proportionality as a principle is a manifestation of the law of war’s delicate balance between the military imperative of defeating the enemy as quickly as possible and the humanitarian imperative of mitigating suffering during war as much as possible. Parties to a conflict must not only refrain from attacking civilians and civilian objects deliberately, but they must also make extensive efforts to minimize the incidental harm from their attacks on lawful military targets.

The point was that proportionality is not matter of minimising civilian casualties, but a ratio between maximising military achievements and minimising civilian casualties (nuclear bombing Japan was proportional in WW2?). And that minimising civilian casualties has to do with efforts like early warnings and precision weapons, but the situation is particularly challenging in Gaza, due to the density of the population, the hiding of Hamas combatants among civilians and, to a non-negligible degree, the complicity of the Palestinians themselves with Hamas.
There is an inherent risk in letting Hamas (which doesn’t care about civilians, Israeli or Palestinians) emotionally blackmail us, into isolating Israel. And again, the West is showing its weakness toward the Rest of the World at large. As far as I am concerned, humanitarian institutions are welcome if they manage to make their guidance widely shared, from the West to the Rest, or denounce Western abuses when the West is not significantly challenged by the Rest, not to harass the West which actually gives a shit about humanitarian concerns while the Rest which doesn't give a shit about humanitarian concerns is getting more and more confrontational by exploiting our (not their) sensitivity about human life.

not giving minimal humanitarian aid to over two million people is one troubling issue. — ssu

Over time Isreal has become more cooperative on this
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-says-33-aid-trucks-with-water-food-medical-supplies-entered-gaza-sunday/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-will-allow-significantly-more-humanitarian-aid-to-enter-gaza-from-egypt/

Then comes the question what to do to the southern part. How Israel will conduct the war when it comes to the southern part of the Gaza strip is the real breaker here. Civilians supposed to have gone there(in 48 hours), yet it has also has been bombed. — ssu

Why? If you are a Hamas terrorist, knowing that IDF will catch you in the North, you would flee in the South. Again if the logic here is that Hamas hides behind potentially complicit civilians [1] (apparently no pro-Palestinian here seems interested in promoting the narrative that Palestinians are hostage of Hamas, which betrays their pro-Hamas bias), there is no easy way to isolate Hamas combatants.
If that is the strategy, what’s the military way to get rid of Hamas’ current combatants and capabilities? More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. You can do it if you are so strong that you have a good chance to win with just one hand. If not, then your approach is self-defeating.

[1]

↪neomac
So it seems. Yet I think the question is how Israel defends itself. Is there a legitimate question about using excessive force? I think there is. Is it when 10 000 Palestinian civilians killed? Or 50 000? Or 100 000 out of 2,2 million? Would over 100 000 dead be excessive? Already Israel has made more strikes than the US did in one year in the war in Afghanistan. — ssu

Excessive wrt what? Excessiveness in the law of war is not assessed wrt the number of casualties but wrt militarly efficacy. IDF has targeted, and killed, Hamas commanders and gunmen, as well as destroyed weapons warehouses, command and control centers, tunnels and numerous other assets that enable the terror organization to function. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/06/laurie-blank-follow-up-on-gaza-proportionality-and-the-law-of-war/

The same ones that keep whining about Russia being provoked (while being not aggressed by anybody) and Russian "legitimate" security concerns which led Putin to wage war against Ukraine (so a huge discount on his moral responsibility for his actions), annex Ukrainian territories, and deny the Ukraine's right to exist as independent state after formally acknowledgining its independence, are now whining over Israel defending itself after being provoked through an actual terrorist aggression on Israeli territory from the political faction that is governing Gaza with the support of the local people and without ever being acknowledged as a legitimate state by Israel. And then they accuse others of double standads and hypocrisy.

↪neomac
No. I don't need to repeat the attack by Hamas was unjustified ad nauseum for every internet rando that decides to jump in on the conversation midway. It's tedious. — Benkei

Sure, but I'm less interested in the claim itself, and more in your arguing over "just reasons". So why do you think Hamas was unjustified? Do you think Hamas or Palestinians think that the massacre was not grounded on "just reasons"? Or didn't find it acceptable and yet they executed the massacre anyways? On the other side they were rebelling against the Israeli oppressor. And in war there are civilians as collateral casualties. Besides the ratio of civilian casualties between Israel and Palestine seems heavily unbalanced in favor of Palestine. Right?

people find things acceptable when they are done for just reasons. — Benkei

So you think people don't find doing things for unjust reasons acceptable but do find doing things for just reasons always acceptable? I don't find either claims evidently true or mostly true, if you take acceptable as opposed to rejectable via open political resistance (violent or not) or diaspora or auto-auto-marginalisation if not suicide. I think people overall tend to be sensitive more about violation of their own freedoms or perceived rights, or at most the ones' they really care about, than random others’ and their tolerance over oppression and injustice is pretty high, higher in many non-Westerners than in many Westerners though.
Anyway let’s stick to your “really simple concept”. Why do you think the massacres and attacks on civilians by Hamas is justified or grounded on just reasons [1]? Show me the reasoning you do. Step-by-step, can you spell it out?

[1] my impression is that you equate justification with "having just reasons" where "just" refers to moral justice and "having" refers to what you acknowledge to be grounded on "just reason" independently from the actual personal reasons Hamas agents had. Am I right?

You look like someone who wants to referee a street fight according to chess rules.

I think we can agree that at some point violence to gain independence is justified. — Benkei

What role do you think “justification” is supposed to play?
People may feel oppressed and react against oppression, what would be the purpose of talking “justification” in this situation?

History is replete with examples where violence to gain independence was acceptable. — Benkei

It was acceptable by some, unacceptable by others. What does “being acceptable” have to do with “justification”? Do you mean that all that is acceptable is justified and/or that all that is justified is acceptable? What if X find acceptable what Y doesn't find acceptable?

The point being that if the Palestinian cause for independence is justified, every action by Israel against that is already contaminated as something immoral. And if Israel may punish an immoral attack, then it's corollary would hold true in that the Palestinians may punish the perpetrator who caused their oppression and use some (not all!) violence. — Benkei

Why do you assume that Palestinians or Israel are acting based on whatever YOU take as relevant moral reasons? If X kills Y’s child, and Y kills X or X’s child or X and X’s entire family, why do you think Y would reason in moral terms the way you do? What would be your moral reasoning anyways? Can you spell it out?

↪neomac I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — flannel jesus

The Arab world is deeply entrenched in a cultural environment that is alien to the Western culture as Westerners live it. It is instead dominated by tribalism, feud mentality and islam/ist sectarian preaching (which beheading and children indoctrination into jihadism are an expression). They have learnt to just ape Western language about human rights, international law, and the value of life NONE OF WHICH they are committed to, educated to and inspired by when implementing their institutions. But they use it as a rhetorical bludgeon IF AND ONLY IF it plays against the West (people and institutions), especially as a siren call for Western “useful idiots”. Indeed the Arab world does not make much use of these concepts when they have to deal issues at home or among them. Neither Hamas nor Palestinians give a shit about human rights in the middle east, they want their land from Israel and their blood revenge against Isreal. That’s all. Understandably so, but also who-gives-a-shit-ly so. And it should be evident also how Arabs themselves do not give a shit, nor gave a shit, nor will give a shit about zillions of bombed Palestinian kids in the apartheid prison of Gaza, other than from the fact that they are instrumental to push their geopolitical agenda. They also have learnt the “best” anti-Western arguments (like the Marxist criticism of Western capitalism and imperialism and neocolonialism) from the West itself, the Western “useful idiots”, including the Westernized middle-easterners (which are the most dangerous “useful idiots”).
Outside the West, the Palestinians would be treated as Putin treated the Chechens and now the Ukrainians, or the Chinese treat the Uyghurs, the Turks treat the Kurds. Bloody repression, genocide and concentration camps would be perfectly in order. Russians, Chinese, and Turks don’t give a shit about it.
Now they are using the Palestinians to divide the West, since the West is currently particularly rich in “useful idiots”. So I do not give a shit if Nathanyahu made mistakes for which he deserves not only to be deposed, but even to be literally killed, hanged, tortured to death, or decapitated, along with his closest family. But I would find rather weak from the Westerners to not support Israel in front of the Arab and the Rest of the world. Also a lost opportunity to show the Rest of the world how the Western “useful idiots” are indeed just an irrelevant bunch of “useless idiots”.
Only after Nathanyahu has wrecked to dust Gaza with as many Hamas fighters as possible (hopefully, including their closest families because that’s what is required by the feud logic they understand), it would make more sense to me to immediately have Nathanyahu politically removed along with his supporters (or even better, eliminated physically like in a Hamas operation helped by Mossad, or an entirely Mossad operation then blamed on Hamas) and political trends. Then relaunch another fucking round of peace talks. As far as I’ve understood Israel doesn’t need to allow a Palestinian state, nor Palestinian interlocutors, but it could declare its willingness to stop its territorial expansion or even withdraw in exchange for an international (or Arab-led? Indian, Chinese, Russian-led? Tzeench-Benkei-led?) mandate in the now occupied Palestinian regions and finance part of its reconstruction (starting with hospitals and schools) in a transparent and traceable way. Certainly it would make sense for Israel to be sincerely open to recognise the right of Palestinians to have their own state IF AND ONLY IF Russia recognises Chechens their own state, China recognises Uyghurs their own state, and Turkey recognises Kurds their own state.

