Just to clarify, my main point is not that Israel cannot defend itself using military force (assuming the humanitarian principle of proportionality is adhered to), but that the way it is seeking to defend itself is self-defeating, and that the US cheering Israel onto this self-defeating path is only making things worse, not better, for Israel.

The Biden administration is simply too incompetent to see this. And even if it did, it doesn't have anyone that can credibly conduct diplomacy in the Middle-East anymore (which makes the situation that much worse), because they're that incompetent.

So instead it defers to the safe option which is trying to score good boy points with Israel in the hopes of securing domestic support from the Israel lobby. Again, it's utterly pathetic.

Al Jazeera is of course just a propaganda machine, AP at least has a history of being more objective. — flannel jesus

30 years ago, perhaps. I can't say that I can credit the western press with much objectivity these days, and I don't think AP is an exception.

Simply not putting onus back where it belongs. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree.

You can't justify the actions of Israel's hardliners through Hamas. In fact, said hardliners have at various points in time supported Hamas to weaken the PLO and reduce support for a two-state solution.

My point with the Ww2 analogy is that, (and I’m by no means a military tactician) these type of bombings seem to be apart of ground operations as well to minimize the casualties on the side that is about to send in ground troops. — schopenhauer1

Mass bombing has never made a whole lot of sense. At the end of WW2 not a single German city was left standing, yet they fought on till the bitter end.

And this is also not WW2 - this is basically Israel conducting a counterinsurgency operation. Mass bombing during counterinsurgency operations has the opposite effect, since the huge amounts of civilian casualties ensure the extremist elements grow.

For example if you have two rational actors (they both care about protecting human lives for their own people) the bigger country will force the smaller to stop the very first time the smaller one sees how much damage the bigger one is willing to inflict. — schopenhauer1

This sounds like caveman logic to me.

If this were a feasible strategy I don't think the United States would have suffered a string of defeats at the hands of much smaller nations which it bombed completely into the ground.

You're right. The position of Israeli hardliners has always been the same, and it has always been quite extreme by normal standards. They've rarely deviated from their course, and when that threatened to happen under Rabin they offed him.

Israel’s assessment, backed by U.S. intelligence and President Joe Biden, ... — AP report

Why on Earth would anyone conducting a serious investigation include a line like this in their article?


Anyway, you can find similarly (presumably) biased reports "debunking" the Israeli story on channels like Al Jazeera, so honestly it's impossible to say for certain what happened.

AP seems to be presenting nothing new or conclusive, so the idea that they are in a position to be "confirming" anything is a bit naive, to put it mildly.

From the start I think this looked like a precision strike and not like a 1 in 1,000,000 fluke, even if simply by virtue of likelihood, but again, at this point there's no way to say for sure.

You stated yourself the strategic difficulty of Israel. — schopenhauer1

Israel's strategic challenges are going to increase dramatically if it alienates the entire Middle-East and thus becomes permanently surrounded by enemies - enemies which are now not as weak as they were in 1973 and have powerful allies of their own.

Relying on its big brother to avoid having to find a modus vivendi with its neighbors is what caused this situation to not have moved an inch in the past decades.

It's the United States' pathetic groveling that has encouraged Israel to stay on this ultimately self-defeating path.

By siding with Israel's hardliners the US is bringing Israel closer to the cliff and burning bridges in the process, but few people seem to realize this.

'I am a Zionist': How Joe Biden's lifelong policy bond with Israel shapes war policy

For a US president to try and score good boy points with perhaps the most controversial and corrupt prime minister Israel has ever had at the expense of what little stability there was in the Middle-East is as pathetic as it is dangerous.

I don't think I've ever seen a US administration mismanage foreign policy this badly. Literally everything they touch turns into a trainwreck.

I think that is a fallacy of necessity argument. — schopenhauer1

I said it was an act of desperation, not necessity. I think it's terrible such things should happen, and I think it is only rational that Israel should try to guard itself against such attacks.

Yes, so in those scenarios where Israel was the underdog, they acted in a way to get peace, not the opposite. — schopenhauer1

If we take the 60's and 70's as reference, Israel acted by absolutely clobbering its opponents militarily.

The theat Israel faced during the Yom Kippur war was very serious. Had they lost, it would have meant the end of Israel. I'm not blind to that fact.

Prior to 1948, I think it's only reasonable that the Palestinians refused to be kicked out the lands they owned. The 1948 "agreement" we can thank the British for.

From 1973 onward, and especially 1991 onward, I don't think Israel could realistically be considered an underdog anymore considering the state of its enemies, and who its allies were.

Which is why strict 1967 borders has been seen as a concern (beyond just the settlement issue). — schopenhauer1

A two-state solution would, in my opinion, severely compromise Israel geopolitically. It already has zero strategic depth and is surrounded by historical adversaries.

This is why I never saw a two-state solution as being realistic.

In as far as Israel should relinquish control to PA, sure. But PA will have to step into role of constant mediator for their own extremists. Do they have the will to do this? So how should Israel proceed. What happens many times is, Israel relinquishes control, then the extremists do some attack, and then Israel takes control again because it says that the PA can't do a good job containing their own extremists. I am not sure the answer to this. Israel is going to act out of security when this happens, but I guess some sort of commission should be had whereby the PA sees what failed and what can be given to them to improve their ability to police their territory? — schopenhauer1

Getting rid of the Israeli settlements, thus giving the PA complete control over the West Bank, is sadly not going to happen. There are too many Israeli settlements. Those settlers are essentially the Israeli equivalent of extremists. Removing Israeli settlers as has happened in the Sinai and Gaza is extremely difficult for the Israeli government, and they can't do it on the scale that would be required here.

The situation is fucked, and dare I say it is fucked on purpose.

But see, then that falsely give up the notion that Palestinians have not been able to create a majority of democratically-minded compromisers who are willing to quash their own radicals. — schopenhauer1

In line with what I stated earlier, under the conditions of the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's no surprise radicals spring up, and extremism is hard to combat. How do you tell a person that lost their child, whether they be Israeli or Palestinian, to ever bury that hatchet?

My sense is both Israel and Palestine struggle with the issue, and it's one of the reasons why it's not realistic to expect them to simply get together and solve things.

It's a matter of if the moderates are willing to clamp down on the radicals and ARE there enough moderates to do so? If so, then Israel should do all it's power to embolden the moderate Palestinian forces. The move should be away from tactical and onto strategic. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I don't believe the current Israeli establishment is interested in a two-state solution, and they haven't been since at least 1995.

Maybe the new generation of Israelis will push for policies more geared towards reconcilation, which I believe is the only real long-term solution. There is some indication that this might happen and young Israelis are generally a lot more critical of their government.

I do believe Netanyahu is a symptom of the US unipolar moment, and that moment has now all but ended. But current events have me fearing Netanyahu won't quietly fade away but go out with a bang.

Moderates in Palestine? Yes, I believe there are many. Most people are interested in living a peaceful existence. I visited the West Bank in 2019, and that at least was my impression.

Good leaders consider the long term, not their own popularity at the moment, granting that you still need practical wheeling-and-dealing to get the vision accomplished. — schopenhauer1

Agreed, but the same could be said for Israeli leaders.

My personal opinion is that a two-state solution was never all that feasible, for a variety of reasons.

Israel was willing to take whatever deal was given them when they were the "underdog". — schopenhauer1

I don't think that's true. In the 2000's Israel was far from the underdog. In the '60s, '70s, yes, a case could be made for Israel being the underdog. In 2000, with Uncle Sam at the wheel? I don't think so.

Suicide bombings are an act of desperation. Yes, Israel's security concerns should be, and should have been taken seriously.

There can be extremists on either side, but this doesn't discount the lack of moderate Palestinians to take a deal and start moving on living their lives, trading with Israel economically, and trying to make a prosperous country for themselves and their children rather than no compromising on what really matters, and creating a prosperous situation for themselves. — schopenhauer1

With all due respect, Israel has been doing everything it can to make life impossible for Palestinians.

Gaza we needn't even mention, but the situation in the West Bank is barely any better. It's a police state, where Palestinians are policed by the Israeli army and the Israelis are policed by the Israeli police (who are nowhere to be found).

Palestinians cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank, and if you look at this map of the West Bank, you will see how entire communities are cut off.

The mechanism is simple: Israeli settlers illegally settle somewhere in the West Bank, whereupon the Israeli army is forced to protect them and create an area of Israeli control, thus making life impossible for Palestinians living in the immediate vicinity and slowly driving them out.

When people talk about Israel ethnically cleansing the Palestinian territories, this is what they're talking about.

I try to stay impartial and maintain some understanding for the Israeli position, but at the same time we cannot pretend this isn't happening. There is no semblance of an equal playing field. Every day of "peace" means more Palestinians are driven from their homes. This settlement policy is essentially a slow annexation and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. How are Palestinians supposed to build up a prosperous existence amidst all of this?

They did. It was called the Oslo Accords. Arafat could have taken a deal and that last deal could have made him ironically from "fighter" to "founder". — schopenhauer1

Arafat could have accepted a deal on the Israeli's terms. Would that have been better than no deal at all? I think nowadays many would say yes. But it's not reasonable to shove all blame into Arafat's shoes.

There's a lot to be said about the Oslo Accords, and you know full well that it wasn't as simple as what you're sketching here.

At the same time, I will agree with you that leadership on both sides failed. And it failed for reasons which were understandable. This conflict is far too severe to expect either side to act within the bounds of reason and indeed they are chronically incapable of it.

Yeah I think they should continually always want the moderates to go for peace talks, but find the Palestinian moderates — schopenhauer1

Considering the circumstances many Palestinians find themselves in, it's an miracle moderate Palestinians still exist.

Regardless, the US had a lot of power, which it wielded with little restraint. Did it have the power to pressure either or both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict to an agreement? I think it did. I think for domestic reasons, it didn't.

Given the today's circumstances and those of decades past, I think it's no longer reasonable to expect solutions coming from either side. Both sides are traumatized by decades of brutal conflict - 'mentally ill' is the metaphor I would use.

The international community should have stepped in.

Attaining hegemony in 1991, the United States had every opportunity, but by and large neglected to do so for reasons of domestic policy, many of which relating to the Israel lobby.

As the United States attained hegemony, Israel felt that with its big brother at the wheel, it no longer had to look for a modus vivendi but could press home the advantage.

If I had to point at one party in particular to be responsible - as in, having reasonably the power to make a change for the better - it might have to be the United States. It used its near-total power to impose circumstances on nations far and wide, but somehow never in the regions that truly required an imposed solution.

Hamas just recently killed some toddlers: — frank

And so did Israel. Your point being?

But I guess what you are referring to is the fireball in relation to the blast wave. Which is a good point. — Tzeentch

:up:

Thermobaric munitions create a pretty massive fireball.

But I guess what you are referring to is the fireball in relation to the blast wave. Which is a good point.

She could have shown support in a more measured way, that better represents European attitudes towards the conflict and Israel's actions and policies in general.

Not to mention, this makes the entire EU look like a joke. After all, the EU loves pointing the finger at other nations when it comes to human rights and international law - but not in the case of Israel, it seems.

This is why EU leaders aren't respected abroad.

Interesting pictures by the way. The damage done at the al-Ahli hospital certainly seems within the range of what a Hamas rocket could do. It's just the death toll and the blast which seem strange to me.

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?

The hypocrisy is of another planet, considering how readily the EU lectures other nations on human rights.

It's hard to imagine US/EU credibility sinking even further, but alas here we are.

I guess they still believe it's 1991 and they can get away with anything.

We are governed by toddlers.

It would have to be a low yield antipersonnel weapon that is somehow mainly an incidiary. There was a large fireball and most of the damage seems to be from fire, which isn't what you'd expect from a high explosive weapon used to target infantry. I don't know if anything like that exists for the Hellfire, but there are old Vietnam era incidiary rockets. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I discussed with , there is a thermobaric version of the Hellfire II missile designated the AGM-114N.

Supposedly there are also versions of the Hellfire II Romeo that are have lowered explosive payloads to reduce collateral damage (presumably for use in counterinsurgency operations), but I haven't found any good sources with details about those.

While thermobaric weapons are known for their effectiveness in buildings, it's unclear to me what type of damage they would do outside of a building. (Or for example, if they were directed at a building but detonating outside - would it still produce a blastwave that travels inside?)


Still, the question perhaps isn't what exact weapon was used in this strike, but whether Hamas has weapons that show these types of characteristics.


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. Further, the most commonly used ammunition is high explosive fragmentation, but someone noted that no signs of shrapnel were found at the scene.

A malfunction seems a hard sell, given the deadliness of the blast.

Just as a possibility is a rocket too. — ssu

True, but what rocket? As far as I have been able to tell the biggest one Hamas uses is the Qassam-3, which is comparable (if not essentially the same?) to a BM-21 Grad. They both use a simple and relatively small 20kg warhead.

Videos of Grad explosions are easy to find on the internet - just your run of the mill puff of smoke and dirt - not the type of fireball seen in the videos of the hospital bombing, though admittedly those are taken at night-time which might alter perception.

If it was a Hellfire it would seem to have malfunction or it was some sort of very low yield variant I am unaware of. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are a lot of variants of the Hellfire, and they were originally anti-tank missiles which were later modified for use by drones against personnel, so the warheads used are quite small. (10kg range) Though they're also modern and (obviously) a lot more sophisticated than the BM-21 Grad, which may account for the increased blast and lethality.

Supposedly the R9E and R9H variants of the AGM-114R (Hellfire II Romeo) were made with reduced explosive yield to minimize collateral damage, but I haven't been able to find proper sources for these types in particular.

But if it's a weapon functioning as intended, it would have to be some sort of incendiary since it isn't consistent with an air burst explosion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I guess with term 'air burst' I was pointing at the fact that the munition used may have been the type that explodes before it hits the ground and thus leaves less of an impact zone (though it increases lethality). This would explain the lack of a crater, but it would also make Israel the likely culprit since I am not aware of Hamas using that type of munitions.

I'm not sure if you believe that is inconsistent with the pictures of the damage? Or perhaps what you mean is that it can't be caused by particular airburst munitions like those that can be fired from artillery platforms (which would involve shrapnel, which wasn't found at the scene).

Just to avoid confusion, what I'm referring to is any type of munition that does not explode on impact, but on proximity with the ground.

The lack of a real crater continues to imply to me some form of airburst weapon, though alternative explanations are imaginable.

Could it have been a Hellfire?

AGM-114N Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) Thermobaric Hellfire

Or maybe another Hellfire variant.

To be honest, I find the Israeli defense of "there is no crater!" a very strange argument, since their arsenal is full of weapons which do not produce craters. :chin:

We've also yet to see an impact site, the absence of which could imply the use of airburst munitions.

So the absence of a crater does not absolve Israel, though the use of airburst munitions would be properly ghastly, because those are meant specifically to harm people as opposed to buildings or materiel.

It would explain the extraordinarily high death toll, though it remains to be seen whether that's the actual death toll or if it is being heavily exaggerated.

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

A peculiar series of tweets by Hananya Naftali, who is (apparently) a member of Bibi's social media team.




And now this tweet:

https://twitter.com/HananyaNaftali/status/1714400598991261966

:chin:


Honest mistake, or did he screw the pooch?

There's an equal chance that your foray into forensic pyrotechnics began about 20 minutes ago and you have no idea what rockets are within the Hamas arsenal, what their explosive power is, and no idea what forces the hospital structure could withstand. — Hanover

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:

The biggest Hamas rockets are, I believe, the Qassam-3. They reportedly hold a 20kg warhead filled with TNT / fertilizer mixture.

That won't bring down a house, let alone an entire hospital. Such rockets are made with area saturation/high volume of fire in mind.

But it's unclear to me what the al-Ahli hospital actually looked like, and whether it collapsed.

A 20kg explosive that probably hovers somewhere between civilian-grade and military-grade will produce a decent boom, but 500 dead + presumably many more wounded sounds extraordinarily high for such an explosion, especially if walls were seperating people from the blast.

If that audio is real, they sure did a good job at making it sound extremely fake. :lol:

Coming out with these sorts of audio recordings less than a day after the incident I find pretty suspect to begin with, and smells like damage control to me.

Had the Israelis been innocent in all of this, they would have likely kept calm and waited for a proper investigation. But since they are probably not innocent, they felt a strong pressure to claim the narrative before their enemies run away with it and denying it is no longer credible.

The reaction on the side of the Palestinians seems a lot more genuine - anger, disbelief.

I know which story I find the more plausible one. Killing 500 with a single rocket doesn't sound like the sort of damage Hamas weaponry is capable of (as rightly pointed out). Sounds more like the effect of large Israeli ordnance.

Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement.

Palestine suffered human rights violations and crimes against humanity under Israeli occupation. Ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, discrimination, apartheid, etc.

All of this has been pointed out by human rights organisations, the UN and the ICJ countless times.

Currently the Palestinians are suffering from collective punishment and indiscriminate bombing at the hands of the Israelis - both of which are also war crimes.

Do you believe Palestinians should be allowed to "retaliate and make sure such attacks can't happen again"?

Given the long delay on Israel's invasion, it is starting to look like the Israelis are realising they can't get it done diplomatically. They're smart enough to know that to rely solely on their military will create a catastrophe that might end Israel as we know it.

We'll have to see, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a diplomatic initiative coming from the BRICS that seeks to cement this new diplomatic reality in the Middle-East by finally allowing Palestinians statehood. (China has now officially stated it believes that to be the solution)

Even if that were to succeed, I'm unsure whether that would create positive change in the long run. My fear is that it would critically compromise Israel's already precarious position in the region. But it would certainly be another geopolitical bombshell.

"Construe" :lol:

The tragedy of all of this is that you can scroll back to page 1 of this thread and find people predicting the very situation we are in today - with Ukraine being destroyed in an unwinnable war against Russia while being hung out to dry by the US.

Either this was obvious from day 1 to anyone who would look at the facts and the historical record, or that is an astonishing coincidence!

2015, by the way.

For purposes of definition, I consider Idealists as ones who put universal rights above nation, and follows globalized institutions like the UN rather than national interests. No nation is fully idealist. The more a nation is under threat, the LESS likely they will go the Idealist route for getting out of its situation. — schopenhauer1

Yea, within IR that would be the proper definition.

I probably should have used a different term to describe the ideals of the Israeli hardliners to avoid confusion.

But it seems we are mostly in agreement. :up:

I'm not sure to what extent I can agree with the characterization of Israel as an idealist nation.

My impression is that Israel has acted in a predominantly realist fashion, the exception being the nationalism/zionism at the root of its creation, which is still supported by much of the hardliners that control the Israeli government (like Netanyahu and the Likud party).

But even they are realist to the bone.

I think perhaps Rabin was close to being an idealist. Sadly he was assassinated for it.

I've argued before in this thread that Israel's position in the region is and has been precarious. Perhaps that's why it can't afford itself much idealism.

On the other hand, it's hard to see how Israel's blatant disregard for humanitarian law is benefitting it in the long-term. One could argue it's the idealism of Israel's hardline leadership that causing its ruthless policies vis-á-vis the Palestinians. A realist perhaps would sooner see the necessity of finding a modus vivendi, to avoid becoming diplomatically isolated in the region - ending up as a pariah state hated by all its neighbors.

Do note that while I am very critical of Israel, that doesn't mean that I am not also very critical of Hamas. I'd agree with Baden there. They're terrorists, and people who deliberately target innocent civilians in the way that they did deserve no protection.

The millions of innocent people who live in Gaza however do deserve protection.

And while we may imagine what atrocities Hamas would commit if they were ever to gain power (which will hopefully never happen), in the case of Israel we need not imagine. Its list of human rights violations is unending. Human rights organisations have termed its treatments of the Palestinians as apartheid - a crime against humanity.

Hamas is being punished for its wrongdoings as we speak, sadly over the backs of innocent civilians. But when will Israel be held accountable?

Israel doesn’t occupy it in the sense it doesn’t have settlements nor political rule there. — schopenhauer1

I disagree, and like I told Hanover before, the relevant rulings state exactly that:

Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (September, 2022)

The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Gaza, and the occupied Syrian Golan are currently under belligerent occupation by Israel, to which international humanitarian law applies concurrently with international human rights law.

I agree with you insofar that the other regional players haven't come to the rescue of Gaza either. But that's not their responsibility either. It's Israel's. That's why Israel has a nearly endless list of human rights violations to its name vis-á-vis the Palestinian people - human rights violations as determined by reputable international courts and organisations.

I agree that Egypt had a role in the start of this political conflict.

I remain unconvinced about Egypt's role in the humanitarian crisis, though. In my view that is between occupier and occupied - Israel and the Palestinians living in Gaza. Israel took that responsibility on itself when it annexed the land.

Whether the situation would have been any better had the Egyptians stayed in control is not all that relevant. I'm sure it wouldn't have been fantastic either. But that's hardly a ground to shift the responsibility.

That Egypt did not want Gaza back, and today refuses to let the conflict spill over into its region, is in my view entirely within its right and I see no reason why the onus would be on them to act when Israel has stubbornly refused to seek workable solutions for 50 years.

What do you believe Egypt should/could have done?

But who created whom and is it Israel in a vacuum? — schopenhauer1

A vacuum would be overstating it, but yes, I've seen no indication that Egypt bears responsibility for how the situation in Gaza developed. But maybe you know things I don't. I'm open to hearing another perspective.

"Oh I'm sorry you're to ignorant for me to explain please educate yourself". — Echarmion

Note that I didn't refuse to explain. You'll find all the explanation you need in this very thread, with links, sources and all. I've probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all. If you're unaware of US involvement in Ukraine I would suggest starting at page 1.

What an absolute asshole move. — Echarmion

Sometimes being an asshole and simply being honest look very much alike.

Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch

What? I don't understand this at all. — Echarmion

So you're either unaware of the United States' deep involvement in Ukraine, or trying to deny it.

In either case there's no point in continuing this kind of discussion.

If you're genuinely interested in learning more about this conflict, feel free to read through some of the replies I've dropped here. They'll also include links and sources.

It's of course possible that Russia engaged in a major, multi-pronged offensive in order to have leverage for an independent Donbas. It's an insane amount of effort for a minor goal, but It's possible. — Echarmion

Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat.

What's the evidence for this? — Echarmion

The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs.

You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect? — Echarmion

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off.

How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia. — Echarmion

Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked.