It's also pretty cool how being "Jewish" was subverted to something like a nation-race. — Benkei

Hm. As opposed to what? The way I understand Judaism is that it has always been bound up in the land of Israel. Our Bible details centuries of Israelite kings ruling in Israel in antiquity (from around 1000 BC-600 BC). Even before that Moses is promised the land by God. What I'm saying is - a biblical view of the subject would lead me to believe that the Jews are a nation-people. Zionism just rolls with this idea. Can it be taken to an extreme? Yes, of course. There are of course racists on both sides who want the land to be entirely theirs and view the other people as inferior.

IDF progress as of half a day ago; maps seem somewhat reliable in being tied to geolocated media. I would imagine that the IDF will be more active at night than during the day due to their advantage in night vision and drones with thermal imaging.

Both losses and resistance seem to have been quite low so far. No fatalities reported by the IDF, no Hamas imagery of losses. The IDF has released a small amount of footage showing ground forces engaging isolated resistance.

At least one hostage was rescued during a raid on Hamas tunnels.

I am sort of at a loss to explain this. The IDF appears to have already moved more than halfway to the sea and now has an orthogonal spearhead moving down the coast. I assumed Hamas' whole plan was to provoke an attack so that they could attack the IDF in Gaza, but they don't seem to be defending particularly vigorously. The original attack also would have made more sense if they had developed some sort of air defenses, but it doesn't seem that they have.

I suppose they might be waiting for the IDF to push into even denser urban areas. But what if the IDF doesn't and focuses on tunnel infrastructure alone? Then it just looks like they provoked an attack, then fled the field and left the people they supposedly lead and protect to fend for themselves. It certainly doesn't make them look good; who exactly were they doing this all for if they don't defend the Strip? I'm at a loss to explain it.

Granted, if even a fairly low percentage of all reported fatalities are Hamas members, then their relatively small armed forces have already taken pretty atrocious losses, so it might be that they are just in disarray. This would make even more sense if the leadership was killed.

The other thing I thought of was that Hamas was expecting more support for Iran. Prehaps this was headed off by US diplomatic overtures, which would explain the large force deployment to the region. Hamas has at least said something to the effect of "we thought Hezbollah would do more," although you can't really complain if you start a war without telling your ally your plans first and they aren't particularly hot on following you into the fight, especially if you pick a losing battle. Iran's denial of involvement in the attack was unequivocal as well.

This all might be a good thing in terms of civilian losses and the duration of the war. Depends on exactly what the IDF's goals are. I'm just surprised.

stopped caring about your opinion on this subject a while ago I'm afraid. But nice way of quoting out of context I suppose. — Benkei

Speak among yourselves then.

I imagine it can be argued that one can oppose a state government but not its inhabitants. Surely that is easy enough to understand?

The blur between the two is initiated both internally and externally for various silly reasons.

I am sure many citizens of many countries have been wholly opposed to the actions of the state government that is meant to represent them. There is nothing wrong with criticising a state government. Leaders of states should always be questioned and held up to scrutiny.

↪FreeEmotion Yep, it does create a cycle of violence. But the cycle continues precisely because both parties are left with no choice. You can't step in and say, "Break the cycle by allowing the other guy to hit you and get away with it!" That just ain't gonna work. — Pneumenon

I guess they should have protested when the first Palestinian was killed.
Breaking the cycle should have been done many many years ago. I think the real enemy is indifference.
Protesting now, when it gets so bad, what happened in the preceding years? Attempts should have been made even to Hamas to give up violence.

Could nothing have been done? Was this all inevitable? Pre-destined?

I think this is a good discussion, good points made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIEI2eEHPg&t=1056s

Better arguments could be made by the Israeli government, but they are not doing so, not all united in their messaging. Not that it is a problem, but it does upset people even more, maybe that is the plan.

The government of Israel is not obviously trained in sophisticated lying and public relations. First step is not saying it out loud.

More info:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQdBoAJWV8

Oh they have been planning revenge for some time. I didn't know government was about revenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj6EDEMlQzQ

Before we can have a discussion on this, I need a clear condemnation from you of Israel's ongoing occupation, repeated war crimes, crimes against humanity and illegal settlements. You know, kind of how every discussion with a pro-Palestinian starts with "B-bb-but do you condemn Hamas?"

Before we can have a discussion on this, I need a clear condemnation from you of Israel's ongoing occupation, repeated war crimes, crimes against humanity and illegal settlements. You know, kind of how every discussion with a pro-Palestinian starts with "B-bb-but do you condemn Hamas?" — Benkei

The starting point isn't that we must agree to anything, but it's that we be clear in our positions so that we know where disagreement lies and then being able to offer support for our positions. Neither of us need to prove to the other we have the ethical standing to enter the debate by condemning X, Y, or Z. We have the right to hold contrasting views, even if we find our respective positions deeply offensive to each other.

This thread likely pisses everyone off, but, with the topic, that was pretty much expected.

I made my position clear previously on Israel: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/848309

This is to say, I don't claim Israel without any error, but I don't agree that Israel is an illegal occupier, a committer of war crimes or crimes against humanity, or that they're engaging in illegal settlements, although they push the envelope with the latter.

I don't condemn Israel. Feel free to condemn me for that.

Do you condemn Palestine? You don't have to as a starting point, but you do need to at least tell me if you do and how seriously you do. Do you see them as the warrior rapists and child butchers I do? They hardly dissuaded me from the narrative that they are barbarians with their latest song and dance.

A step back: do you agree Israel commits war crimes, is illegally occupying land, commits human rights violations or not? You can agree with the facts and not condemn Israel for it because of loyalty, the idea of necessity etc. and I'd disagree but I can find some consistency in it.

There's no Palestine so no I don't condemn them and in any case, I'm not asking for a blanket condemnation either. I condemn specific behaviour. I condemn Hamas for their last attack. I don't condemn them for wanting to free Palestinians from Israeli occupation - which is a just cause and allows for violent resistance. I don't agree with the repeated claims Hamas still pursues the destruction of Israel and instead that they had a clear change in purpose in 2017.

I also think condemnation doesn't mean parties shouldn't be talking to each other. Exactly the other way around. I think admitting to the crimes committed on both sides is necessary for any reconciliation.

Neither of us need to prove to the other we have the ethical standing to enter the debate by condemning X, Y, or Z. We have the right to hold contrasting views, even if we find our respective positions deeply offensive to each other. — Hanover

I don't agree with this. I think we fundamentally have shared moral intuitions and only in the basis of that is reconciliation possible. You cannot have peace without justice.

I am sort of at a loss to explain this. The IDF appears to have already moved more than halfway to the sea and now has an orthogonal spearhead moving down the coast. I assumed Hamas' whole plan was to provoke an attack so that they could attack the IDF in Gaza, but they don't seem to be defending particularly vigorously. The original attack also would have made more sense if they had developed some sort of air defenses, but it doesn't seem that they have. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would they meet Israel's offensive head-on?

Hamas doesn't need to fight, since Israel doesn't have an endgame here. What are they going to do? Occupy Gaza?

Israel wants to 'defeat Hamas', but has no way to cope with the fact that Hamas fighters can go back to looking like civilians at any point they wish.

Meanwhile, Israel is damaging itself through its disproportionate reaction in ways that Hamas could only dream of.

Israel wants to 'defeat Hamas', but has no way to cope with the fact that Hamas fighters can go back to looking like civilians at any point they wish. — Tzeentch

This has always been in my mind as well. Like, can't Hamas just... hide among the civilians and take very few casualties, wasting Israel's time with this invasion?

Why would they meet Israel's offensive head-on?

The desire to defend their territory and the optics of launching a highly provocative surprise attack only to immediately hide in well supplied tunnels while the people they ostensibly exist to protect are left absolutely defenseless and at the mercy of the enemy?

Israel wants to 'defeat Hamas', but has no way to cope with the fact that Hamas fighters can go back to looking like civilians at any point they wish.

Right, but not "hiding behind civilians" was something Hamas had to pledge to do when they ran in competitive elections because it does not make the civilians particularly happy. This was one of their campaign promises. In the 2014 war, they made a big show about how their soldiers wore uniforms, how they operated like a real military, how they were defending their territory like a real military, etc. Hamas having more martial prowess than Fatah has always been part of their sales pitch.

Now the optics are:
1. Hamas plans its attacks in isolation, communicating with foreign sponsors, but not the public. (This can be justified to a degree be opsec needs.)
2. Hamas carries out the attack, ostensibly "for the people of Gaza."
3. Hamas has no strategy to inflict losses on Israeli air assets, leaves the strip open to bombardment. (This can perhaps be justified by poverty)
4. Hamas seems to have no strategy for stopping ground incursions, leaving at least main thoroughfares open to occupation. (This seems hard to justify).

This makes them look more like a terror organization than a state; more like they work for Iran than the people of Gaza. After all, what exactly is the expected return on this action for the people of Gaza, especially if a military defeat isn't inflicted on the IDF?

In 2006, Hezbollah was able to make much of better than expected combat performance against the IDF. This was particularly bolstered by loud Israeli recriminations and finger pointing over what was, in the context of similar US and UK operations (e.g., Second Fallujah), not that bad. This, plus their strong efforts in financing relief and recovery efforts made the short war a strategic victory, even if it was a tactical stalemate. But the optics are not at all the same if Hamas provokes an invasion and then melts away with a "not my problem" directed at Israeli tank columns bisecting the Strip.



Yes, but at the cost of public support and making Fatah look like far more of an actual "government" than Hamas. If you're military force isn't there to defend the population, what is it there for? To scuttle Saudi-Israeli rapprochement on behalf of Iranian funders? The leadership already faces questions about their wealth and their Qatari assets, the proper allocation of priorities, etc.

Hatred of Israel is not identical with love of Hamas. Palestinian organizationscan and have lost the support of their people due to poor performance in governance, perceived dereliction of duty, and military losses before. Hamas itself has had to suppress protests over its (mis)rule in recent years.

So, I would think the point was to bait Israel into an invasion, where they could score a military and propaganda victory by forcing them to withdraw, thus increasing their leverage in negotiating better conditions in Gaza. But if they just hide? What new leverage do they get there?

It's one thing to say, "we can inflict costs on you and if you pursue us we will inflict losses on you, so settle up," it's another to have the message seem to be "we will inflict costs on you where possible and then hide for as long as you keep pressure on us."

Demonstrations of martial prowess, even if they are largely illusory, tend to be good fodder for militant groups. But you need at least something to spin up as a win.

Now I'm reading though that a large number of the initial attackers, perhaps 1,500, tried to hold territory in Israel. So between losses there and losses to air attacks and raids, I suppose its possible that Hamas has just already taken significant attrition. It's combat forces are not particularly large. But if that's the case, the whole attack seems to be an even larger blunder. Those forces are also what let them control the Strip.

If you're military force isn't there to defend the population, what is it there for? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Hamas was never there to defend the population in the first place. Have they ever done that?

But if they just hide? What new leverage do they get there? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Actually quite a lot. The entire world is watching right now and I've never seen "free Palestine" being chanted more than it is now. Maybe the world will forget in a week, or maybe this new pressure will achieve some useful goal.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849919

It's Israel that has to care about optics. Hamas doesn't care about optics.

The optics right now are that Israel is acting like a bull in a china shop with the people of Gaza as its victims.

That suits Hamas perfectly well. No need to stick their neck out to engage in a fight that they cannot win militarily.

When some of the smoke has settled and Israel has to scale back its military presence and force disposition, that's likely when the 'death-by-a-thousand-cuts' will happen.

A step back: do you agree Israel commits war crimes, is illegally occupying land, commits human rights violations or not? You can agree with the facts and not condemn Israel for it because of loyalty, the idea of necessity etc. and I'd disagree but I can find some consistency in it. — Benkei

I'll step it back farther, to better express my fundamental position. A post or so ago, you said I had decontextualized something you said, but what I heard was basically an attempt to offer a justification for Israel's right to the land. You generally fell in favor of Israel having such a right, but the part I found an issue with was that there appears a need at all to provide a justification. Americans, Dutch, Brits and so on don't spend much time thinking about whether they have the right to their land, nor do they believe that their rights to the land are based upon or subject to international approval. If the US explained that it would allow the Dutch their continued occupation of the Netherlands based upon the fact that the Dutch need somewhere to live, that they've been pretty ingenunitive with their dikes, windmills, and daffodils and whatever slew of other justifications the US might think of, I don't think you'd be thankful for its graciousness. You'd actually be concerned that the US thinks it has a say in your continued sovereignty and you'd be especially worried if the US took a single minded focus on Dutch internal politics and how it might be treating its adjacent German neighbors.

What is happening in Israel is child's play when compared to Ukraine. The death toll, the displacements, and the lack of threat Ukraine poses to the Russians pales in comparison with what is happening in Israel. I'm not saying the Russians have been given a pass because there certainly is outrage, but the campus eruptions haven't occured and the marches in the streets haven't occured because no one has any thought that such protests are going to change Putin's mind. He truly doesn't care about international opinion. The same could have been said of the US's reaction to 9/11. Protest as you will, but G.W. was going to be G.W.

The problem is that Israel's existence is linked to international acceptance unlike any other nation on the planet. That's what I have a problem with. The people who protest Israel are doing everything they can to endanger its existence. The only means by which Israel can be defeated is through this political effort. Israel's safety is a matter of Israel's concern, not subject to international approval.

There's no Palestine so no I don't condemn them and in any case, I'm not asking for a blanket condemnation either. I condemn specific behaviour. I condemn Hamas for their last attack. I don't condemn them for wanting to free Palestinians from Israeli occupation - which is a just cause and allows for violent resistance. I don't agree with the repeated claims Hamas still pursues the destruction of Israel and instead that they had a clear change in purpose in 2017. — Benkei

Gaza is occupied by Palestinians regardless of how you want to say the land it titled. The have possession of it and they've chosen Hamas as their representative. Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into Israel and sent in paratroopers for the purpose of not wanting to destroy Israel? I've heard the mantra of freeing Palestine from the river to the sea over and over. Am I misunderstanding that sentiment to mean something other than the removal of Israel from the land?

In any event, I'll take you at your word that you truly think Hamas wants a Jewish state by its side and doesn't want its destruction. I think that's absurd, but we've at least identified that point of disagreement. I think they want to remove every Jew on Arab land, much like every other Arab nation has done.

Over time Israel has become more cooperative on this — neomac

Overtime? Well, here will be the really huge problems, which will be quite important. After this the open air prison of Gaza cannot be just excluded like before. No outside force will likely come to Gaza. Or perhaps it might be a fig leaf of a UN mission, and when criminal gangs etc. rule the ruins of Gaza, it's going to be an example of how Palestinians cannot take care of themselves (or something like that). The question what happens next should be on the agenda, but it might not be. — ssu

I do not assume there is a solution for all problems, however desirable. My understanding is that it is of vital interest for the West to be committed to a system of alliance between countries that share the same standards and treat each other by the same standards. Israel is a valid ally in that sense. Hamas not and countries which support Hamas neither.
Besides Israel has shown a cooperative approach in conflict and toward the Palestinian claims of nationality and land on many occasions. And given the history of the jews in the christian and in the muslim world, I find psychologically obtuse to demand more.
I think the international environment around Israel, especially in the middle east should significantly change, to make more easy for Israel to soften its positions. The Abraham Accords were an opportunity in this direction. An initiative coming from the West. What was the response from the anti-Western Rest?

More to the point, how would Hamas or Putin reason according to you if they were to choose? — neomac

Hamas and Putin choose not to be Western, especially with all of it's decadent attention to human rights and democracy and the rights of peoples and minorities etc. Yet Israel isn't Hamas or Russia, but of course if they wish, they can go in that direction. Yet all the Israelis I've met are quite Western people and think of themselves as being West. They don't have the fear of their state as Russians do.

Hence that's not the issue. The issue is how a Western country handles this situation. Does it try to solve something or is it just more about revenge. Or is it just about "mowing the lawn" until the next Palestinian uprising happens. There are many choices. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, that is very much the issue, because Russia, China and Iran have found ways to exploit Western vulnerabilities (like freedom of speech, concern for human rights/life, a population of exploitable “useful idiots”) which they do not have and this gives them a very dangerous advantage over the West. Talking about revenge is underestimating a greater threat coming from an alliance of anti-Western and anti-Israel aggressive authoritarian regimes. That’s why the conflict has geopolitical significance.
Concerning the logic of feud and revenge (which the West managed to get rid of within the territories UNDER their control and over several generations) can lead to an eternal conflict as much as to a genocide. Or to a nuclear bomb. But for sure putting the moral burden of a peaceful resolution and all the moral costs in case of failure on one side, especially if previous attempts failed, may alienate instead of persuading reluctant allies. And mine is also a moral point.

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. — neomac

Well, then I hope you are never put to be an officer position in war, or basically given a rifle and fight in a war. Because it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army: you shoot to kill an armed enemy (before he shoots you) and you don't shoot one that has surrendered or civilians. Your enemy doing that doesn't change what my country ask of me. It all starts from as obvious things like if you have to kill something, then kill it and don't torture it.

Now I don't know what you really meant, but if you have an objection to the application of laws of war because of the actions of the enemy, that we have now, you are the problem if you will go to level as the enemy. So why on Earth didn't the Allies start exterminating all German men, women and children afterwards? Why not sent then the Germans to Auschwitz, since they had already built the infrastructure for industrialized genocide. Why apply them some other standard then and make them feel how untermenschen were treated, neomac? And afterwards, do you think Germany now (assuming you'd leave some spear) was as today? — ssu

Dude, emotional or personal appeals do not work on me. You better put your effort in showing the flaws of my reasoning in its logic or its assumptions.
Notice that you wrote “it does make sense for me to treat a the enemy as I have been taught in the army”, so it depends on how you are taught after all? Those who are taught otherwise, are free to do so? Or do you still want to effectively prevent them from doing so?
The objective in a war is not to respect the law of war or to win a moral argument in a philosophy forum but to win over the enemy. And things can get as ugly and brutal as one can imagine and historically happened.
So one needs a compelling argument for a more proportional military response if this compromises military efficacy: like waste of resources or more propitious opportunities, it doesn’t really grant military victory, it doesn’t politically benefit the winner in the longer run, it weakens the enemies’ support for protracted war, love of humanity. None of these arguments are a magic wand to fix the world, nor to trigger a consistent enough emotional response over time, nor spare us from abuses and exploitative intentions, nor unburden us from the weight of history and the constraints of current power balance.
As far as I’m concerned, laws of war (which are man-made and revisable) exist because all potential belligerents can see a significant benefit in respecting them if they fight among them and/or they can suppress and/or contain the threat coming from those who didn’t commit to such laws when it becomes imminent. Laws of war would be irrelevant if it would be mostly violated or not enforceable. Especially if trumping them makes victory over an enemy more likely.
The West is currently dealing with powerful regimes and ideologies which do not place the value in human life and law of war as Western countries keep doing. And if this gives them a significant strategic advantage in the conflict with the West this is a big trouble for the West.
Instead of your counterfactual, think of actually history: the US nuclear bombed Japan, was this proportionate? how is Japan today? Was the Allied bombing of Germany 1942-1945 proportionate? How is Germany today?
In any case, I don’t think that Israel doesn’t try to abide by the law of war in the current conflict, I’m also far from idealising Israel as if they couldn’t commit abuses. I simply think that the purpose of Hamas which doesn’t abide by the law of war is to make more difficult for Israel to accomplish the task of “minimizing” the civilian casualties in the same way it is possible in more conventional wars where all belligerents care for laws of war, and if the concern for reducing to the minimum civilian casualties would prevent Israel from effectively defeating Hamas on the ground, this approach would in the long run be self-defeating. BTW no other state in he West is living under the same imminent/potential conventional/asymmetric threats Israel is living in middle-east and this may bias our understanding of their situation.

To me it doesn’t make much sense to apply one standard when your enemies don’t play by the same standard. It’s like boxing with a tied hand with somebody who can fight with both hands. — neomac

And that's simply just Hollywood nonsense. Throwing to hell the laws of war doesn't help you, it helps your enemy and undermines your cause and justification. — ssu

First, keeping laws of war may help somebody’s cause only to the extent states and people care about laws of war. Indeed not respecting laws of war didn’t undermine Hamas’ cause and justification. Their historical grievances against the West and their islamist ideology trump laws of war.
Second, I’m not advocating for throwing laws of war. I’m pointing out a problem of their relevance and application wrt the historical circumstances and power balance: if powerful enemies threat the survival of one of our allies, do not abide by laws of war, and can therefore manipulate the war conditions to spin a discrediting narrative against our ally with the precise intent of isolating our ally from our support, that doesn’t help our cause because we would alienate an ally and benefit powerful enemies’s cause, which use our standards, to divide us. And if their strategy succeeds replicate it against us.
Third, in terms of justification the West, there is a load of historical grievances and anti-western narratives so popular even within the West that the West reputation may be unrecoverably compromised. With or without laws of war (see as it is perceived the legitimacy of the war in Iraq no matter how proportional the battle in Felluja was). We can’t hope to win on the ground of justification for the simple reason that demographic trends, extremist ideologies, and state indoctrination in the Rest of the world do not play in our favour. So, my understanding is that the psychological warfare here is not much about how the West can do things better based on their standards, at this point, but about unity in the West against common foes and retort the anti-Western logic against those who promote it, as much as they try to retort our standards against us.

To take the laws of war seriously is important, because it's just an ignorant fallacy that they really would "tie you hands in boxing". You can kill and destroy the enemy quite well. And if you think the laws of war are a hindrance, well, then when having the boxing match just come there with shotgun and shoot your opponent full of lead until the bloody corpse doesn't move. He was such a loser in the first place just waiting for you with those boxing gloves on and thinking you would just try to hit him. As if there would be rules... sucker! — ssu

No idea what point you are trying to make here.

The NY Times gives the impression that Hamas fighters may be experiencing an intelligence black-out. Israel didn't give any notice that they were going in. Maybe Hamas just doesn't know how to react to that? It said Israel isn't calling it an invasion, which is probably due to American pressure. Is Israel getting American military advice?

Hamas propaganda certainly suggests that they want to be seen as the "military of the Palestinian people," not as merely a terrorist organization incapable of military action.



Hamas won power on the back of popular support combined with a violent coup, they can lose power to an existing or new group the same way. Plenty of insurgent groups in similar contexts have gone extinct because they failed to perform up to expectations. Going "not my problem," to a ground invasion they provoked seems like something that could fatally hurt their reputation.

It's something that will allow Fatah to continue to paint Hamas as "Iran's army," as opposed to a "Palestinian Army."

And Israel is never going to be more vulnerable to ambushes than when they first enter the Strip.



Sounds plausible. The flip side of access to new C&C technologies is becoming reliant on them. Israel's electronic warfare efforts might be causing significant problems for Hamas.

Our Bible details centuries of Israelite kings ruling in Israel in antiquity (from around 1000 BC-600 BC). — BitconnectCarlos

Who's this "our" I wonder?

If one is inclined to think time spent ruling land identifies a people with it, I would think the fact no Israeli kings, or Jews in general, ruled in Israel since around 600 B.C.E., suggests there is no connection between Judaism and Palestine. As for the promise made by God in "our" Bible, it would seem God changed his mind when he allowed Babylon to conquer Israel, as so many others did.

The Jews continued to live in the region after the Babylonian Captivity, restablishing a Second Temple (Books of Ezra and Nehemiah) under Persian rule. They later won their independence from Alexander's Persian successors, the Selucids (Books of the Maccabees). Hence the existence of Judea at the time of Rome's arrival in the region.

But we could also consider if Italy has a claim on the land because it was part of the Roman Empire for so long. Or Turkey because they Byzantines held it. Or the Vatican because the crusader states existed for two centuries. The paper trail of "ownership," in the region is very long, to say the least.

Perhaps Mongolia even has a claim, as the crusader states were at one point Mongolian vassals as part of an alliance against their Muslim rivals.

This is true everywhere. Greece and Venice have older claims to Crimea than Moscow for example.

The Jews continued to live in the region after the Babylonian Captivity, restablishing a Second Temple (Books of Ezra and Nehemiah) under Persian rule. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The USA is kind of like Cyrus. I don't think Israel would be there without US support.

The Jews continued to live in the region after the Babylonian Captivity, restablishing a Second Temple (Books of Ezra and Nehemiah) under Persian rule. They later won their independence from Alexander's Persian successors, the Selucids (Books of the Maccabees). Hence the existence of Judea at the time of Rome's arrival in the region. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Then Rome destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem under Vespasian and Titus (have you ever seen the Arch of Titus? Men of the legions are shown carrying the treasures of the Temple as part of Titus' triumph in one of the reliefs). The Romans finished the job under Hadrian.

But you're quite right. The idea that land belongs to or was given to a certain people merely because they were there many years ago doesn't work.

Going "not my problem," to a ground invasion they provoked seems like something that could fatally hurt their reputation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It will be easy for Hamas to frame it in a way that suits their purposes, especially when the harassment of Israeli occupation forces begins - if they even occupy Gaza, which I suspect they won't. That can then easily be spun into a victory for Hamas.

The Hamas playbook basically writes itself here, enabled largely by Israel itself. The hatred among Palestinians for Hamas will never exceed the hatred they feel for the Israelis. The arguments you put forward are theoretical minutiae - Hamas has basically already won and all it needs to do is survive.

And Israel is never going to be more vulnerable to ambushes than when they first enter the Strip. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It sounds like you're grossly underestimating the amount of firepower Israel has at its disposal.

The Israelis don't really care about the civilian casualties they cause. Anything that looks like the barrel of a gun will be flattened immediately.

Engaging in conventional battle with the IDF, even from ambush, would be suicide, and pointless.

It probably would still be there, just in a less dominant position. The US did not give Israel much support in their most precarious war, the 1948 War. This was prior to the US Arab rift, back when the Arab states were still being courted as potential clients in the emerging Cold War system. It was only the Suez Crisis that squarely settled the Arabs on the side of the Soviets and the US on the side of Israel (more by default than due to intentional maneuvering on behalf of the US). Prior to that, the French and domestic production were the main source of Israeli arms.

Israel won the 1948 war due to significantly better
organization and morale, despite a marked material disadvantage. It was the USSR who was the main sponsor of Israel during this period, owing to the large number of contacts between Jews and new communist states that were being stood up as Soviet vassals across Eastern Europe.

One of the great ironies of the 1948 war is that it was largely fought by the Israelis with Czech surplus Kar98k rifles donated by the Soviets, rifles which had been stamped with swastikas for their intended Nazi users (a dark premonition of the apartheid state perhaps?)

Truman was not a huge supporter of the idea of Israel and Eisenhower famously ignores the Holocaust in his telling of the war. Israel only became an appealing ally after they had succeeded in setting up a functioning democracy that granted the Arabs there full citizenship and voting rights while the Arab states has lurched into pan-Arabism, an explicitly socialist program that also failed to produce any real democratic reforms. And, it's worth noting that the US probably cared more about the Arabs being openly socialist than Israel making strides towards democracy, realpolitik being what it was.

Israel's position in 1967 and 1973 would have been more perilous without US aid and sales, but they probably could have managed with French arms or using Soviet arms. The Arabs' problems ran much deeper than the differences between Soviet and US hardware, which were less significant back in the 1960s anyhow. Plus, they had their nuclear deterrent quite early, without US support on that front.

Hell, they might be in a better place without US support because it could have forced them to make more concessions for peace. Alternatively, they might be a significantly more repressive and violent regime owing to increased existential anxieties. It's hard to say. But I'd wager that they'd be around in any case.

Who's this "our" I wonder?

If one is inclined to think time spent ruling land identifies a people with it, I would think the fact no Israeli kings, or Jews in general, ruled in Israel since around 600 B.C.E., suggests there is no connection between Judaism and Palestine. As for the promise made by God in "our" Bible, it would seem God changed his mind when he allowed Babylon to conquer Israel, as so many others did. — Ciceronianus

It is authoritative for Jews and Christians.

It is not just the time spent ruling. The Torah, the meat and potatoes of Jewish religious canon, details the connection between the Hebrew people and the land of Israel. The events described in the Torah occur before this period. When the land changed hands away from the Israelites it was explained as loss of divine favor, often due to the Israelites own misbehavior. A common biblical motif.

is there a reason anybody not interested in the superstition should be persuaded to weigh this information into the ethics of the situation at all?

Nobody is telling you what you must believe or how you must weigh the ethics of the situation.

It probably would still be there, just in a less dominant position. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But when the British gave up trying to govern Palestine, it was pretty much up to the US to settle Israel's status. If the US had been opposed to recognition of the state of Israel, it's political standing would have been pretty weak. I'll put it this way: without a strong ally, Israel wouldn't be there.

okay, allow me to take a step back - why did you bring it up? Do you think it weighs into the ethics of anything going on in Israel?