↪neomac
I think it's very unfortunate that we've come to focus on exactly how they were slaughtered. Beheaded, burned alive, slit throats, stabbed through the heart, shot... It's a complete red herring to focus on this I think.

Did they murder them? Did they torture them? These are the two questions that are relevant. — flannel jesus

I disagree. I find it relevant to mention whatever allows us better assess the extent of the ideological clash between the West and the Rest (especially if that’s part of the implicit message Hamas intends to send to its people, foreign supporters, and perceived enemies) as well as the reactions of the latter. The issue I’m thinking about is not much related to the fact of beheading children, but the social and cultural meaning of “beheading” and “children” in that part of the World.
We shouldn’t simply assume that is like ours. The same goes with the notion of “human rights” or “self-determination”.

Jordan queen skeptical Israeli children were beheaded by Hamas during onslaught
https://www.timesofisrael.com/jordan-queen-skeptical-israeli-children-were-beheaded-by-hamas-during-onslaught/

Dutch politics is pathetic. Ridiculous virtue signaling. — Benkei


Indeed. We're governed by toddlers. — Tzeentch

Easy to say by anonymous nobodies. Why don't you candidate yourselves, since you know better. Let's see if you ADULTS can do better than just whining over the internet like baby girls.

These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please? — Tzeentch

So in the end with all your immense knowledge ("Military history and military thinkers, the development of contemporary land, naval and air doctrine, irregular warfare, modern conflicts, etc. I also had the opportunity to follow courses on propaganda (euphemistically called 'information warfare') - very eye-opening.") you are gonna tell me that you can't do more than just whining over a regime change on a forum to random anonymous nobodies?! Your emotional parade is really hilarious. But I'm sure that no Palestinian bombed in Gaza could stand a second hearing you suffer that much! If that might ever comfort you.

It's amazing what Hamas can just say and the whole world will believe. — flannel jesus

Hamas is exploiting the weaknesses of the Western media. As Putin does. The West is much easier to divide. Anyways I wouldn't lose sight of the geopolitical implications of this conflict in Israel wrt the wider/ideological conflict between the West and the Rest.

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2394966/middle-east
Al Arabiya questioning Hamas leaders. Echoes of the same anti-Western propaganda one can read also in this thread.

I've read from a blog following OSINT sources, that it is also possible the missile from Gaza (e.g. r160 or ayyash250) was intercepted by Israel, so what happened to the hospital the parking lot of the hospital was the result of residues of the collision and burst from fuel. Number of victims seems exaggerated (how many people could really cram into that parking lot?) and it may have been inflated on purpose (do we have evidence of the number victims? pictures?).

Gaza hospital: What video, pictures and other evidence tell us about Al-Ahli hospital blast
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061

BTW I love the sarcasm of this Egyptian comedian:

Yes neomac, that is exactly what I said. Impeccable reading skills. — Manuel

You've learnt well, habibi. Throw the stone and hide the hand, may Allah bless you.

If it's something that never happened before I would agree. But the extensive documentation provided by human rights agencies in the 2012, 2014, and other Gaza massacres have shown that this is not abnormal behavior for Israel at all. See for instance the Goldstone report. — Manuel

In other words, since it's likely, then it's certain. Impeccable logic.

how do you know that the video recording was taken with Gaza in the back or Israel in the back? — neomac

I assume it was taken from Gaza as it looks like being taken from the same urban area. And I presume that WSJ make their due diligence on the video. — ssu

Taken from Gaza and same urban area ok, but I'm wondering about the position of the cameraman: did the cameraman have Israel in the back or in front? Because depending on the orientation of the cameraman and the trajectory one can better guess if the trajectory was in-coming or out-going wrt Gaza.

You indicated

And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement. — neomac


Your position was that there was authoritative evidence disproving the legitimacy of the evidence submitted by Israel in questioning the cause of the explosion. — Hanover

Dude, you are misfiring objections against me. That comment of mine was meant to be sarcastic. Scroll up to see "the most authoritative infowar experts on earth" suggesting that audio was "extremely fake".

Oh I get it (the Doppler Effect, if I remember correctly), more high pitched when it's in-coming and more low pitched when out-going. Like with racing cars. Thanks for the effort.
But assuming you are right about the pitch, how do you know that the video recording was taken with Gaza in the back or Israel in the back?

Again, you're pointing to authoritive empirical evidence that doesn't exist. — Hanover

I never called it (the audio) "authoritative". Nor affirmed my commitment to it. Taken in another sense, your claim sounds even contradictory.

Israel gains nothing in such an attack. — Hanover

...And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" sounding audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on Earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement.

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. — ssu

It would be interesting if you could illustrate the different noise between "ingoing" and "outgoing" artillery through comparable videos.

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. And then the fireball seems to be rather big. — ssu

Can't the fireball be rather big due to the amount fuel, since it was a parking spot?

I was sarcastic when I asked that question.
For many "double standard" and Western hypocrisy are a big issue. To me not necessarily.
Accusations of double standards make sense to me if we all are playing by the same rules. Yet I doubt this is the case when the West confronts the Rest. Concerning the current crisis, if there are no Arabs/Palestinians' public protests against Hamas while there are Jews publicly protesting against Netanyahou, then either there is a double standard in condemning violence (to many, even in this thread, "double standard" accusations hold only against the West, of course), or we do not play by the same rules (in this case "double standard" accusations are rather weak to me).

And if WSJ reported a video that wasn't the hospital bombing, I'm definitely sure that there will be an outcry in the US if such a prestigious newspaper as WSJ would be spreading Hamas propaganda and anti-semitic vitriol. — ssu

But the WSJ video doesn't take position wrt whom is to blame. And its footage of the blast doesn't tell me much about whom cause the blast.

you can answer as you like. Give your best shot.

But behold, we will soon get the truth from the IDF and proof of how evil the "human animals" are in Gaza. :smile: — ssu

So you are sure that it was IDF?

Besides it doesn't matter if the rocket came from Hamas or IDF.
It would be Israeli's fault anyways right? So let's not distract our selves
and keep passionately chanting all together "Israel caca!"

Edit: sorry, I forgot... and "Great Satan Amerikah caca"!
Re-edit: sorry, I also forgot... "Allahu Akbar!"

Somehow the single most powerful rocket fired from Gaza ever, that could destroy whole buildings, misfired and hit one of the few hospitals in Gaza. — ssu

"Hagari said some 450 rockets fired from Gaza had fallen short and landed inside the Strip within the last 11 days."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-military-says-no-evidence-direct-hit-gaza-hospital-2023-10-18/

Here the upcoming briefing from IDF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjFTgRnIL_I

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-hamas-war-live-iran-warns-resistance-front-may-attack

• An Israeli strike has killed more than 500 Palestinians at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, according to Gaza’s health ministry.
• The Israeli military says the bombing – one of the deadliest attacks on a hospital in decades – was the result of a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket.