Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations? — BitconnectCarlos

When the US stops killing off the moderates and putting extremists in charge, sure.

The use of violence in resistance is not permitted by International Law, is it? — FreeEmotion

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway, unless one believes this war between Israel and Gaza should be fought on the same terms, that is to say, on the terms of 'total war'. Obviously such logic leads nowhere except into the abyss.


But let us also take a moment to note the enabling role of the utterly incompetent Western leadership, which is beyond amateurish and clearly in way over their head.

"When in doubt, proclaim unconditional support for Israel."

By letting the Netanyahu regime run amock, rather than helping Israel, Western leaders may have set in motion events that will ultimately mean the end of Israel as we know it.

Rapprochement in the Middle-East is shattered for the foreseeable future. This future likely holds radical shifts in the geopolitical balance of power, and that balance could very well end up heavily in favor of one or more Arab states.

Meanwhile, world opinion towards Israel is tanking. Israel has oddly managed to manifest itself as the villain as it wreaks a civilian death toll several times that of the initial Hamas attack.

There might be some loud apologists - this is hardly new. What is new is that sensible people all over the world aren't buying it anymore and Israel is diplomatically isolated apart from its Western stooges, who are too incompetent to offer any kind of real support anyway.

Everything that goes up, must come down. And what Israel has done over the past weeks is ensure that when the pendulum swings the other way, the whole region is rife with resentment towards it.

If that should come to pass, I wonder how they will treat Israel. I think Israel can only hope that it won't be treated the same way as it treats the Palestinians.

Also, Israel is now committing war crimes in 'broad daylight':

Southern Gaza in Israel's sights as world leaders seek pause in fighting

First telling thousands of civilians to evacuate to the south of Gaza, only to intensify bombing there.

These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?

And indiscriminate bombing has always been the reply to terrorism everywhere because there is no other effective answer. The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel. — magritte

It's almost as though the oppression of millions of people is a proposition with no good outcomes... :chin:

The "slag heap" as it's referred to is the terrain feature that commands the battlefield over Avdiivka. That's why they are fighting over it.

Basically Avdiivka will now turn into the next Bakhmut, where the Ukrainian forces will have to choose between defending the city from a severely compromised position, or retreating.

Given the state of foreign support for Ukraine amidst the Middle-East crisis, there will be a lot of pressure on the Ukrainian forces to defend it, which how the Russians aim to attrition the Ukrainian forces.

It seems like, just like with Bakhmut, they're planning the heaviest fighting over the winter months.

Proportionality is generally associated with retributivism and Kant, ... — Hanover

Proportionality is generally associated with international humanitarian law, and it is indeed one of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law.

To show a blatant disregard of it is to commit war crimes, pure and simple.

It doesn't happen very often that I feel proud of something that happens in the Netherlands, my home country.

But today I saw this appeal, made by Palestinian-Dutch actor Ramsey Nasr, and felt compelled to share it with TPF. It has subtitles.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that say, Egypt or Turkey get involved. But Hezbollah and Iran? It's looking more probable every day. And Israel would likely emerge "victorious", but they will also suffer from a very high civilian death toll, I don't see how that can be avoided if Iran and Hezbollah join.

But as this massacre continues, Egypt and Jordan and others will be heavily pressuring Israel. A very general and uninspired comment is that, after this, it seems to me that the status quo of Gaza and the West Bank may not go back to how it has been until recently.

But, in wars, almost everyone is wrong. Too many factors involved. — Manuel

My sense is indeed that Iran is heavily involved, and I don't think it's a coincidence that there are now three members of BRICS who take an adversarial stance towards the US are involved in a conflict with US proxies.

This is speculation, but I think that like Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict will turn into a similarly stand-offish "forever war" (which it basically already is) that is supposed to drain US resources and resolve, and spread the US thin.

If Israel invades Gaza, it will have taken the bait that will turn the entire Middle-East against it, and essentially ensures the forever war takes place.

The question remains what the strategic endgame of this would be. In Ukraine it is more clear, but in the case of the Israel-Hamas war it is not.

The claim that an insurgent group can never lose enough traction due to bad performance to be replaced is falsified by Hamas' rise itself. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That wasn't my claim.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

This is not the case, although I think it holds true in this context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why write a long post ignoring it? :brow:

Sure, if you're Stalin and willing to resort to mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide then everything is possible, I suppose.

Maybe. But carrying ops out in total secrecy that result in massive collective suffering while failing to accomplish any real goal outside of that very suffering? And then preplanning so that you're sitting cozy on supplies while others go without? That could spark backlash. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That might sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it never works out that way, and because Israel is seen as the occupying force it will receive most if not all of the resentment resulting of it.

Such tactics have been tried before in history, because they seem to supply an easy solution that promises few losses on the side that conducts the counterinsurgency.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

Even the United States, the nation with by far the most, and most accurate, firepower at its disposal, eventually was compelled to devise other strategies for conducting counterinsurgency that focused on a 'Hearts & Minds' approach.

If sieges and bombings could have given the Israelis an easy out, I'm sure somewhere in the last 16 years that would have already happened.

The IDFs problem is that a siege is by far and away the safest way to destroy Hamas but also a gross violation of human rights. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Personally, I don't think a siege will do anything to destroy Hamas. If anything, the suffering of ordinary people plays right into the hands of Hamas and will increase support for them, and erode support for the actions of the Netanyahu government.

It's even reasonable to assume that Hamas, probably being prepared for these types of repercussions, is among the best supplied in all of Gaza.

The point here is that the Arab nations have been expelling Jews from "their" land historically and during modern times. That clear case of apartheid for some reason is overlooked. What's also overlooked is that while there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years, a large portion of today's Jews are the descendants of refugees from all over the globe. Jews currently exist in their largest numbers (although still very small) in Israel and the US, and then way down the list you come up with France and the UK, but those numbers are very low.

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go, including Israel, one of the only places available. If not for the US, where do you think they'd go? — Hanover

And how exactly does this excuse human rights abuses and crimes against humanity?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while shocking to you appears to overlook the fact that Palestinians butchered and burnt babies, raped women, and took the very old as hostages. — Hanover

Equating Palestinians to Hamas is tasteless. I'd love to see where you're going with this logic.

Again, rooting out bias here, ... — schopenhauer1

With all due respect, the prinicipal bias I see in this thread comes from people who are unwilling to condemn widespread human rights violations for what they are.

Condemning Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians does not mean one is taking sides, or that one is biased towards the Palestinian side of things.

In my view, it is a prerequisite for any reasonable discussion on the subject. The same goes for condemning terror attacks on civilians by Hamas.

If we can't agree on something as basic as the value of human rights as a bar to which we should hold nations and actors morally and politically accountable, we may as well revert back to the law of the jungle.

There is a lot of criticism in Israel itself regarding these policies. I've already linked to several articles of critical voices within Israel, and often their opinions are even more scathing of Israel's practices than any critic of Israel you'll find in this thread. Sadly, the Israeli left has little to no political power.

In 1948, ... — Hanover

You think something might have happened in and around this year that could explain a sudden souring of relations between Arabs and Jews?

Anyway, no one is denying the history of antisemitism in the Middle-East. Trying to excuse Israel's treatment of Palestinians in this way is familiar caveman logic.

Israel tells Gazans to move south or risk being seen as terrorist partner (Reuters, 2023)

[...] "ethnic cleansing" is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. To a large extent, it is carried out in the name of misguided nationalism, historic grievances and a powerful driving sense of revenge. — United Nations Report S/1994/674

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others. — United Nations

Israel's hardline is basically ultranationalist, and I think that is deeply problematic. They envision an Israel without Palestinians, or in the absence of that, an Israel where Palestinians have no political power whatsoever.

Apartheid at best, genocide and ethnic cleansing at worst.

But because it's Israel, we have to pretend that what we're seeing is not in fact violent ultranationalism.

Critical voices in Israel itself have no qualms calling it out for what it is:

Religious Ultranationalist Zionists Have Taken Over Israel (Haaretz, 2015)


To be clear, much of this the Israeli government does entirely by choice and has nothing to do with military necessity or Israeli security. If anything it fundamentally undermines Israeli security both domestically and internationally.

There is a nice map, which shows the Biblical Israel, very attractive to Christians and Jews alike, I guess. — FreeEmotion

If you thought Israeli ultranationalists were crazy, you should see some of the Christian evangelical groups that support Israel.

They support Israel literally because they believe it will fulfill a biblical prophecy that brings about the end times.

Half of evangelicals support Israel because they believe it is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy (Washington Post, 2018)

Sadly, these types of nutcases somehow hold a lot of political clout. No wonder things are a mess, eh?

You mean nearly 20 years ago when the extent of how they operate as a para-governmental entity wasn't known yet and as you stated earlier were almost co-equal with Fatah in terrorist acts? — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu receives widespread criticism for this policy.

How Benjamin Netanyahu Empowered Hamas (The Telegraph, 2023)

I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Netanyahu helped create Hamas, just like the US helped create Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

He used Hamas specifically to sabotage the PLO to avoid having serious talks about two-state solutions and other peace plans.

It follows a familiar pattern. Trying to downplay it is senseless.

Besides the fact that your first statement sort of contradicts your second statement (did they keep fighting or not?.. The answer is yes they kept going. but they were eventually defeated.), your analysis contra my analogy just seems wrong here. — schopenhauer1

The first statement is about WW2, the second statement is about conducting counterinsurgency.

In some sense, even though Nazi Germany was extremely rigid and hierarchical (and in that sense predictable actors in war), by the end of the war, Hitler acted irrationally. Instead of giving up when it was known the defeat was all but inevitable, he encouraged the rigid compliant hierarchy to carry on to the bitter end. It was not until after he literally had to commit suicide, that the German leadership had to give up the ghost and finally declare unconditional surrender. In that sense there are some similarities of irrational actors waging war. Hitler wanted hand-to-hand street combat, all hands on deck, women and children fighting to the bitter end. He wanted nothing less than absolute maximum resistance to the end. Hamas being irrational actors, want the same thing. Death does not make a difference to them. Protecting their own people's lives makes no difference to them. The bombings in WW2 were for several reasons. The main one was to destroy weapons and manufacturing facilities. The other was to cause fear and break their will and to stop resisting. But you see, Nazi Germany wasn't representing a "just cause" JUST because they (by that point) were the underdog! I think most historians (minus very egregious examples like the fire bombing of Dresden) agree this war could only be won with full surrender of Germany. And by this point, the unbelievable amount of devastation that had taken place perpetrated by the Nazis just did not give the Allies any pause on this one. — schopenhauer1

Israel is not fighting WW2. It's conducting a counterinsurgency. The dynamics are totally different, and I don't see the point in this comparison.

In both cases the effectiveness of mass bombing is questionable (in the case of counterinsurgency, outright rejected as a viable strategy).

By far the most-widely supported method of counterinsurgency is the so-called 'Hearts & Minds' approach, in which the side conducting the counterinsurgency seeks to win over the civilian population and erode support for the insurgents.

Indiscriminate bombing achieves the exact opposite.

That's because (and justifiably), they did not have an unconditional surrender mentality as in WW2, as they knew those wars were not worth it in the end. Hot wars during the Cold Wars did indeed have very spotty (if any) justification (such as the whole "Domino Theory" during Vietnam). — schopenhauer1

The US committed de facto genocide in Vietnam, and it wasn't enough to secure them victory.

This method (sadly) has been tried, and it has failed every time. turning the perpetrators into the very monsters they claimed they were fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

Simply not putting onus back where it belongs. — schopenhauer1

I don't agree.

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

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

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

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

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

This sounds like caveman logic to me.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

You stated yourself the strategic difficulty of Israel. — schopenhauer1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The international community should have stepped in.

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

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

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

Hamas just recently killed some toddlers: — frank

And so did Israel. Your point being?

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

:up:

Thermobaric munitions create a pretty massive fireball.

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

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

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

This is why EU leaders aren't respected abroad.

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

On a side note, has anyone noticed Ursula von der Leyen's unmandated visit to Tel Aviv, where she proclaimed unwavering support for Israel amidst its indiscriminate bombing of Gaza?

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

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

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

We are governed by toddlers.

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

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

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

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


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


For a BM-21 Grad type weapon (which is what I am assuming the Qassam-3 is roughly an equivalent to) the blast seems too large. Further, the most commonly used ammunition is high explosive fragmentation, but someone noted that no signs of shrapnel were found at the scene.

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

Just as a possibility is a rocket too. — ssu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could it have been a Hellfire?

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

Or maybe another Hellfire variant.

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

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

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

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

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

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




And now this tweet:

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

:chin:


Honest mistake, or did he screw the pooch?

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

If you can't tell, that's probably a great indicator it's time for you to sit quietly on the sideline until the 'official report' comes out. :lol: