I think a military incursion, even if ultimately successful, would be a serious struggle. We can reasonably assume Hamas is prepared for Israeli retaliations, especially since these were the bloodiest attacks in decades.

But in the end where will it leave Israel? Rapprochement with the Muslim world will be impossible if the civilian death toll is high, and it probably will be. The situation on the West Bank will become further inflamed, quite possibly resulting in extreme violence there as well. What of other Arab nations like Lebanon and Iran, who might not sit idly by while this happens?

If this powder keg blows, what is the US going to do? It's got its hands full with Russia and China.

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

If you reject the views that (1) Israel has a religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue; and/or that (2) the Jewish people have a non-religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue because it is their "homeland," then the creation of Israel was an injustice. That those who were displaced as a result, and that those who must live as its subjects though unwilling to do so, resent its creation and hope for its dissolution is unsurprising. Nor is it clear that its continued existence, from the perspective of the Palestinians, will be of any benefit to them, especially given the relentless "settling" of aggressive Jewish communities and the fact that Israel considers itself a place where Jews are to live.

I hold neither of those views, and tend to think of Israel as a creation of Western powers, primarily the U.K., which was bound to create hostility and has continued to result in violence since it was formed.

That said, Israel exists and is unlikely to go away. So, efforts to annihilate it are futile. I frankly feel a two-state solution is the only viable option, but doubt that is something Israel will accept.

Not sure what you mean by "fed," but you could probably say "yes," in a few ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus

All fascinating information. Thank you. When you say we can probably say "yes" in a few days, do you mean the present situation is likely to wake up Salafi jihadists, and Saudi Arabia will support that?

That said, Israel exists and is unlikely to go away. So, efforts to annihilate it are futile. I frankly feel a two-state solution is the only viable option, but doubt that is something Israel will accept. — Ciceronianus

I share a lot of your view. I personally doubt that it's something Palestinians would accept, but two-state seems to be the only viable solution outside of one side massacring the other

Stikes will continue even if captives are hurt. :yikes:

This is wild.

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. — Manuel

I also don't understand what they wanted to accomplish with this. But it's obvious Hamas doesn't care about civilian deaths. There's a reason they set up their military operations in schools and hospitals. Palestinian civilians are nothing but human shields to Hamas, and at best future recruits.

Ah, took long enough to hear about the human shields argument.

I mean, given how big Gaza is, Hamas is particularly responsible for Israel shooting down hospitals or schools.

It would be better for the whole group to isolate in one of the biggest areas of the massive Gaza so they can be easily killed by the IDF.

The whole of Gaza is a human shield.

As far as I can tell, both NATO and the UN have investigated claims of Hamas human shields and found them to be truthful.

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

Like everyone else in the same situation, right?

If you reject the views that (1) Israel has a religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue; and/or that (2) the Jewish people have a non-religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue because it is their "homeland," then the creation of Israel was an injustice. — Ciceronianus

An injustice in a long line of injustices. It's not like the British mandate that preceded it was any more just. The region was regularly engulfed by war even before there were Muslims or Christians.

I hold neither of those views, and tend to think of Israel as a creation of Western powers, primarily the U.K. — Ciceronianus

How did you arrive at this conclusion? The UK opposed the creation of Israel, and pointedly refused to implement the UN plan.

Stikes will continue even if captives are hurt. :yikes:

This is wild. — Manuel

Better to add another 100 dead to the list than give the impression you can be intimidated, I guess. Can't say I'm surprised.

the same situation — Echarmion

Define situation.

Gaza will basically be razed to the ground. People will start starving in about two weeks. — Benkei

Bibi and the Israeli leadership understands that for now they will have the support of those that will support them, but that can change if some "final solution" type razing to the ground is implemented. One thing is rhetoric, another thing is implementin strategies that the Roman Army or the Soviet Army in Afghanistan implemented. They do understand that in the prison camp called Gaza, people don't have anywhere to go in the end. Yet you have a 300 000 strong force, which the majority is land forces. Gaza is small: it's 40 kilometers wide and only 6 kilometers deep. Yes, even 100 000 troops are a large force on that kind of area.

You can go literally check every building and shed there and then have the forces quite close. With a force of 100 000 you have basically one soldier watching over 20 Palestinians. Naturally it doesn't go like this, but it just shows the contrast here. (For example to Ukraine)

Because at some death toll that support that people have for Israelis will turn if the death toll of Palestinians goes very much up.

Now you can educate: 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

Egypt:


Jordan:


Even Trump's Abraham accords, remember?


And moreover, Israel has no worries as it has a nuclear deterrence. And it's neighbors don't.

Define situation. — Benkei

Well everytime you add fear, pride and some kind of othering - be it by religion or somerthing else - morality ends up trampled in the dirt.

What makes this conflict so intransigent is not some special capacity for callousness or cruelty on either side.

Right, if they wanted to kill a bunch of people they could lob artillery shells with impunity and do that from saftey. But there is a recognition that this wouldn't further their cause and isn't the right thing to do in any event (my cynical view of the Israeli leadership is that the former is much more relevant here).

The siege will be justified by the argument that they can't very well allow weapons to flow in during a battle. But it's also likely intended as a form of collective punishment with psychological aims. "Look, Hamas had 20 years, and this is where they have you, starving and hiding." They'll truck food in to avoid criticism and because it's a psychological attack on Hamas as well. "They provoked us, but they can't even feed you." Plus, humanitarian corridors and food trucks coming under attack by Hamas is another propaganda win if it happens.

I'm skeptical of their ability to actually remove Hamas during a siege though, but if they are able to dominate enough of the city, forcing Hamas to "blend in" without offering heavy resistance over wide areas, that's another blow to their legitimacy. It says they exist less as the army and government they want to be seen as.

I would imagine the calculation is that, if they can inflict these psychological losses on Hamas and kill enough of their membership, it might collapse. Which, if that's the strategy, the only good thing is that it militates against rules of engagement that are too loose. Whether the angry people on the ground follow along with the strategy is also a different story.

I can't think up any other goals for a large ground invasion otherwise, aside from being seen to "do something." But they have a professional military so I like to think they've had something on the drawing board more coherent.

Right, if they wanted to kill a bunch of people they could lob artillery shells with impunity and do that from saftey. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That would be a Russian solution, yes. Russians don't say to Ukrainians that they are going to destroy this certain building, so keep clear...

I'm skeptical of their ability to actually remove Hamas during a siege though, but if they are able to dominate enough of the city, forcing Hamas to "blend in" without offering heavy resistance over wide areas, that's another blow to their legitimacy. It says they exist less as the army and government they want to be seen as. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course the current Hamas can be weakened. But simply there is the next generation waiting to stand in the boots of their fathers.

I would imagine the calculation is that, if they can inflict these psychological losses on Hamas and kill enough of their membership, it might collapse. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Or hope that for the next 20 years or so, the Palestinians won't have the ability as they have now.

Honestly, a force of 300,000 against 2,000,000+ Palestinians (lets say 500,000 military age males) who have nowhere to run to, and are possibly quite well-armed and prepared to conduct an insurgency? I wouldn't be loving my odds if I were the Israeli general in charge. Not to mention the situation on the West Bank, the Lebanon border and with regards to outside actors like Iran.

Flawed they may be, Israel's government is quite capable and one would think (hope) they would see the foolishness of such a course of action.

And moreover, Israel has no worries as it has a nuclear deterrence. And it's neighbors don't. — ssu

I'm not sure how much those nukes count for in the modern age. If some escalation takes place, it's not going to be conventional. It will be 'war among the people', and it can hardly start nuking its own territory.

Israel has referred to the use of its nuclear arsenal as 'the Samson option' - if you understand the symbology you will understand that relying on this would certainly worry the Israelis.

Sure, in that case I agree.

Israel has referred to the use of its nuclear arsenal as 'the Samson option' - if you understand the symbology you will understand that relying on this would certainly worry the Israelis. — Tzeentch

Correct.

If they do go that route, it will be because they've determined that they literally will be in a position where they are being destroyed, so they take down everyone with them.

I think the crucial issue now is what the heck is Hezbollah going to do. That's what may prove to be the key aspect in making this a massive war.

From Al-Jazeera:

Three Hezbollah fighters killed in Lebanon

Three Hezbollah fighters have been killed in Israeli shelling of the Lebanese group’s positions along the Lebanon-Israel border.

Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV channel named the men killed as Ali Raed Ftouni, Mohammed Ibrahim and Ali Hassan Hodroj.

Earlier on Monday members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group had launched a cross border attack against Israel from Lebanon amid the raging war in Gaza. Israeli shelling set off intense fires on the Lebanese side of the border.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said the killing of Hezbollah fighters represents a “real escalation” at the Lebanese border, noting that the group often retaliates for the killing of its members.

“This would mean that they could launch another attack in the coming hours,” he said. Hezbollah and Israel have not seen a major confrontation since the 2006 war.

Honestly, a force of 300,000 against 2,000,000+ Palestinians (lets say 500,000 military age males) who have nowhere to run to, and are possibly quite well-armed and prepared to conduct an insurgency? I wouldn't be loving my odds if I were the Israeli general in charge. Not to mention the situation on the West Bank, the Lebanon border and with regards to outside actors like Iran. — Tzeentch

Uuhh.... you do understand that arming half a million people, and training half a million people cost enormous mounts of money and you have to have huge resources. Organizing half a million people into a fighting force is an big issue. And Hamas or the Palestinian authority don't the capability to train and arm such forces. Remember that they have had to do everything under the surveillance of Israel.

Hamas has military of what, 50 000 at tops? And the rest can throw rocks as in the old times. Hezbollah has in Lebanon perhaps 75 000 in all. They boast to have 100 000. But they aren't in an prison camp like Hamas. In Gaza they don't have had the ability to train large forces as a sovereign country could do with it's armed forces.

When never knows where one stands with Perfidious Albion, it's true. But there was the Balfour Resolution, announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and I think that's when the existing mess began to take shaper. Certainly, the British shifted support between Jewish and Arab organizations as it felt was in its interests after 1917 and through WWII, but the Resolution was never revoked; it became a question of who got what, and when.

An injustice in a long line of injustices. It's not like the British mandate that preceded it was any more just. The region was regularly engulfed by war even before there were Muslims or Christians. — Echarmion

Yes, as indeed was most of the world. But nobody has ever claimed the creation of Israel was history's only injustice, and resulted in the only wars ever fought in the region, or anywhere else.

And Hamas or the Palestinian authority don't the capability to train and arm such forces. — ssu

The assumption is that Hamas has foreign backing.

This listing only goes back to 1993.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993
Or this:
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/wave-of-terror-october-2015 - 2023
Conclusive? Of what?

Personally, we remember long before 1993 interviews with Arafat and other PLO leaders who acknowledged their attacks (e.g., bombing restaurants and buses) were terrible, ".., but,..". Always the the "but"; their excuse. There are always excuses to be found for those that need them. And it appears that Hamas has - and has had - zero interest in putting out any fires or lowering any heat - unless to bank them for a future reignition.

With the current lock down I don't think foreign backing is relevant.

I'm actually impressed how Hamas has managed to keep this operation hidden. I wouldn't be surprised some heads will roll in the Mossad and whoever is in charge of border control.

When never knows where one stands with Perfidious Albion, it's true. But there was the Balfour Resolution, announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and I think that's when the existing mess began to take shaper. Certainly, the British shifted support between Jewish and Arab organizations as it felt was in its interests after 1917 and through WWII, but the Resolution was never revoked; it became a question of who got what, and when. — Ciceronianus

I think internal documents make clear that the British never intended to follow through with the Balfour declaration, since most of their subjects in the region were muslim and they did not want to give them any reason to revolt. Subsequent action by the British (barring immigration, refusing to sanction a jewish state) bears this out. Important context for the Balfour declaration is the "cold war" the British were fighting with the French in the region.

Yes, as indeed was most of the world. But nobody has ever claimed the creation of Israel was history's only injustice, and resulted in the only wars ever fought in the region, or anywhere else. — Ciceronianus

Fair enough.

I think my point, is that it's not really the injustice of Israels creation that has caused the conflict to stay hot for so long. Even though it was a late time for conquering a territory, it wasn't that unique.

I think much more relevant for the current conflict is the specific alignment of political, economic and military power in the region. Israel is rich (relatively), all their neighbors a poor, and the Palestinians most of all. Israel is militarily powerful. But also small, and reliant on a certain international political support to keep it's enemies at arms length. Plus the Palestinian question, as other posters have pointed out, is a useful bargaining chip for various actors.

So no party is in a position to enforce their demands, but also the huge gulf between Israel and it's neighbors is preventing the kind of rapprochement that happens when more equal powers realise that total victory is no longer feasible.

Peter Hartcher, international editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, puts a persuasive case that the motivation behind the Hamas invasion is actually to derail the prospect of a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This deal would threaten to encircle Iran, as the Saudis and Iran are sworn enemies. But in light of what is happening, the Saudis will have no choice but to postpone any such proposal.

...under Washington’s aegis, Israel has been negotiating a normalisation of ties with Saudi Arabia, bringing the two traditional foes together.

This is a nightmarish prospect for Tehran. Friendly ties between Israel, the Saudis and the Americans would represent an entente cordiale between Iran’s three greatest enemies. Or, from Tehran’s point of view, it would be an axis of its enemies.

Iran’s ambitions to become the dominant power in the Middle East would turn to ash. So the ayatollahs decided to wreck the plan by launching a massive attack on Israel. Not directly, but by using Iran’s proxy forces abroad. ....

If there were any shadow of doubt that Hamas was acting hand-in-glove with Tehran, Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad on Saturday told the BBC “that the group had direct backing for the attack from Iran”. And in Tehran, Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Iran would continue to support Hamas “until the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem”.

Four days before Saturday’s invasion, the supreme leader himself said: “The usurper regime is coming to an end. Today, the Palestinian youth and the anti-oppression, anti-occupation movement in Palestine is more energetic, more alive, and more prepared than ever during the past 70 or 80 years. God willing, the movement will achieve its goal.” ....

How does this help the ayatollahs in Tehran? The moment Israel’s air force began its reprisal attacks on Hamas, with missiles striking the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, it became untenable for Saudi Arabia to be seen cosying up to the “Zionist regime”. For now, at least, any rapprochement between Riyadh and Jerusalem is impossible. Iran, as a result, is no longer in imminent danger of encirclement. ....

He then talks about the possibility of Hezbollah becoming involved:

Amin Saikal says that Israel will be in dire straits if even just one more Iranian-backed guerrilla force attacks it now. “The risk of encirclement of Israel is there only if Hezbollah...enters the fight. It is in possession of more than 100,000 missiles, some quite sophisticated, long-range missiles. And we know that in the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel tried to destroy Hezbollah but it only emerged stronger.

“So far, the exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah on the weekend has been very carefully calculated to not lead to a major conflict. But if the Hamas war with Israel goes on for more than two or three weeks, Hezbollah will come under pressure from its own fighters to join the war.” ...Iran also has other forces at its disposal, including militias in Syria, that it can activate without having to directly engage Israel. The ayatollah is in a strong position to escalate should he choose to do so. Israel could be at risk of dismemberment under assault from multiple sides.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/think-this-is-just-a-savage-new-round-of-the-israel-palestine-struggle-think-again-20231008-p5eams.html

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

Unlike the morally upstanding Palestinians. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-music-festival-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html

But in the end where will it leave Israel? Rapprochement with the Muslim world will be impossible if the civilian death toll is high, and it probably will be. The situation on the West Bank will become further inflamed. — Tzeentch

As in, now Israel will never get the Muslims to care about them now that they've gone and done this? Seems the strategic angle would be that the Palestinians would try to gain the affection of the Israelies, considering they have the power to destroy them.

you reject the views that (1) Israel has a religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue; and/or that (2) the Jewish people have a non-religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue because it is their "homeland," then the creation of Israel was an injustice. — Ciceronianus

The other position is that they needn't justify their right to exist any more than any other nation.

As in, now Israel will never get the Muslims to care about them now that they've gone and done this? Seems the strategic angle would be that the Palestinians would try to gain the affection of the Israelies, considering they have the power to destroy them. — Hanover

Not all Palestinians are Muslims. Some are Orthodox Christian. Some were Jewish, but I guess all of them were absorbed into the Jewish section of town. Palestinians who immigrate to America say that the Israelis have been abusive on an on-going basis, like collections of Jewish guys beat up Palestinian guys and leave them for dead. None of that ever gets into the headlines and it's been like that for decades.

I wonder if things would be better if the good Jewish people would take over the government. Netanyahu is an asshole, and I think whoever is at the top controls the vibe of the whole community.

No serious critic of Israel is going to condone Hamas' targeting of civilians, but understand that the actions committed by Hamas - so often labeled as terrorist - have also been committed twentyfold by the Israeli government, which has indiscriminately killed Palestinian civilians, including children and the elderly, or knowingly murdered journalists and medics with impunity. According to UN's OCHA, from 2008-2023 (excluding the October 2023 Conflict) Palestinian causalities exceed Israeli by 21x, while Palestinian injuries exceed Israeli injuries by nearly 24x. It is equally unserious for discussion to exclude this essential context, in addition to the horrific apartheid conditions that Israeli has imposed including severe restriction on travel, an air, sea and land blockade, which placed restrictions on the goods and services that can enter including medical goods and services, food, water and energy. This is an undeniable form of quotidian violence. Furthermore, of the two million Palestinians approximately half are under 19 years old, with over half the entire population living under the poverty line - a direct result of Israel's blockade. What precisely is the onus of responsibility assumed by a territory comprised primarily of minors?

Very well put, this whole extremely important context is badly missing, and explains a whole lot.