I would have to imagine Egypt is lobbying quite hard against a ground incursion. I can't imagine public opinion won't turn against the blockade if people can't leave but letting them leave is a pretty huge risk for Egypt. And given levels of trust, it's not exactly like they can flee for Israel.

Hopefully that would preclude any sort of major operation and make them think about the situation they've let develop.

US to send aircraft carrier to Mediterranean to support Israel. Who do they think they are fighting, China? This is the world's largest prison. It would be comical if it were not absolutely tragic and disgusting.



Well, that's the issue. From a military perspective alone, the initial stages of this attack were very successful for Hamas. But if this is all they have that is, if they already played all the cards they have, then the only thing they have to negotiate or pressure anything are the hostages. I heard the BBC claim they have around 30 of them.

If Hezbollah does get involved fully, as in a full-scale war, Israel would still win, but the cost would have been extremely high.

We have to see what Egypt will do and Jordan and Turkey. Most scenarios still look bad for Hamas, unless they have something else.

I would have to imagine Egypt is lobbying quite hard against a ground incursion. I can't imagine public opinion won't turn against the blockade if people can't leave but letting them leave is a pretty huge risk for Egypt. And given levels of trust, it's not exactly like they can flee for Israel.

Hopefully that would preclude any sort of major operation and make them think about the situation they've let develop. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But given the death toll, will Israeli politicians feel they have any room to maneuver? Israel is used to violence but this attack was on a different level. What other short-term solutions can politicians offer a frightened people?

Reportedly the IDF is evacuating civilians from around Gaza, that could be preparations for a ground assault.

US to send aircraft carrier to Mediterranean to support Israel. Who do they think they are fighting, China? — Manuel

Presumably it's a message to Israel's other enemies to not be getting ideas.

Well, that's the issue. From a military perspective alone, the initial stages of this attack were very successful for Hamas. But if this is all they have that is, if they already played all the cards they have, then the only thing they have to negotiate or pressure anything are the hostages. I heard the BBC claim they have around 30 of them. — Manuel

It was successful in creating death and destruction, but if we follow Clausewitz that's not a military goal. If the goal is to lure the IDF into Gaza - either to destroy it there or set up a multi-front war - that would be a military goal. I doubt the latter, there doesn't seem to be much of a realistic chance to defeat Israel even in an all out effort, and the US has already send a carrier as noted above.

Maybe the Hamas hopes to fatally weaken the IDF in Gaza. It makes at least theoretical sense, but it seems very unlikely to work out.

Of course it could be a sort of 3D chess where Israel occupies Gaza and all the long term costs - materially and politically - are meant to cripple it. But that seems a bit fanciful.

Presumably it's a message to Israel's other enemies to not be getting ideas. — Echarmion

It can be interpreted that way. On the other hand it could commit the US military to another war. The aid they get through the US, plus the weapons and the ammunition, more than suffices. Also, if the situation in Lebanon becomes too unstable, Hezbollah may be forced to act. I don't think a ship would be able to stop that.

As a message to Iran though, there, it could be a signal. I don't know. But you have a point.

I doubt the latter, there doesn't seem to be much of a realistic chance to defeat Israel even in an all out effort, and the US has already send a carrier as noted above.

Maybe the Hamas hopes to fatally weaken the IDF in Gaza. It makes at least theoretical sense, but it seems very unlikely to work out.

Of course it could be a sort of 3D chess where Israel occupies Gaza and all the long term costs - materially and politically - are meant to cripple it. But that seems a bit fanciful. — Echarmion

It's a mixture of several factors, including the Temple Mount provocation, creating diplomatic relations with Qatar and Saudi Arabia and trying to negotiate with Israel to free Palestinian prisoners.

If you look at the Israeli press, say Haaretz, they're calling it a disaster for Israel. Of course, if Hezbollah avoids getting dragged in, then Israel will eventually pulverize Gaza again.

Even if Hezbollah gets involved, it doesn't mean Israel will lose, far from it. They can flatten Lebanon quite quickly, the issue would be that Israel does not tolerate high civilian loses and in that respect, it could become much worse.

I doubt Hamas believes it can defeat the IDF. It is more a point of principle, of not being allowed to be insulted by the government and of telling other Arab countries outside Iran that they still exist.

The hostages right now are a key point. But if things remains as they are, Israel will win, as is to be expected.

We will see to what extent this US ship does anything. It's still quite surreal to see, despite the point you made, which is a good one.

From Haaretz:

Reports estimate Israel will launch ground attack in Gaza within 48 hours
Sources in the Biden administration estimate that Israel will launch a ground attack on the Gaza Strip within the next two days, according to The Washington Post.

A spokesperson for the Israeli embassy in the U.S. did not respond to this claim, citing that the embassy does not deal with military issues.

I can't share more, don't want to get into trouble with sharing and all that of paywalled material but, this is important.

Presumably it's a message to Israel's other enemies to not be getting ideas.

That and they go through the Eastern Med anyhow. Following the attack, other Iranian affiliated groups have made threats on US bases "across the region," as well, so it's more a deterrent against other actors in the region.

But it also sounds like they might transfer PGMs to them. Which at least gives the US leverage. Given that Israel has plenty of dumb bombs and artillery, this doesn't seem like the worst thing. This was true with the Saudis too. All else equal, it's better if someone can use one guided weapon to destroy the one vehicle they are after, rather than leveling the block because all they have is dumb fire artillery.

Will the violence stay in Gaza? Or will the region be pulled into war?

Your guess is as good as mine. I would hope cooler heads prevail.

I would think it's more likely that it stays contained to Gaza because Iran's only way to move significant material into the theater would be through Iraq and then Syria, and both Syria and Russia have other things to worry about while Iraq has had tensions with Iran lately anyhow. Hezbollah will fire some rockets, but Hezbollah also governs and has domestic goals and seems a lot less likely to jeopardize those for adventurism, especially since the memory of the civil war and occupation has faded.

have any of Israel's neighbors ever offered peace or reversed their desire to annihilate the Israeli state and the people in it? — tim wood

Yes, plenty of times actually, there's lots of examples here, much of it covered in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim. — Manuel

I have not read the book. I have read the Amazon reviews. This seems a good summary of many of them:
"...Various reviewers and historians have criticized his book and shown flaws in it. However my reading of it is that the evidence he presents, while not fully supporting his views (he is very one sided in blaming Israel and ignores both Arab intransigence and also the role of the Superpowers during the cold war) he does at least present enough evidence to show that the myth of Israel the victim and hero is also an exaggeration.....
"Israel has provably committed atrocities over the years (since before 1948 and its foundation) and has been in breach of international law on numerous occasions, but at the same time the Arabs have been no better, and this aspect is missing from the book.
"This book is worth reading, but should be taken with a pinch of salt.... The reality is that at the moment there is little provably objective history of the conflict and anyone who wants to understand it has to read widely and with an open mind. It should be clear to anyone who does that 1) Israel is not a monster and the Arabs harmless victims and 2). Israel is not a harmless victim and the Arabs monsters."


And another review and author's response. From here: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/153
Avi Shlaim
Posted: Wed, 02/09/2009 - 16:38
"Matthew Hughes's review of my book 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World' is judicious and fair-minded. Hughes places this book in its proper context: the ongoing debate between the traditional Israeli historians and the 'new historians' or revisionist Israeli historians of whom I am one. He goes on to give an accurate summary of some of the main arguments of the book before offering his own comments and criticisms. I have no real problem with the review but I would like to take up some of the points made in it....
"Finally, Hughes suggests that Arab military power in the 1973 war, their 'iron wall' if you like, prompted the two sides to negotiate the first peace treaty in 1979 between Israel and Egypt. His conclusion is that perhaps the policy of military toughness was not entirely mistaken. My argument is not that the policy of military toughness was entirely mistaken but that it could not solve the conflict with the Arabs on its own. In the Prologue to the book I explain that Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the original proponent of the strategy of the iron wall, envisaged two stages: first, building the iron wall and, second, once the Arab had given up hope of destroying Israel, negotiating with them. The mistake of some of Israel's leaders, and especially the leaders of the Right, is that they regard Israel's military superiority not as an asset in negotiating a final settlement of the conflict with the Palestinians but as an instrument for perpetuating Israel's mastery over them. The politicians of the Right still believe that the only language the Arabs understand is force. But if the 50 years' history covered in my book shows anything, it is that Israel can only have peace with the Arabs when it is prepared to meet them half-way."
---------

And I think that final "half-way." is an echo of my question to you above, which you did not answer and it seems this book likely doesn't answer. Most of Israel's neighbors seem then and now committed to Israel's destruction. When have any of them offered (real) peace to Israel? I am aware that Egypt and Jordan have treaties in force with Israel which seem to be working, so we can count them. Any others?

I'll remind everyone not to discuss the wider problem with @tim wood who's just an Israeli apologist with zero knowledge of the history and politics of the region. See page 76 of this thread.

For the rest carry on.

:up:

nevertheless, there is no apologizing for the actions of hamas. Let's not discount the possibility of antisemetic semites.

So there's no sign of any deescalation in Gaza. By design or opportunity, it seems like Hamas is throwing itself fully into the war, with the border still not secured and ongoing fighting in southern Israel.

If the western media sources accurately display Israeli feeling, this is a watershed moment, and a return to the status quo ante looks less likely the longer the fighting outside of Gaza goes on.

This seems clear evidence for the failure of the "prison camp" strategy. But what could happen next? I think it's likely Israel takes direct control of Gaza, but that in and of itself is not a solution and an ongoing occupation will be costly.

Eye for an eye, war crime for a war crime.

Sometimes prisoners murder jailors.

Sometimes slaves lynch masters.

Snakes in the ashes swallowing their own tales because arming both sides is always more profitable than unprofitable.

Since the Nakba / Shoah, thunder chases lightning....

Praise be Human sacrifices in 'the holy land'!

Oh yes, this is exactly the excuse the right-wing Zionists need. It's like beating a dog repeatedly and then acting you're aghast when it bites you. "See, I told you it's a mean dog!"

Yeah- I gave it a brief try, but you are correct. Thanks.

Hezbollah will fire some rockets, but Hezbollah also governs and has domestic goals and seems a lot less likely to jeopardize those for adventurism, especially since the memory of the civil war and occupation has faded. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh. So it was just retaliation. They don't actually have the ability or desire for war.

I doubt Hamas believes it can defeat the IDF. It is more a point of principle, of not being allowed to be insulted by the government and of telling other Arab countries outside Iran that they still exist.

I don't think any Arab states forgot they exist. Half the reason Gazans have nowhere to go is that they are blockaded by an Arab country. The shift has been that the Palestinians are no longer geopolitically useful for most of the Arab regimes, and the "Israeli boogie man," has lost its luster due to time, other, more relevant conflicts coming to the fore, and the Palestinians many wars with their ostensible allies over the years.

It's not exactly an issue the Arab elite has any reason to bring up. Sure, the cause might still be "popular on the street," to some degree, but loosing wars to Israel wasn't popular, Palestinian violence/subversion wasn't popular when occuring within the surrounding states, and they don't exactly want to relive a history where they forced the Palestinians into squalid camps in a fairly transparent attempt to keep the conflict alive. The whole affair isn't really a unifying issue anymore, particularly for elites now that a history of secret negotiations on exchanging "people for land," has come out, showing the land was always the target fought over, the people the burden they had to be "paid to accept."

And to the extent the attack is done in the way it was, it's made it much easier for those states, states that quite frankly, see Hamas as an enemy, just an enemy popular with the "street," to continue ignoring them.

I don't see a long term strategy here from Hamas. To the extent there is a strategy it seems aimed at Gaza first, unifying support, and the West Bank second, attempting to increase support in their ongoing rivalry with Fatah.

Israeli messaging seems to look towards a perilous strategy: removing Hamas root and branch. The main question is if they can actually achieve this with losses they would find acceptable and if they can do it without civilian losses that make it unacceptable to the Israeli public and the rest of the world. The other question is if what grows back will be any better.

To the latter question, the answer might very well be positive. If disrupted enough Hamas could lose its grip on power. Cheering crowds in the street only tell half the story. There are Palestinians with families to protect, jobs, loves, who voice angst over the fact that an unaccountable leadership plans their strategy in secret, divorced from the populace, and brings shells and bombs raining down while failing to deliver on real wins or governance (or freedom to speak these grievances) That doesn't mean that Israel is at all popular, just that Hamas does have competition for a reason, decades of failure has political consequences even if there is a unifying enemy.

And maybe that might make things better in the long run. If Fatah ran Gaza and didn't face such competition from more radical elements I think it's obvious that we'd be closer to peace and the Israeli right would be weaker (the radicals of each camp feed on one another). Israeli apologists make much of Arafat walking away from a two state solution but the fact is that part of the reason he did so is because he faced mounting internal threats and was losing control over his own party. This has to do with the way Israel itself handled the Intifada though.

The other side of a "better outcome," would be that Netanyahu is discredited and his coalition ousted. If Hamas is gone and new leadership on both sides emerges, maybe something better will come. I just see the odds being bleak. I don't think the IDF can uproot Hamas and I don't think Netanyahu will lose power, and it's hard to see any positive outcome in that case.

---

BTW, people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between Hamas being justified in violent resistance and Hamas not being justified in pursuing losing strategies that have made their situation worse over several decades. That the Arab states pivoted away from supporting them has reasons that are internal to Hamas, which doesn't operate in a vacuum. The loss of wider support is a Hamas policy failure more than any Israeli victory. But if your fight is worth shedding blood over then failure in that fight is worth critique. A just cause doesn't make you immune to criticism. Stalin was justified in defending against Hitler, but that didn't make his atrocious strategy and lack of concern for his soldiers and populace justified. And like I said, this is where Israel's assassination of Hamas' leadership is coming back to bite them since it has degraded that strategic thinking.

Anyone has any ideas about Hamas' goals?

One would have to assume they expected harsh retaliation by Israel, but what do they stand to gain?

Keeping their cause alive could be one reason, but at the same time that's a very limited goal that maybe doesn't warrant such a large attack.

A theory I've heard is that Iran was involved, and that this may have to do with sabotaging Saudi-Israel rapprochement. It's an interesting thought, but at the same time the question is whether such a goal would warrant this type of an attack. Especially considering Iran and Saudi-Arabia have reached their own form of rapprochement recently, and one would assume that countries in BRICS have more subtle ways of settling such matters among themselves.

Anyway, I haven't heard something that makes total sense yet. So any takers?

I recall an essay I read a while back by a Lebanese woman who lived through the civil war. She talked about how attacks simply became a reason onto themselves, the raison d'etre of the armed groups. This seems like a similar situation from what I can tell.

Obviously, wars, at least initially, boost solidarity and support for Hamas, so that could be a goal. But after they are over, if there is simply more death, destruction, and poverty, and their strategy has failed to move the needle, this doesn't necessarily continue.

In this I think it's important to recall that Hamas uses its resources to promote the cheering crowds and rallying moments, while not exactly being a paragon of free speech and openess to criticism. I think at times they fall into the same trap that foreigners do, thinking anger at Israel is equivalent with love of Hamas. The two overlap, particularly during flash points, but even if one supports one's country in a war, that doesn't mean you can't be enraged by an inept command (e.g. conservatives in Russia in 1914-1917.)

They absolutely have the ability for a war. They have a fairly large, professional force. But they also lack the conventional forces, artillery, tanks, aircraft, to challenge Israel in any sort of invasion. Their successes have generally been to bait Israel into attacking them on their home turf to fight essentially an insurgent style war, allowing them to hide in urban areas. This works if you're baiting Israel into invading Lebanon but it won't let you push over the border through open spaces where aircraft and artillery will shred your forces.

But if Israel is focused on Gaza they are unlikely to fall for the bait and Hezbollah don't have the element of surprise anymore for a raid where they take prisoners to force Israel to pursue.

What they might do is fire rockets, try to bait out air strikes, and then use Iranian AA that Iran has previously been reticent to spread to Hezbollah/Lebanon to inflict losses on Israel. However, there are a number of problems with this. Giving weapons that could down commercial airliners to a group widely recognized as a terror organization comes with consequences for Iran and unpredictable blowback if they are used poorly (e.g. an Arab commercial flight being shot down by accident). It also comes with risks to their assets in Syria. And Israel has already shown they can fly literally thousands of sorties through Iranian air defenses without losing a pilot.

In terms of will, I think it's there, just not strong enough to want to risk something like a suicidal head on invasion attempt. That's why I would think it stays relatively contained, but I could easily be wrong.

Edit: also, Hez can't afford to bleed strength. ISIS is defeated but Sunni jihadism is alive and well and the attitude from them is still that Hez and Iran represent heretics who need to be cleansed from the Earth.

US to send aircraft carrier to Mediterranean to support Israel. Who do they think they are fighting, China? This is the world's largest prison. It would be comical if it were not absolutely tragic and disgusting. — Manuel

I think they might intervene, if Iran intervenes. Or who knows, make a "pre-emptive" attack on Iran or Hezbollah. Of course it's a way to show support to Israel, which is the most likeliest reason: put a carrier close to Israel, send them more weapons.

Israeli Defense Forces mobilizing 300 000 reservists. That's basically the Israeli armed forces making a general mobilization and putting it's strength to wartime strength. Israel has 460 000 reservists, so basically this is all but the second tier replacements. This also has severe effects on the economy with hundreds of thousands of male workers being out from their civilian work and in the military. Hence this kind of mobilization cannot go for years, it has to be an operation that is counted in weeks and months.

Hence it can possibly be a dramatic closure or occupation of the Gaza Strip. At least for the declaration that Hamas has been destroyed. There is at least plentiful footage of the atrocities that Hamas has done, hence why not start a war in a closely inhabited urban area where over 2 million live?

The real worry if this escalates even more. Unlikely, but a possibility. That if it goes so well with destroying Hamas, how about a rematch with Hezbollah too? The 2006 left a sour taste afterwards for Israel.

ISIS is defeated but Sunni jihadism is alive and well and the attitude from them is still that Hez and Iran represent heretics who need to be cleansed from the Earth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is that fed by Saudi Arabia? Just curious.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood

My belief is that most everyone wants peace on their own terms. If only you slaves would bow and acknowledge my just rule and obey me, I would want peace myself, but since you insist on claiming equality and independence, I am obliged reluctantly to show you the error of your ways.

Mobilizing 300,000 troops is quite an extreme reaction - perhaps exactly the type which Hamas sought to provoke. I'm not sure what Israel plans to do with those 300,000 reservists. Some news reports have stated that it is sending most its troops to the Lebanese border. Given the global geopolitical situation with the US occupied elsewhere and looking weak, they might be fearing a serious attack by another party.

If they use massive military force to once again attack Lebanon or to occupy Gaza, I think it will be a grave mistake on their part. A new occupation of Gaza would turn into an absolute bloodbath that would probably haunt them for the rest of their existence. But I'm not sure if the current geopolitical situation allows Israel to go on the offensive like that.

It's clear Hamas and Hezbollah, and other actors like Iran, are capable of learning from past and contemporary conflicts and know how to target Israel's weak points. I'm inclined to believe the military balance of power is skewed less in Israel's favor than it has in the past, and given Israel's precarious position in the region we may be looking at genuine fear.

I'll refer you to my dog analogy. We all know what happens to the dog that finally bites its abusive masters. Gaza will basically be razed to the ground. People will start starving in about two weeks.

Not sure what you mean by "fed," but you could probably say "yes," in a few ways.

The defeat of ISIS was fed by the Saudis and other Arab states who led the air campaign that defeated ISIS in the field. However, even back when ISIS was seen as a major regional threat, the coalition still kept their efforts and eyes focused on Iran to a great extent. I recall analysts at the time accusing the "coalition against ISIS," of being as much a "coalition against Persians."

But Saudi Arabia is also involved in feeding the jihadi wave that threatens their state to a great degree. Private donors helped the Salafi movement spread and many of the big donors have been from the Gulf. At times the states crack down on it, but they've also tacitly encouraged it too. It's a mix of simply confused policy, owing to different people involved having different beliefs and priorities, Arab states using the radicals as cat's paws against each other, and them using them against Iran, particularly in the context of Iraq.

There is no one group to blame in empowering ISIS. Even Assad was giving them tacit support back when they were AQI, using them as a means to frustrate US interests. Every one involved in the region, the US included, has had blowback from supporting jihadis who later turned on them.

As of late, the Saudis seem to have cracked down on aid to a larger degree. I think this is because of ISIS blowing up.

It would turn into an absolute bloodbath that would probably haunt them for the rest of their existence. — Tzeentch

Seems the most likely outcome when you mobilise this many troops. I don't see a lack of support as a problem. They don't care about a stern talking to from the EU. The US is making bank on Israeli military activity. I'm rather pessimistic this time.

Great post, I agree. It's definitely true the Palestinian issue is a thorn in the side of most Arab governments, in large part because they don't have any value for them in terms of resources. The national issue of the Palestinian people, as you point out, is not a unifying theme for them, though for some segments of the population, not a trivial amount, it is still a fiercely felt problem.

I had more in mind, obviously doing armchair psychology, that Hamas felt that all they were getting was humiliation after humiliation, so this attack is a bit of a point of pride. That issue with the Defense Minister walking on the Temple Mount was extremely gross and pathetic.

Granted, Hamas is far from immune from very harsh criticism - then again, at least when I turn of the news, that's all that is talked about, the whole "unprovoked attack" angle, which is just blatantly false. Unprovoked? Jeez. I'd like to see what a provocation looks like.

But I do agree that killing civilians is not good, it's immoral. And I also don't see what Hamas' long term goal is, getting thousands of civilians killed for some prisoners doesn't look like a price worth paying. Then again, I'm not living in Gaza.



Yes, this is what they are indicating they will do, occupy Gaza, maybe get rid of Hamas for good. Maybe they'll get rid of Hamas, and as tend to happens in these things, something much worse will fill the power vacuum.

The issue which is being pointed out is that, if they do carry out a land invasion, they will lose plenty of soldiers and I'm not sure if Israeli society will tolerate a high number of deaths. They will have initial support, but I think such an operation is time sensitive.

As for the ship, I do see it as a potential deterrent for Iran. But I do not see how this deters Hezbollah, if they are forced to fight. Hezbollah does not want to get involved in a fight, Lebanon would be destroyed again, but if things get out of hand, they will fight back. The US could help Israel here, but having the US and Israel pulverize Lebanon would be sick.

Such a scenario is not likely, but as you say, also not impossible.



Agreed. The number of troops is insane. Put it like that, Hezbollah could be pressured to react. It's a big mess. This whole complete blockade of Gaza is ghastly. Wow.

Look, I understand the reaction to being embarrassed, I do. Starving millions of people is not a good reply in any situation.

Starving millions of people is not a good reply in any situation. — Manuel

A very good reply if you want to kill people. Leave morality at the door when figuring out Israeli calculus.