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.

The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine. — Mikie

Probably not, but annex a substantial part of it, and probably install a satellite regime in others. — Echarmion

If we go by the peace negotiations that took place in March / April of 2022, the Russians offered peace in return for the independence of Donbas and Ukrainian neutrality.

In my opinion, this shows Russian goals in Ukraine were not primarily territorial. It's only when peace negotiations failed (blocked by the US) that they dug themselves in in Kherson and Zaporizhia, and started to prepare for a long war.

There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me.

It's even unclear whether Donbas would join Russia, or whether it would remain 'independent' and serve as a buffer (though in that case, 'satellite' would probably be the correct term).

You sort of got it with your brief and last mention there (of the real issue) which is they don’t want to deal with their Hamas anymore than Israel. — schopenhauer1

I suppose Israel should have thought of that before it annexed the Gaza Strip, and before it insisted on its occupation and eventual integration into Israel.

In my opinion, when the Israelis point at the Egyptians they are refusing to take responsibility by asking other nations to clean up the disaster that they created.

Taking in several million traumatized refugees and possibly thousands of Muslim radicals is not something Egypt can be expected to simply take on the chin because Israeli radicals want to be enabled in their fantasy.

Do you talk about moral ambiguity, feel the guilt of your predecessors in putting you in this place, and then set up a meeting with Hamas to discuss your displeasure at their murderous yet understandable behavior and figure out how we can go halfsies on the land so everyone will be happy? — Hanover

Yes, that is the way.

And Rabin was successful at it - finally some semblance of a start of reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians.

A little too successful. Radicals within Israel had him offed.

Can't have humanism get in the way of nationalism/zionism.

Those same radicals are in charge today, by the way.

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders? — schopenhauer1

I think there are a few reasons. One is that opening up a corridor would basically allow Israel to go ahead with its ethnic cleansing and annexation of Gaza. Which, besides leading to a humanitarian catastrophe several times worse than the 1948 Nakba, is also something Egypt is politcally opposed to.

It's also not clear whether Egypt can even house this amount of refugees.

Further, among the refugees there are bound to be radical militants. Hamas has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt has struggled with in the past.

Personally, I feel like it's Israel's responsibility to act in ways that doesn't jeopardize millions of innocent lives.

Why didn't Egypt want (at least provisional) control of Gaza when they could have had it? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I followed the links but didn't find a clear explanation of what you mean by this.

If you believe Israel isn't occupying foreign territories in Gaza and the West Bank, then what exactly do you believe Israel is doing there? — Tzeentch

They're invading it after being attacked. — Hanover

I believe it is and was an occupation, and relevant rulings on this case seem to agree.

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.

Then I have trouble understanding your position.

If you believe Israel isn't occupying foreign territories in Gaza and the West Bank, then what exactly do you believe Israel is doing there?

Your comment is almost symbolic for the lack of diplomatic tact that I sought to point out.

Uhhh... just how many have been killed in Ukraine compared to this little fight? And there are over 6 million refugees from Ukraine now all over the World. That's multiple times the population in Gaza. And how do the deaths compare? In the war in Ukraine 200 000 soldiers in all have perished in the war and perhaps 40 000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed. And the actual figures can be even higher, actually.

So please do notice the huge differences in scale. — ssu

That's of course terrible, however in the case of Ukraine there is a professional army capable of protecting civilians (and not using them as human shields), and a state capable of sheltering them with wide international support. That's not the case in Gaza. In Gaza there is no food, no running water, no electricity, and the civilians cannot flee even if they wanted to.

So I think it's fair to say that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is much worse - that's not necessarily a quantitative statement.

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there. — Hanover

Ok, so you're making a claim about Israel's annexations of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 - places that belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively at the time, and where there lived (and still live) primarily Palestinians.

What makes this annexation by Israel during the Six-Day War legitimate in your eyes?

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

Is something new, Tzeentch? — ssu

Well, yes and no.

The writing has been on the wall for a while, but nature of the war in Ukraine has allowed the Biden administration to play pretend for a while.

There was no real threat of escalation in Ukraine and the Russians weren't intent on pushing the Ukrainians to the brink. Also the humanitarian situation wasn't as dire as in Gaza.

However, with Israel any ideas about Washington being in control are dispelled. They are out of control. There have barely been any diplomatic conversations between Washington and players in the Middle-East - something that would be unheard of 20 years ago.

Of course the fact that the US was going to support Israel was never in question, but the US can't even really support Israel. Vacuous "we stand with Israel" statements are meaningless - in fact, makes Washington look like a bunch of stooges in the way it was presented - schoolchildren. Sending carrier battlegroups is imposing and symbolic, but in pratical terms meaningless for the type of conflict that might enfold and the players involved know that.

This might explain in part why Israel is reacting so extremely - because they realize there's no one at the wheel in Washington. No one to come and save them if the Arabs come knocking.

Honestly, up to this point I had kept the option open that Washington wasn't purely incompetent, but might be playing an extremely cynical game of 4d chess. However, given the role Israel plays in US politics, Washington can't afford incompetence or cynicism here, so what we're looking at is very real.

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this?

The administration in Washington looks like they are in way over their head. They have no one left who can with some credibility engage in diplomacy, nor does the EU.

They're probably barely on speaking terms with any of the parties involved, and they're scared of the Israelis. Blinken looked like a schoolboy next to Netanyahu.

It's truly shocking to me, and an indicator how far along we already are with regards to the geopolitical shift that is taking place. It looks like there are no adults left in western politics. No one with a cool head, with credibility or any semblance of rapport.

It's as disgraceful as it is shocking.

Also, I am not trying to score easy points against you, . :kiss:

I only sought to point out the direct link between the 1967 Six-Day War and the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank. Obviously the conflict goes further back.

Seems one can say the very same for Israel's formation in 1948, no? — schopenhauer1

In a sense, yes. But in 1948 the Israelis were very effective at ethnically cleansing the territories they annexed (Nakba). In 1967 they evidently weren't.

2) Why didn't Hamas focus on making a prosperous Gaza for their population in terms of using support money to go to operations of daily living rather than funneled into military operations? — schopenhauer1

Gaza has been under a blockade for over 15 years, and the Israelis have in other ways actively tried to prevent Gaza from developing.

Hamas didn't contribute to the prosperity of Gaza either, clearly. But there's two sides to the story.

It's even commonly accepted that at various points in the past the Israeli government low-key supported Hamas in order to reduce the influence of the PLO, and thus make a two-state solution impossible.

3) Israel's problems always stemmed from its very formation. One side did not accept any concessions to the other (this was prior to even the 1948 war, meaning even prior to the "right of return" situation). In other words, one side has always thought the other side illegitimate even in theory. — schopenhauer1

Do note the role of the Six-Day War in 1967. That is when Israel annexed the Gaza Strip and Sinai from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

A lot has been said about the Israeli claim to self-defense, since it utterly clobbered its neighbours' militaries in a matter of days and went on to annex huge swathes of land. It bit off more than it could chew, and it did so arguably on the basis of lies.

Now, over 50 years after the fact, those things are coming back to haunt them.

Israel probably isn't out of PGM's, but out of anti-air missiles for their Iron Dome.

Iron Dome was designed to intercept sporadic attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and they may not have had stockpiles to have it operating under the conditions we see today.

Obviously they can't go around saying their Iron Dome is out of ammo.

That won't be the end of it, though. Millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank. If Israel chooses to commit a second Nakba, there will be zero chance for peace in Israel.

Meanwhile, we see several countries that were formerly neutral towards Israel putting diplomatic pressure not to go ahead with this invasion - Egypt, Russia, Türkiye, among others.

If this is happening, Gaza won't be the end of it. Gaza will be the start. I think Israel would be massively overplaying its hand (taking after its big brother, the US) and come out of this mess more vulnerable than it has ever been.

In my view, the biggest threat to Israel is if it were to become totally estranged and politically isolated from its regional neighbours. With this plan, it is coursing directly towards such a situation.

Now is not 1973. Israel's conventional army, while formiddable, will simply lose versus a large, well-coordinated unconventional threat.

Especially in an ethnic/religious conflict like this, 'war among the people', the power of conventional armies is very limited and I suspect that is something Israel is going to learn the hard way - if not in Gaza, in the conflicts that will predictably follow this disaster.