If somehow supporting violence/barbarism/terrorism to get your message across is in any way supposed to push Israel to "realize" their wrongs, it hasn't and currently isn't working. And if the intentions are for the betterment of their people, certainly provoking a response that leads to mass death for their people (and this isn't an unknown at this point), certainly indicates supremely bad actors (both in their decision-making and their values) and does not represent anything resembling a protector of their own people or a furthering of their cause (unless the cause is more death and hardened hearts). — schopenhauer1

Those are obviously not the objectives here. Hamas doesn't want for Israel to "realize" anything. It's intentions aren't surely protecting the people in the open area prison called Gaza.

You really should understand that Hamas is a religious organization, not some Western political movement thinking of politics in the Western way. Just read what Hamas and it's political leadership says about the objectives.

This is what the Hamas chief political leader, Ismail Haniyeh told on the first day of the Campaign:

On Arabs that seek normalization/two state solution with Israel he said the following:

What did these defeatists expect, [these Arabs] who have spread the culture of impotence and despair, and wanted the path to normalization [of relations with Israel] to shape this stage with recognition of the enemy? Did they ever imagine they would see such images, such heroic deeds, such sacrifices, such courage, such pride? The perpetrators of these feats are “men who were sincere in their commitment to God. Some of them have reached their end [martyrdom], and others are still waiting; and they have not varied in any way (in their commitment).” (Quran, chapter 33, verse 23). These men shaped the gates of the Great Victory, and opened them for our people and our Ummah. These men, who know the Qur’an by heart, fast and pray in adoration of God the Most High and Exalted, have attacked and “penetrated inside the dwellings” (Quran, chapter 17, verse 5) in the heart of our territory occupied [by the enemy], around Gaza and further afield: “Help [from] God and a (promise of) upcoming victory.” (Quran, chapter 61, verse 13). You are most magnificent, O men of faith, O men of Al-Qassam Brigades, O men of Gaza, Gaza of pride and dignity, of courage, heroism and sacrifice. Today, Gaza erases from the Arab-Muslim community the shame of defeat, the shame of acceptance and inaction.

A message to other countries, especially other Arab countries:

And we say to all countries, including our beloved Arab countries: you must know that this entity which is incapable of protecting itself from our fighters is incapable of providing you with security or protection. All the normalization and recognition processes, all the agreements that have been signed [with Israel] can never put an end to this battle. It is the terrain that will put an end to this battle; it is these heroic fighters who will put an end to it; it is the blood of the pure martyrs and the heroic deeds of this people, its wounded and its prisoners that will put an end to it.

And finally, just why now?

Israel considered that its strategic environment, its power and arrogance, as well as the silence of the Arab and Muslim peoples, and the world’s preoccupation with the war between Russia and Ukraine, made the moment propitious for it to carry out this project and put an end to this battle in Al-Quds, Al-Aqsa, the West Bank and elsewhere [in occupied Palestine].

(the whole text here)

I think the above states quite obviously the reasons why Hamas made this all out attack. It was because the whole Palestinian issue was starting to be sidelined. It was because of even Saudi-Arabia was coming closer to officially normalize relations with Israel. Well, the Palestine cause is back now thank to them. And to have it be an important issue, Hamas needs more martyrs!

Hence it's quite easy to understand that if the thousand fighters can infiltrate to Israel what Israel's response would be. It's eerily similar as with the tiny cabal called Al Qaeda, which in an outrageous fashion declared that killing Americans, any Americans, civilians or children, would be a good thing. That naturally caught the attention of the US many years earlier from 9/11 happening. And then after 9/11, again achieving strategic surprise with the lax domestic flight security and using airliners as projectiles, the US did unleash it's War on Terror, which actually is still fought. That was the whole intention. Now Israel has responded with war and with the majority of the reserves being mobilized. And Israel will very likely go into Gaza.

And Hamas will indeed have it's martyrs for it's Holy War.

If some questions just why the Israeli occupation of the territories gained in the six day war is compared to Apartheid, here's a old but good documentary (from 7 years ago, I guess) just why it is so.

... messianic Jewish settlers & Hamas. — 180 Proof

Exactly.

Basically the conflicts in the Middle East are upheld by religious zealots. This isn't actually the only one: There also the Shia - Sunni divide and the fear of the Shia crescent lead by Iran, from which we have the Saudi lead war in Yemen and also in way also the Syrian civil war (Alawites & other religions vs Sunni extremists). Perhaps only with the Kurds vs Turkey / Iran / Iraq / Syria -conflict religion isn't as important.

My comment that "it would sound like it's incoming no matter who shot the rocket" turned out to make a lot of sense I think. — flannel jesus

As one stated, we are talking about the doppler effect and how projectiles sound. And then it's one hand held recorder (phone or video camera). The bigger fire explosion than usually from a rocket can be explained with the existing rocket fuel. The video doesn't capture the actual projectile. So as I've earlier said, the rocket is also a possibility and the now damage shows it wasn't an air-to-ground HE bomb.

Man, you might be the most schizophrenic poster on this topic on here. — schopenhauer1

Your accusations of schizophrenia happen only because you seem to have the problem that the victim cannot be also a perpetrator and vice versa. Yet in reality it's often so. And that people have to choose a side and then be supporters of that side, which means you don't bring the negative aspects of whom you support, seems to be how you approach this conflict.

My point was that it would require a civil war to gain control back from rogue actor Hezbollah de facto doing whatever it wants. They don't want that, as they've already seen a bunch of conflict and don't have the stomach for it again. — schopenhauer1

They simply don't have the capability! If the IDF couldn't erase Hezbollah out from World in the last war, how on Earth do you ever think the puny little Lebanese army could ever do that? Hezbollah has fought better against Israel than the whole Syrian Army in the 1980's, which happened to occupy large parts of Lebanon back then. It has had long backing from the Iranians and have focused on the little things like small unit fighting that is important in war.

But generally when we use the term "democratic" we mean a state that recognizes rights and have free and fair elections, allow freedom of speech, press, ideas, etc. — schopenhauer1

And with that "democratic" term, with free and fair elections, the Muslim Brotherhood came into power in Egypt. And if they wouldn't have been thrown out in a military coup, I'm sure that they wouldn't have allowed free press and the freedoms what we think of being an integral part of the system. And do note that the military coup had it's supporters also. There isn't going on an ongoing large fight against Sisi's government.

Yet people did vote for them, just as the ONCE voted for Hamas. You cannot deny that. It's the typical arrogant Western fallacy that if you have free elections, people will vote for parties that want to build a Western style democracy with all the liberal perks.

If people vote in Nazis into power somewhere, I don't support it just because a majority voted them in. That represents not only an illiberal democracy, but an illiberal democracy that is voting out democratic principles. — schopenhauer1

Well, sorry, but people can vote "wrong". And you can then blame the people for voting "wrong". I don't, it's a danger that comes with people power. If the "normal" parties end up being totally worthless in the eyes of the voters, they will vote for otherwise "fringe" parties. That's why thing like BREXIT or Trump happen even to us. I won't start then blaming somehow the people for being against democracy or so, it's simply that the political system has failed. For example in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood was the only party with a large grass roots organization. Pretty hard for liberal parties to start up when everything Western is typically related to the former rulers and their corruption and inefficiency.

Do you ever put any onus on the Palestinians, or is it always going to be Israel's fault no matter what? — schopenhauer1

Well, seem you don't read my comments. Just like now, by killing civilians and anyone possible they could reach in Israel, Hamas has made it's best effort to ruin any idea of peace of a two-state settlement, and it was done on purpose. And is the PA innocent here? No, not only has there been corruption, but mistakes have been done starting when Jasser Arafat didn't take deal when it was the best for him. But then there's just the question just how independent the Palestine would have been. Sorry, but religios zealots have a too big influence over the events in the Middle East. And just as the emergence of Hamas is a fact like the building of the settlements to the West Bank, we obviously aren't where we were in the 1990's. I don't see a peaceful solution here. Just more of the same: suffering and hatred.

1) As to Lebanon, sounds about right in terms of the government, except then you go on to blame Israel, the knee jerk reaction. As if there is a group that doesn't want to see Israel destroyed in there... — schopenhauer1

Strawman as I've said again and again about Hezbollah, which isn't the Lebanese government. Your the one asking why "Lebanon cannot moderate". Well, that "Lebanon" is nearing to be a failed state if it isn't and doesn't have the ability to control it's territories. Yet for you it seems "Hezbollah = whole Lebanon". I don't think especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon are actively engaged in the war in Israel.

2) Yeah, I wonder why Israel wouldn't want to see the group that was the progenitor for Hamas, a group that would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the face of the map, retain power.. — schopenhauer1

Well, that's basically one of the reasons the military took over the country. So bitch about them being not democratic. Democracy isn't this miracle drug that makes people change their thoughts.

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU — schopenhauer1

Quite a strawman there again. What I have said that Hamas and Likud embrace each other. Netanyahu wants to annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Hamas just works for him giving him the evil city with the human animals. There's no other way for Israel than to go into Gaza, really, not even if the opposition would be in power. That's the natural response when you have an army like IDF. If a country would be weak and couldn't do anything about the terrorists strikes, then there wouldn't be anything else than plea help. But Israel has a strong military which can go into Gaza. And Hamas basically wants that. Those religious zealots think there's the next generations growing, so it's not so bad for them if they take a hit now. The following battles will just deepen the hatred for the Jewish State, which is their purpose. And for Likud it's the perfect event that just show how it's impossible to do any peace agreement, that any compromise with the Palestinians backfires. Everybody that has tried that has been wrong, because just look at what happened.

And that's it. I don't believe that there's going to be a peace process or peace. People should be truly war weary to find a two state solution, and that not yet.

If these had all been brought in before the summer, maybe with modern attack helicopters too, the war would very likely be over, or at least largely no longer in Ukraine's borders. — Count Timothy von Icarus

What can I say?

Yes. Perhaps!

You are saying all this on your own assumption of ethnic separation as the basis for peace. — magritte

Well, in general nation states tend to be divided by ethnic lines.

My country could have an ethnic division between the Finnish speaking majority and the Swedish speaking minority. Yet the fortunate thing is that the Swedish speaking think of themselves as Finns also and not Swedes. The Finnish majority hasn't ever considered them as foreigners, not at least since the Early Middle Ages. And after WW2 language hasn't been any kind of problem for the new independent Finland.

For a more distanced analogy how does this work in the US or Canada with indigenous peoples who were granted lands forever, do they want separation (Some in fact do, and claim 'historical' rights.)? — magritte

There's five million Native Americans in the US, which is 1,5% of the population or with mixed heritage about nearly 3%. There's even far more Asian Americans in the US. Perhaps when there's 1,5% Palestinians left (now every fifth in Isreal is an Arab) of the Israeli population, they can be granted similar reservations with similar gambling rights? (Oh darn! I think Islam forbids gambling.)

I mean, again, we can probably start talking culture here, but doesn't that support Israel's wariness of hostile neighbors? Why can't Lebanon moderate either? A bloody civil war is unwanted, but perhaps there is more tacit support than would be willing for that to happen in Lebanon. I don't know the full situation there other than Hezbollah has a large percentage of their "parliament". — schopenhauer1

Well, I'm not sure do they have an working government. Lebanon is nearly a failed state. Hezbollah, which does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament, is basically in charge of Southern Lebanon. Hence the Lebanese Army doesn't enjoy monopoly in the country. And what was the Lebanese government left to do when Israel had it's war with Lebanon? Then prime minister Siniora made a declaration after the the casualties Lebanon suffered that Lebanon would be "the last Arab country to make peace with Israel".

But perhaps they ought to be more moderate, after being bombed and all that.

Of course, in order to do that, it needed to go back to the usual authoritarianism. — schopenhauer1

Yes, because the Egyptian voters voted "wrongly" and voted the Muslim Brotherhood to power, who weren't at all so eager to continue the warm relations with Egypt.

It seems that compromise, and moderation are not going to work when you have religious para-military style governments running a country like Lebanon. — schopenhauer1

Does this look like para-military style government? I think it looks like there's no government, no President. The last government is only acting as a caretaker government because the Lebanese have been incapable of forming an government. Hezbollah isn't the state of Lebanon, remember!

Israel in the past had been willing to compromise, but Arab neighbors and then Pals, tended to want all or nothing. — schopenhauer1

I think it's more about weakness than strength, actually. Imagine what would happen to a Lebanese government, if it tried to make peace with Israel? Not only would be the Hezbollah against it. Just look at the riots now in Beirut near the US Embassy.

The most powerful Arab nation did make it's peace with Israel. It could make this as it has actually shown it wasn't the total loser after the Six Day war, but did put up a limited operation against Israel during the Yom Kippur war.

one wonders how much better it would have gone if these were provided earlier. — Count Timothy von Icarus

One wonders about a lot of the support. But the support is given by politician who illogically see one or another weapon system as "escalatory" or something, then only give few. Which then drags the war on.

As long as you ignore that the moderate Pals failed, and this pushed Israeli sentiment towards the idea that if moderates can't make a deal, no deal can be had... Then you will miss the boat and just keep playing the broken record. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't even consider the PLO as "moderates", mind you. They have had their own list of terrorist actions that they have done. And btw they have fought also the Lebanese and the Jordanian Army, so not so "moderate" as you are implying.

And naturally the PLO, or now the PA, hasn't been able to control the bits they have had. Gaza is now in the hands of the Hamas. Which at least before was great for Israel. Now, not so.

Israel simply needs to have neighbors like Egypt and Jordan, which can keep the peace. So it really isn't a "bias" that I have forgotten.

All this is to say, it seems clear you have picked your side which "can never do wrong" and now everything they do is justified or must be Israel's fault. — schopenhauer1

So which side you think I'm on?

As I've stated, there are the Kurds, the Basques, actually quite many people that don't have their own land. We've just witnessed one group of people having had to leave where they'd lived after a many decade conflict came to one conclusion in Nagorno Karabakh.

I'm still hoping they don't decide to do this. The more I consider it, the less likely it seems like they can remove Hamas this way, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Uh, call in hundreds of thousands of reservists and they just what, sit around and then go back home? And Bibi has already called it a war.

I think that we are past that. Israel has made already recon attacks. It has already pounded Gaza. Of course I could be wrong, but I think it's very likely that IDF will go into Gaza.

Perhaps they cut Gaza into two and then go through the northern part of the city, Gaza proper.

Such a weird juxtaposition of the first sentence with the rest of the paragraph. In one fell swoop you admitted, the moderate Pals failed, and then instead of going into that phenomenon, you immediately pivoted to Israel, when the focus was on moderate Pals and their failure. — schopenhauer1

When was it the failure of the moderate Palestinians? Even the moderate Palestinians have wanted for an independent country that, and what they might have accepted would be West Bank and the Gaza. But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted.

In my view, there was a time when Isreal was willing to cut a deal. Perhaps then Arafat hesitated too much. Yet then that time passed. Israel thought that perhaps the US would loose interest after the Cold War ended and had to do something with the Palestinians. Well, the Evangelicals and AIPAC never lost interest. Bibi Netanyahu became the longest serving prime minister and now is for the third time in office with new settlements going up. How viable is an independent state in the separated plots of land that basically the PA has?



And there is nothing that would push Israel to commit to this anymore. Israel under sanctions? No. Is it really threatened as earlier? Actually, no. It gets enough support now from being a victim.

On a side note, has anyone noticed Ursula von der Leyen's unmandated visit to Tel Aviv, where she proclaimed unwavering support for Israel amidst its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza? — Tzeentch

It's the brief time to go to Israel and show the support.

It's more awkward when the land operation begins and the Palestinians really start dying and then be there telling how you support Israel. After all, all those reservists need some refresher training before they can operate as a team in urban combat.

For a BM-21 Grad type weapon (which is what I am assuming the Qassam-3 is roughly an equivalent to) the blast seems too large. — Tzeentch

Well, on the other hand we do have photos of actual Hamas/Hezbollah Katjusha rockets that have hit Israel:

Indeed but my point earlier is that there was a time when there was a chance to form the two state solution and the “moderates” blew it on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

And I think that the time has passed. Either Hamas or Hezbollah, even both of them on the same time, don't make an existential threat to Israel. Israel has the capability to deal with them. Israel has total air superiority, an a far more capable modern combined arms army. Plus a nuclear deterrence.

Then it has unwavering support from the US. Support from other Western countries and neither Putin's Russia or China will be hostile against it.

Why would they need to take any steps towards a real two state solution? Especially when there's already over 600 000 settlers in the West Bank and after the opening of the borders in Eastern Europe, the Jewish migration from there has made them to have a comfortable Jewish majority in Israel.

There’s a reason why Ghandi and MLK were effective. Sympathy doesn’t come from violence. It gets muddled from violence. The underdog loses the very thing that makes them sympathetic. Then it’s just pick your grievance. — schopenhauer1

The pacifist approach might have worked in a different situation, but especially on the Palestinian side it has been always the militant wing that has dominated the scene. And actually the origins of the Jewish state are similar armed groups.

First and foremost, the origins aren't in political instability inside a country, but in straight forward war as the British simply left their former Mandate. This has lead to the conflict being a continuation of a war, basically. And that's the difference with the Israeli side too: it isn't a police matter, it has always been a military matter fighting the PLO and the Palestinians. In Lebanon the civil war could be ended by the opposing factions going back to negotiations and trying to cooperate in an already existing state. With the Palestinians, the state of Israel is not part of them, but an entity that the opposing side of the conflict has created. Hence there is no Ghandi or MLK figure in Palestine. It would as if there weren't any Civil Rights Movement in the US, but just the Black Panthers. And that the Blacks weren't taken here as slaves, but had existed in the US just like the few Native-Americans now.

Hey! I'm writing!

OK,
There are several things that you can see even from earlier history taken place.

1) First is that when there are peace talks, Palestinian organizations that are focused on the military struggle will make terror attacks to defuse the peace engagement. This happened when Egypt and Israel were have their peace talks. Then the Fatah made then the worst terrorist strike into Israel from Lebanon by the sea. The landed not where they intended, but did hijack several busses and fired at traffic killing several people, quite similar in the way that now Hamas has operated. This prompted Israel to make punitive strikes.

Yet it should be noted that behind these heinous attacks was then what now is the Palestine Authority. Hence militant groups can make peace approaches. Just like the previous terrorist and later prime minister Menachem Begin (who was responsible for the death of 91 British authorities in the King David hotel bombing).

2) There is the unfortunate history, which people like Bibi Netanyahu use eagerly to reason their policies. And that is when Israel has retreated from somewhere, then the gap has been filled with rocket launching terrorists. Naturally the peace with Egypt and Jordan is sidelined here. Yet Bibi argues that the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon (done by labour prime minister Ehud Barak) was a mistake as any withdrawal would be a mistake.

(Ehud Barak had a stellar career in the IDF before becoming a Prime Minister of Israel. After the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon he was defeated by Likud's Ariel Sharon.)

To think that you can - as a Zionist, Jewish independent state at the end of the 20th century - rule over another people for generations without having any consequences - it's ridiculous.

- Ehud Barak

Basically Hamas and Likud embrace and support each other. They feed on the emotions of hate, revenge and the belief of a military solution. The grim fact is that war weariness kicks in only after a lot more people have died than now. A lot more. People like Barak are pushed to the sidelines.

If there is an official investigation, carried out by an NGO, we may get a definite answer. Or we may soon forget about as more massacres happen in Gaza. It could be that it was a misfire, but, given how many lies they've said before, it's hard to take them at their word. — Manuel

I think the accusations have already been fixed as Arab countries have already accused of Israel of being behind it and the Joe Biden has said he's convinced it was "the others", not Israel. Either party won't officially back down as they will appear weak and undetermined.

Could it have been a Hellfire? — Tzeentch

A possibility. Just as a possibility is a rocket too. Yet on the long run, already the rare occasion of there being more Israeli killed than Palestinians has turned to the ordinary situation of there being more Palestinians killed that Israelis.

Let's see what Bibi decides to do with the "evil city" and it's human animals.

Some interesting context on the missile striking the hospital. — Manuel

An air-burst ordnance could easily also do this. Or something else than air-to-ground bomb. And as the Channel 4 remarks, the Israeli spin media presentation is confusing at times.

Under the current circumstances, I doubt we'll be seeing evidence any time soon if ever. — Tzeentch

Well, now that there is more photos from the site, it seems that the explosion happened at the parking lot, which was full of people. People aren't excavated from under rubble as in many other videos from Gaza after obvious IDF attacks. Hence it seems that the hospital wasn't demolished. And the crater shown is quite tiny, which is quite similar to what rockets fired from Gaza typically leave behind. Also the cars in pictures are burnt, don't have markings of shrapnel. This leaves out the more powerful HE ordnance.



If it was a rocket and it had fuel, there ought to have been the trail that a rocket leaves, or then the motor stopped for some reason with fuel still left. Hence there is the possibility that indeed this was a stray rocket. But also, there are many kinds of munitions that can be used in Gaza. Proof that will make it clear will be hard to come by.

But I agree that in principle it is a sign of a lack of clear thinking from those involved. — Manuel

Or the simple fact they can do it. The US can strike at Soleimani as they can strike at various targets in the Iranian nuclear program. Yet an overall war isn't fruitful: trying to march to Teheran is beyond question. Yet the US won't take out a Russian general... or Putin. Then what they can do is to put them on a sanctions list or hope that the ICC takes attention of them.

The fact is that with Russia, just as with China, the deterrence of those countries works. Even Israel is very nice to Russians, even if otherwise they bomb Syria nearly at will. Here the deterrence works and basically any "proportional" strike is out of the question.

Yet it's not obvious that it is so: that the Cold War could have been similar to the DMZ in Korea, where you still basically have only a armstice. That the US has lost quite many killed during the decades there, which isn't well known. Hence it's totally possible for a Cold War to be violent, once the politicians get accustomed to "proportional" military responses.



Basically Israel should have on it's borders everywhere a country like Egypt, which does have a peace agreement, yet is powerful enough for guard it's borders and make any Israeli government to think twice before being reckless with it. Yet as Israel enjoys military dominance over it's neighbors and has the nuclear deterrence (which it's neighbors don't), a leader like Netanyahu can do basically whatever he wants.

They do and that strategy of being proportional with Iran is more levelheaded than a full out war. — Manuel

But that's not actually the other side of the coin. It isn't either WW3 or this. It's either peace through deterrence or war. I'll try to explain what I mean here.

The basic problem is that "proportionality" in using war doesn't make sense, because it militarily does nothing. It simply lowers the threshold of military action and creates an environment for on/off war: a low intensity conflict. It's ruinous for what militaries should do to enforce peace: to create a deterrence that nobody dares to make any military attacks.

Likely people will get my point wrong. They will think that it's better to have a "proportional" response than an "all out attack" to the bitter end. Yet this isn't the case. The "proportional" response is usually a political response with either with no or simply very vague military objectives. If there would be a clear military objective, that objective is either achieved with limited resources or everything you have.

Just think if during the Cold War both sides, blaming each other, would have every once in a while lobbed artillery rounds to the opposing sides of Germany. Or East Germans would tried to snatch tourists or West German civilians that came too close to the border. And this would have gone on for decades. It would have made living quite miserable in West Berlin, if there would have been the occasional mortar of artillery fire every now and then. But if you are a proponent of the "proportional" war, this could have easily happened. Once it's OK to bomb someone every once a while, or like Trump enjoyed it: launching cruise missiles to Syria and bragging about it to the Chinese premier while eating the most nicest chocolate cake.

Hence the idea of "proportional" military response sucks. The worst example is how the Vietanam war was micromanaged by the White House. But also the Israeli strategy of dealing with the insurgency by "mowing the lawn", simply having these military every now and then to decrease the ability of Hamas/Hezbollah/whoever simply creates this low intensity conflict, which once a while blows up like it has now. Basically the leaders of Israel have decided that a small shooting war every decade or so is OK. It doesn't hurt much. And it keeps up the spirit and doesn't inflict true war weariness.

If he does go into Gaza, I don't see Hezbollah not acting. Maybe Iran too. That would be a disaster. — Manuel

Well, then we have two USN carrier strike forces in the Mediterranean Sea ready to pounce the Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon. To help Israel, which cannot deal with far weaker enemies than before. :smirk:

And of course, there is always the option to bomb Iran. Last time the US came to blows with Iran (and Iran attacking US forces), Trump didn't do much else than declared that no servicemen died and left it that. Hence there actually is no desperate desire for the US to extend this war. Iran of the present is much stronger than before, but old examples of these limited conflicts show historically how these exchanges have gone:



What history tells us is that a) The US sees any military operation of this kind as an extension of foreign policy and hence will try to make a "proportionate" strike. If it comes to using military force, the priority is political thinking, not military thinking. The US will b) try to not escalate the war too much. Joe Biden has no intension to engage in a large war in the Middle East. What this means, that the US won't try to do an all out attack on Iran's military capability (something that Israeli doctrine would want), but will try to do something "proportional".

And let's remember that US engagement is still quite hypothetical here. Apart from sending arms to Israel.

Last time the US sent forces to defend Israel was during Operation Desert Storm. Then the earlier Patriot missiles were in truth a disappointment, unlike the media back then made them to be. Only later the dismal performance of the early Patriots was unveiled.

3 - In light of President Biden's demand, Israel will not thwart humanitarian supplies from Egypt as long as it is only food, water and medicine for the civilian population located in the southern Gaza Strip or moving there, and as long as these supplies do not reach Hamas. Any supplies that reach Hamas will be thwarted." — Manuel

Unfortunately Hamas fighters run also on food and water, like the civilians.

It looks like the "diplomatic effort" will be reduced to some humanitarian effort and that's it. Although 2 million people need a really huge convoy of food etc. to be supported. Something that isn't easy to do in some brief time window before the bombing starts again.

I think the problem is that Bibi cannot now back down what has been said: he has to go into Gaza. At least temporarily to give that hollow declaration that "Hamas has been destroyed".

Listened to that also while driving. Yet the comedian makes sense, actually. Great how he comments on Ben Shapiro.

If you can't tell, that's probably a great indicator it's time for you to sit quietly on the sideline until the 'official report' comes out. :lol: — Tzeentch

:up: :100:

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. — neomac

Something like that. I haven't heard myself incoming artillery fire, only outgoing. But there's there's a difference. Of course the fire that will hit you won't be heard as it's coming supersonic.

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.

but from the point of view of someone near the hospital, that missile would be "incoming" regardless of if it said "courtesy of HAMAS" written on it or "IDF", right? — flannel jesus

It was "incoming" either way, regardless of its source — flannel jesus

That hit it, yes. But notice a stray rocket has a different trajectory.

This is to say, both you and ssu throw out accusations that the Israeli account is preposterous, but then when asked for some sort of cite, nothing is provided. — Hanover

Lol. I can make some observations from one video, but naturally that doesn't say much. I haven't seen the Israeli account, but just as @Tzeentch said, there was an usually quick media effort made to make the terrorists responsible for this. And there is a natural motive for this when Biden comes to Israel. As I stated, it's an awkward moment for a President that is in Israel to show solidarity, but then again try to uphold the image of being an mediator.

And this has already taken place.

(CNN) President Joe Biden arrived in Israel Wednesday for one of the most complicated diplomatic trips of his presidency, an extraordinary high-stakes trip to a region gripped by violence, including an explosion at a Gaza City hospital that he said appeared to be done by “the other team.” In his first public remarks on the hospital bombing, Biden explicitly offered Israel – and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – his support, with wording that labeled Palestinians as others. The moment, and Biden’s off-the-cuff wording, revealed the complex diplomatic balancing act he must navigate.

“I was deeply saddened and outraged by the explosion at the hospital in Gaza yesterday. And based on what I’ve seen, it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you. But there’s a lot of people out there who’re not sure. So we have to overcome a lot of things,” he said.

The president did not elaborate on what evidence led him to that conclusion.

I guess some years from now when the war is over, you'll have more accurate knowledge.

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

Aahh.. a bit difficult as videos usually taken are with hand held devices that don't have good sound recording. But

Here's incoming. As the cameraman is taking cover, it's basically an audio tape.


Here's "outgoing" :roll: , you can notice the difference best at 1:51. The shrieking is different, it going away.

You're arguing impossibility, meaning Palestine couldn't have done this because their arsenal isn't capable of doing it. — Hanover

Yeah, that's why I find the most likely cause that Israel bombed the hospital and they are now rapidly making a media blitz (as @Tzeentch note they otherwise wouldn't do) to counter the public and diplomatic outrage as their most precious supporter, the US president, is coming to Israel just today.

Just seems to me the most likely case here.

But the 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. — neomac

The noise that ingoing and out going artillery makes is different. And then the fireball seems to be rather big. There's ample videos that show the difference between air to ground ordnance and "Katjusha" rocket fire, that basically Hamas has. To me that looks like ordnance from an aircraft. And it surely doesn't look like a small rocket that they in Gaza use.

Do you think my recommendation to 'avoid inflammatory language' amounts to propaganda? — Wayfarer

Of course not.

Considering the amount of vitriol already sorrounding this issue, I'm simply advising moderation in speech. — Wayfarer

I would question why the vitriol over just one attack, and not the war itself.

The whole issue is highly inflammatory, and there's not a lot of point in fanning the flames, as if there's not enough people doing that already. — Wayfarer

Wasn't Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters killing every Israeli they could find and reach already highly inflammatory? Correction, they did take some prisoners to act as shields, hence they didn't kill everybody.

And of the Hospital attack, as there's obviously now spinmeisters around and it's highly political (after the condemnation of Arab countries), you simply have to wait for some time before the thing is going to be accurate. Remember for example the shooting down of the Malesian airliner over Eastern Ukraine? Took a little bit of time, but was very accurately documented.

As I've said, the rapid Israeli media response to this is ,at least in my opinion, because of Joe Biden's visit.

Giving in a few moments a media conference about "what actually happened"? Yes, I'm sure about that.

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.

I don't see how Russia's ability for offensive operations can recover, and yet clearly the calculus is that "more must be taken to make it worth it." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh I think it can recover. Every year brings a fresh new batch of conscripts and the Russian military industrial complex can chug out a limited number of tanks, guns and ammo. It will be likely more than the West provides Ukraine.

I think Russia could make an offensive let's say next year spring/summer.

rom what point of view was the video taken? Near the hospital? — flannel jesus

WSJ reported this.

Including others, with similar video...


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

Biden can happily come to Israel and give them the unwavering support the country needs. (Plus more weapons)

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. — neomac

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. The video that captured the explosion didn't show the rocket motor burning or vapor trails in the video, and prior to the explosion in the video you can hear what sounds like the typical incoming missile or bomb, not outgoing fire. Incoming and outgoing projectiles make a different sounds.

Hence this is spin/damage control because Biden is coming to town. Because he might feel it to be annoying or awkward when he has been prepared to give a show of staunch support to Israel and the press will ask about a stupid hospital. Otherwise who cares, according to Netanyahu Gaza is an evil city.

Already the Arab leaders have declined to meet Joe.

Unbearable ... I feel like a dinosaur. — baker

Lol. You aren't alone with that feeling.

Actually a very good summary/update about the armoured warfare in Ukraine made by the UK tank museum. As they do these videos about their museum pieces (tank chats) for the general public, the representation is very understandable even for those who don't know much about tank warfare. They sum up very well what many haven't said: Ukraine has done basically probing attacks. Without air superiority, much else it couldn't do. The way how the fighting has developed in the war is very well represented:

Israel seems to be backing off on (much of) a ground incursion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is it so? I think they are quite open about it.

As Biden is coming to town, they naturally don't start the operation yet. Perhaps allow some trucks to pass to Gaza with supplies and get those foreign nationals out of Gaza. At least those Palestinians with US citizenship.

Why should we hold Israel to some unrealistic standard that doesn't exist in the real world? — RogueAI

Some said it was because Israel wasn't a dictatorship, but because it is a democracy (at least of Jews) and it is Western, hence we except more from states that are western democracies. South Africa was also a democracy (for the whites) and not a totalitarian dictatorship when they had Apartheid. And had close ties to the US and the West also. Hence the critique there.

I think because the US is such an ardent and devoted ally to Israel, people in the West who are critical about the West in general are then against Israel, because it does have Apartheid policies towards a minority. If it would be like in the earlier times when the US was actually indifferent about Israel and the main ally of Israel would be still France, this would be much more a debate in France.

We aren't so obsessed with the Kurds, even if there are more Kurds than Palestinians and their situation is even more complicated and they don't have any state too. But with the Kurds, the fight is with Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. Countries that don't have so close connections to the US as Israel has.

Any news on the liberation of any of the hostages? And would that give space for deescalation if those would be freed? — Benkei

Really? So you are assuming that Hamas would give space for deescalation? Or you think IDF liberating hostages would mean deescalation?

At the very least very popular. And if Fatah hadn't ousted them in the West Bank, they would be the see facto representation of the Palestinians. People underestimate what Hamas has also done to help Palestinians, which is why they are so popular and continue to be, even in the West Bank. — Benkei

At least the Likud is also very popular in Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu has been the most successful Israeli Prime Minister ever and is the longest serving one. Isn't it the third time he's in office?

And actually coming back to the "two state" solution that you talked about with Hamas. Your argument was that they don't accept Israel because it would recognize the present borders, yet somehow would be open to a two state solution. I don't think really there is no "two state" solution as it stands in the Charter of Hamas:

The position toward Occupation and Political Solutions:

18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.

19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, Judaization or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

21. Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).

22. Hamas rejects all the agreements, initiatives and settlement projects that are aimed at undermining the Palestinian cause and the rights of our Palestinian people. In this regard, any stance, initiative or political programme must not in any way violate these rights and should not contravene them or contradict them.

23. Hamas stresses that transgression against the Palestinian people, usurping their land and banishing them from their homeland cannot be called peace. Any settlements reached on this basis will not lead to peace. Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.

Resistance and Liberation:

24. The liberation of Palestine is the duty of the Palestinian people in particular and the duty of the Arab and Islamic Ummah in general. It is also a humanitarian obligation as necessitated by the dictates of truth and justice. The agencies working for Palestine, whether national, Arab, Islamic or humanitarian, complement each other and are harmonious and not in conflict with each other.

25. Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people.

26. Hamas rejects any attempt to undermine the resistance and its arms. It also affirms the right of our people to develop the means and mechanisms of resistance. Managing resistance, in terms of escalation or de-escalation, or in terms of diversifying the means and methods, is an integral part of the process of managing the conflict and should not be at the expense of the principle of resistance.

Perhaps Hamas is open for a two state solution where Israel is transfered somewhere else? Perhaps to North America? Canada and the US have room...