This is really really bad, with current tensions, with a threat to a israel PM who might be booted from office, there will be views from many , that Bibi ordered this, to push for wider war with iran [shudders] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/19/helicopter-carrying-iran-president-ebrahim-raisi-hard-land/ This is really bad, particularly in Azerbaijan where they are allied to israel and receive weapons with a Israel PM in trouble, who would profit with a war with iran , which would push the west to defend israel :( equally it could be said, some hardliners in iran could have set this up but to do the same, from the otherside....equally it could just be accident in heavy fog....but will Iran accept the crash investigators findings from Azerbaijan/ i think so....another headache for the world, even if this is just a innocent accident, the connotations are extra frightening :(
I know nobody's paying attention now - it's Saturday evening - least of all the writers (I say this because unlike JVL they don't respond to comments), but the "repeatedly rebuffed" link in this statement, "a plan for who will govern Gaza . . . the Sunni Arab nations have repeatedly rebuffed requests for assistance", has nothing to do with the plans for post-war Gaza. And it's not even current. Bad linking, dear Bulwark.
I very much want to know about the proposals to have the Sunni Arabs play a role in post-war Gaza. Can you address this in next week's Morning Shots?
"The three ministers – two former chiefs of staff and one who almost was – preferred to try and advance the deal for the hostages first. In light of the serious dispute with the United States, they warned against a drive to conquer Rafah, and emphasized the need to set a political goal for the war – a settlement in which the Palestinian Authority would take part in controlling Gaza, if Hamas were indeed defeated and the IDF withdrew. A number of Likud MKs support this view, but they lack the courage to join in publicly criticizing Netanyahu."
"The main reason for Gallant's declaration lies in the dispute over the possible establishment of an Israeli military government that would govern the Gaza Strip in place of Hamas. However dangerous that may sound, it's the idea that Netanyahu is now mulling. And a new key player has recently entered the developing events, namely Brig. Gen. Roman Gofman, the prime minister's military secretary-designate. Gofman, an outstanding combat officer who was commander of the Tze'elim Base, was seriously wounded on October 7 while helping in the effort to contain Hamas' attack on the communities near Gaza. While recovering, he temporarily held a senior post at the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. In that capacity, as reported on Channel 12 News, he wrote a paper, which reached Netanyahu, containing a proposal to establish a provisional military government as a solution for supplanting Hamas."
"As a professional opinion, Gofman's suggestion can be seen as an idea that justifies a discussion. But Netanyahu is promoting the proposal for his own reasons, and naturally the idea was music to the ears of the leaders of the far-right parties in the governing coalition, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. From their point of view, there is nothing more permanent than the temporary (as proved by the case of the settler outposts in the West Bank), and thus the way will be paved to reestablish the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Gallant's statement was largely aimed at torpedoing that move."
"The incident occurred during an operation in Jabalya, in an area which the IDF has now entered for the third time. This time, Hamas is once more mounting significant resistance, including increased use of rocket-propelled grenades that hasn't been seen in northern Gaza in recent months. The armed Palestinian militants are relatively organized and appear to be operating as part of a command-and-control mechanism that the organization is running. Hamas' ranks are filling up again, even though the organization has lost more than 10,000 combatants in the war so far (according to some estimates, Hamas has sustained 14,000 killed and thousands more wounded)."
"Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet security service maintain that this is not by chance. The young people in Gaza see no other alternative to Hamas and are enlisting in the organization in place of the terrorists who were killed. Joining the organization promises a better chance of the family's survival, even in the harsh living conditions in the Strip. The Gazans are apparently assuming that Hamas will survive the war and remain in power. Since October, Gallant, backing the security chiefs, has been demanding that both cabinets discuss the day-after arrangements, but Netanyahu, who has the authority to set the agenda, has balked at this. The defense minister's proposal includes the entry of an international Arab coalition that will include "local Palestinians who look to Ramallah," a complicated formulation meant to bypass Netanyahu's veto of the PA's involvement."
"The bottom line, in the eyes of Gallant and the other top defense officials, is that Israel is wasting the credit generated by the military moves. Hamas has not been defeated but is rehabilitating in the areas from which the IDF withdraws. And in the absence of any governmental alternative, the organization could actually grow stronger. The frustration increases when more and more soldiers are being killed in places where the IDF has returned for a second and a third time, pointlessly and aimlessly, apart from Netanyahu's empty promises of a total victory. "It's true Vietnamization," says a person who takes part in the security consultations."
This Haaretz article says what i feared, that young palestinian men, with no hope and out of options are turning to hamas, to get revenge/to get food/support for their families..and re-energizing the struggle, put as americans can see it as "its true Vietnamization" [sighs] :(
I guess we are proceeding on with the official government policy in the United States and in Israel that ethnic cleansing and genocide are the tool to use against Palestinians to get to Hamas. The irony that in accusing Hamas of being a brutally pragmatic and effective terror state, the author ignores that it has learned its effective and brutally pragmatic state terrorism from the larger neighbor that is their sworn enemy: Israel. We can paint the Israeli pig all the lipstick in the world, but it won't hide that Israel is behaving like a terrorist state, threatening to unleash terror amongst civilians in Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon. Israel has become a liability to American interests but our elites are so stuck in their erroneous positions that they are afraid to admit they have been wrong for 75 years. Like our foreign policy disasters came to roost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, this latest blunder in Palestine will haunt us. I particularly have no faith in the leaders that sent myself and my fellow soldiers to fight two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That doesn’t mean the Rafah operation shouldn’t take place. It should. It must. Hamas is not only a terrorist group; they are also an army. The last remaining battalions are dug into a complex series of tunnels throughout Rafah. These operations are proceeding much slower than the IDF prefers because of the Biden administration's increasingly stringent parameters."
Thanks to Mr. Selber for his hard-cutting analysis, but these "increasingly stringent parameters" amount to:
1) Stop indiscriminately killing civilians, or at a minimum stop killing them in grossly disproportionate numbers to your military objectives.
2) Stop blocking INTERNATION AID to Gaza (god knows Israel hasn't provided a single grain of rice in aid) given that 2.2 million people are food insecure, 1 million are in the process of starving, and some 30 plus people, mostly kids, have died of starvation already.
Selber and all of the the Bulwark staff with the exception of Saletan (who is Jewish) consistently gloss over the fact that #1 & #2 are WAR CRIMES (disproportionate killing of civilians & collective punishment, arguably genocide in so far as both measures have forcibly relocated pretty much 100% of Gazan residents and is making life miserable for them with the intention of having them seek refuge elsewhere, namely Egypt). It's not optional for Israel to abide by these laws.
3) If you're intent on committing war crimes, don't use the weapons we are giving you for free. Notably the ONLY weapons that have been blocked have been 2000 lb dumb bombs which are COMPLETELY inappropriate for use in a dense urban setting.
#3 isn't optional for the U.S. either, never mind international law prohibiting the same, but domestic law strictly prohibits this as well.
Sooooo Selber thinks that the Biden administration is unreasonably imposing "stringent parameters" on the weapons Israel receives for free, by simply demanding that Israel abide by international law?
Selber should know better based on his experience as an active service member in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then again the U.S. military's conduct in both theatres (under both Republican & Dem administrations) didn't exactly comply with the Geneva Conventions.
God, Will Selber is so full of shit on Israel. The invasion of Rafah and massive slaughter of innocent civilians MUST happen? Only if you only care about protecting Israeli lives. There are better ways to degrade Hamas militarily than just flattening a city and killing tens of thousands of civilians inside it.
You know what is most disturbing? Look up his background, he's a 20 year military intelligence veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet for Selber, the Biden administration's legally required demand that Israel not use the weapons it is being provided for free by the U.S. to commit war crimes. Full stop. That's it. But Selber declares that these legally required measures are "increasingly stringent parameters".
I sure as hell hope that Selber knows better and is being disingenuous. On the other hand, it's also equally likely that he truly doesn't know the contents of the Geneva Conventions, given the illegal conduct that was encouraged by the American intelligence community in both theatres of war.
The Bulwark is actually MUCH MUCH closer to the likes of Fox "News" when it comes to the commentary and reporting on the conflict in Gaza. In fact, the Bulwark is probably more radically right-wing because at least the likes of Fox News don't want funding to Israel to be a spigot that can never be closed.
I just don't understand why it's so difficult to empathize with the fate of civilians in Gaza that have been killed in grossly disproportionate IDF attacks. The only conclusion I can draw from the lack of empathy is that, as with senior Israeli cabinet members, they don't regard Gazans as full sentient human beings worth of compassion.
A great example that is illustrative of the IDF's approach to Palestinian human life is the IDF rescue of the two Israeli-Argentine hostages on February 12, 2024 (incidentally the only hostages rescued by the IDF, by count the IDF has in contrast directly killed at least 12 Israeli hostages).
Not only did two Israeli soldiers die in the process (thus negating the net gain in even Israeli human lives), the IDF carpet bombed the area prior to the attack killing at least 100 Palestinians. You think anyone in the international community or Israel, much less the Israeli government gave a damn about those GROSSLY disproportionate civilian deaths (unless you actually think that 2 Israeli hostages were guarded by 100 Hamas militants)? Nope.
Not so much. He either doesn't actually understand the issues (unlikely given his military experience), or he's being massively disingenuous (Jesus I hope that's the case, because otherwise it would be disturbing that a 20-year military intelligence veteran is completely unaware of the contents of the Geneva Conventions).
The way both Trump and Biden are framing their upcoming debates sounds more like trash talk at a World Wrestling Entertainment match than a serious encounter of two people vying to become President of the USA.
I hate these "faux" debates to start with and these are probably going to be the worst in since 1988 when CNN's Bernard Shaw wondered if Dukakis' wife were raped and murdered would he change his opinion on the death penalty. A ridiculous question designed to show Dukakis as a either a hypocrite or as being heartless and unmanly in not seeking to avenge the rape and murder of his wife.
That said it will be good that there will be no audience at least at the first debate... no cheering sections and no one for Trump to perform for.
I have never understood why the opinions of old white American men on what is or is not happening in Gaza and Ukraine has any merit other than simple cheerleading for whatever side they are on... it isn't so much propaganda as it is a form of marketing. I would prefer just to be given the facts as they happen and not speculation about what those facts mean.
It might be a fact that 35,000 Palestinians have died in the fighting. It might be a fact the 15,000 Hamas gunmen have been removed from the field. The question to ask is their removal worth the death of 20,000 non-combatants?
I don't know if Israelis are being inhumane or not but much of the discussion that our armchair critics of, and cheerleaders for, Israel is pretty inhumane. The lasting costs to communities, families and the trauma that will be passed on to future generations sure gets little consideration.
i could tell from the framing of the piece that the gaza, one was written by will selber[sighs]
a)"That doesn’t mean the Rafah operation shouldn’t take place. It should. It must."-
when you deal in "it must" without justification, it really shows a lack of depth of understanding of the problem, maybe emotion is replacing rational thought? Additoinally miltary thought and actions must remain flexable, to have such a thought, suggests the lack of such?
b)"Hamas is not only a terrorist group; they are also an army. The last remaining battalions are dug into a complex series of tunnels throughout Rafah. These operations are proceeding much slower than the IDF prefers because of the Biden administration's increasingly stringent parameters."
- maybe as the israelis keep telling us, they have plenty of ammo and supplies for this operation , you comments seem surprisingly ill informed? unless of course, the IDF is lying? To blame biden for withholding bombs that do overwhelming damage to civilians ,either shows a lack of care towards the civilians? or lack of care about biden diplomacy? but what would a military man know of diplomacy?Some know alot , some know nothing at all :(
c)"After Rafah, part of the IDF will focus on fighting Hamas’ remnants. Netanyahu has said as much during a recent interview. The IDF must ensure that Hamas does not become a terror army again. In short, the fight will continue, but it is unlikely to reach levels of carnage seen in earlier operations."
- Netanyahi says alot ,not all of it is true, to say that you take his word completely speaks to your lack of diplomacy. Earlier, you said that hamas is dug into a complex tunnel network?do you not think that a cornered rat will fight all the harder?
d)"How would anyone maintain any semblance of legitimacy working with the hated Jews?"
- this seems more a emotional statement of your opinion rather than any journalistic objective statement of fact?
e)"However, in Gaza, antisemitism runs deep, especially after the last seven months"
- I would say again this is your opinion...In my opinion, i think perhaps if you have had the israelis killing your family, destroying your home, killing your children, starving you out, and chasing you around a moonscape, it might provoke a reaction...i think anybody would have that reaction regardless of their religion of the people doing that to me? :(
f)"Thus, while all eyes turn to Rafah, this war will not end there, even if the IDF is wildly successful. It will continue in Gaza and the West Bank, and if Hezbollah doesn’t move behind the Litani River, it will spread to Lebanon, too."
- Netanyahu said it would be over after Rafah, so you even reject his words here without knowing it, i do not doubt the conflict will move to the north, but i rather think that hamas adopting guerrilla tactics will continue the effort in gaza, after all , they are new reoccurring attacks in the north, after we were assured they have been cleared the area, the old adage of "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is in fully effect here, i disagree with your structured opinion of how this will shape out...it rarely shapes out how you wish it to be.....it usually morphs into something you dont have control of anymore :(
Sadly, I think Selber is being disingenuous. There's no way that a 20-year military intelligence veteran of Iraq & Afghanistan doesn't know that the Geneva Conventions apparently exist.
Apparently, "stop using our weapons to commit war crimes" is a step too far for Selber ...
i think Selber is taking this issue personally, most of the american miltary work closely with the israel forces....it brings a close relationship...but this should prevent a person ,particularly if you must view such conflicts objectively and dispassionately to give a accurate projection of what you think will happen....i see several indictors of emotion and bias in his article, i think he is closer to people involved in this conflict[on the israeli side], than we know..in such cases, it can effect judgement? :( does that advocate his actions and his words? No..but we are all human,with human frailties
Yeah, fair enough and a very kind interpretation, I'm definitely too cynical.
I guess that, taking a broad contextual view on Selber's comments, I was faaaaar less disturbed about them when I thought he was just another typical right-wing political commentator who doesn't know his head from his ass in real-life experience.
When I looked Selber up and confirmed he's a 20-year Iraq & Afghanistan military intelligence veteran, I felt sick to my stomach because Selber's complete disregard for the limitations on military conduct since the Geneva Conventions, is uncomfortably congrous with the American disregard for the Geneva Conventions in both theatres of war.
yeah i also thought he would learn different lessons especially from recent conflicts especially like general petreus? well yes, but the military sphere is a wide area.....but one things for sure, like the irish problem for britain[of which we have broad knowledge here in england]where we know that the solution is not a military solution...a hammer [that many miltarymen advocate[its al they know]] is not the solution in ireland, and its not the solution here...its just makes things worse] :(
And yup the blunt instrument of war in these situations, as with Ireland, just ensures that for every militant you kill, the indiscriminate killing of civilians creates 20 more. And that's even from a purely Israeli selfish perspective that disregards the value of human life.
It's not a state secret that Israel's military doesn't want to be dragged into policing Gaza after the war.
The problem is that the PA wants its own state on a silver platter (and the Arab states obligingly concur), but at the same time can't or won't cooperate with Israel for fear of (further) alienating its prospective subjects.
Which brings me back to Natan Sharansky's insight that corrupt dictatorships don't make reliable peace partners. Even when there's nobody else on the horizen.
If Israel nonetheless grits its teeth and finds a fig leaf for the PA, does anybody seriously think the latter will do a better job keeping Hamas at bay than it did after the first Israeli disengagement in 2005?
Which presumably means the IDF will ultimately be called in whether either the PA or the IDF like it or not.
I mean, are there any other volunteers? The Pentagon? Bueller?
The refusal to apply the clear lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan to Israel's invasion of Gaza is beyond tragic. Slaughtering a bunch of civilians in a fit of revenge was as politically popular in post-9/11 America as it is now in Israel. As was the illusion that moderates would somehow rise from the ashes to replace the radicals. But how many Americans now believe the invasions made us any safer, or accomplished any of our goals for that matter? The only real difference is that America was a superpower on the other side of the planet from the chaos we initiated. Israel has a far smaller margin for error, which means the consequences will be far more dire.
Before i read this new piece here, i want to address Ben's piece:-
In "Is the Endgame for the Gaza War in Sight?", we have perhaps some pretty bad nuances indeed
Ben takes the report by the New York Times which talks about the harassment and in some
cases deadly pressure that hamas bought upon the people of gaza[nothing objectional here,its
just fact that hamas is a horrendous organisation].
But then Ben concludes the following facts..
"Fasfous also told the Times something striking: “We can’t have a life here as long as these criminals remain in control.” That statement, at once obvious and profound, could have been uttered by a senior member of the Israeli government or military and no one would have been surprised.
It’s in the best interest of both Israelis and Gazans that Hamas be destroyed."
Well i cant not conclude that removing hamas, would make the gazans peoples life better..but[and its a big but] you cant then allude that israel is then doing the right thing by killing hamas in this way....
You see, Ben , its a little hard to equate the two, lets say its the completion of gazan[after a year or so]
with 70-100,000 gazans dead, perhaps 200,000 wounded[without limbs and stuff], with no housing[its all been] destroyed ,with no water[all the facilities have been destroyed],without food or medicine, with perhaps numerous members of your family[including children or perhaps the children are alive and the parents are dead]and then go upto them , and say, "see you life is expedientially better now those nasty hamas" are gone, and expect a good result....?
"That is why Israel is willing to incur high costs right now. It is willing to absorb large numbers of casualties (by Israeli standards), the economic costs of a large mobilization, and the political costs of frayed relations with the Arab world, Europe, and even the United States. This isn’t just old-fashioned Israeli unilateralism—it’s also an appreciation that these costs are up-front investments that, hopefully, can lead to a peaceful, productive future without Hamas."
To refer to the tremendous sacrifice of israels in political costs, troops and "large numbers of casualties (by Israeli standards)" for israel..and just for israel seems a little how may i say it, almost moving into hypocrisy, when the real cost of removing hamas is being done by the people of gaza, perhaps them even suffering "large numbers of casualties [by Gazan standards] ,its almost as if you are not even weighing in the palestinine people as human beings worthy of consideration in your calculations, seems increasingly cold, almost negligible :(
You will not make these people love israel for their efforts, for they will see israel as equally bad
and probably[in all honesty] see israel as just hundred times worse, yes, they might say ,hamas was bad,yes we lived in fear, but we did actually "live", now israel has removed even that factor, some dont even live anymore, and those that are left, in a bombed out, hellscape, where nothing exists[except some of the people]
you say that there lives are better? To put the best words on this[without resorting to rude ones]its just
a complete lie....if you want to put the spin on it, to justify isreali's war on hamas, it might have
been very different, if it was done in different way , selective, without the mailed fist of a modern military with people considering the value of Palestinians lifes before targeting, now ...its just too late :(
Additionally you seem to worry about the future of Israel with no plan, well the other worrying factor here is that the right wing settlers [who preach death to Palestinians, and settlements for gaza] have the mettle of this government, as was said in dune"he who can destroy a thing ,controls it]and the right wing can destroy this government if they wish it...so lets expect some settlement of gaza at the very least. But i hear you cry , [with concern for Palestinians in your words]what about the guarantees that america has assured us, that the israeli government would'nt do any settlements or expel people from gaza, well i would argue back, the israelis did'nt listen to you before[they didnt stop the settlements]there are not listening to you now[rafah], so its not a small step to say they will not listen to you in the future? Its what happens when the dotting father spoils a son, and gives him what all that he wishes , with no consequences, whilst the rest of world, objects :(
Sorry, even the Gaza Health Ministry claims 35,000 fatalities and the UN itself says that almost half of the 25,000 identified ones were adult men. Many if not most of the latter were Hamas gunmen, as doubtless were a fair number of males under age 18 (the UN cutoff age for children).
Perhaps you can make your arguments without relying on agitprop.
yes i saw this one the other day, on morning joe, sadly the UN have put out a statement as the FDD[ Foundation for Defense of Democracies] spun the data, giving it to the jpost, that 10,000 deaths had no clear identification...the UN came out the other day, clearing up this misreporting, to say , yes they dont despite the bodies are there, its just that noboby was around ,or the bodies were so badly disfigured, or there was no identification on the bodies to determine exactly who they where........i sadly admit this is a part of warfare, that bodies are sometimes without features, but i guess, you dont want to talk about that part of it , at all, i think you just wish to accept the spun misinformation , i guess? :(
You miss my point. I'm perfectly content to stipulate to the 35,000 figure. But if anywhere near half were men, let alone male teenagers, it stands to reason that a hefty portion were gunmen.
Are you implying that it was stupid of the IDF to kill 15,000 Hamas gunmen (as it alleges) because their relatives might resent it?
1) As much as journalists have brainlessly adopted the practice of referring to casualty figures with the caveat "according to the Hamas controlled Ministry of Health", there are several problems with this idiocy:
a) It's fundamentally lazy journalism. Hamas provides Palestinian ID numbers for every single reported death, so any dedicated journalist could verify or deny the numbers if they were so inclined. There's absolutely no excuse now that the daily numbers are much lower than at the start of the conflict;
b) There are good fundamental reasons to generally accept the reliability of such measures. I'm sure a lot of Americans think of the Palestinian territories as third-world villages, but the civilian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza have an interest in maintaining detailed and accurate death records to manage and record changes to property titles in geographically dense areas;
c) The general accuracy of the death figures have historically and currently been confirmed by independent aid agencies. Moreover, the bloody Israeli government has relied on the accuracy of these figures for years.
Let's get to your claims now:
"... even the Gaza Health Ministry claims 35,000 fatalities and the UN itself says that almost half of the 25,000 identified ones were adult men."
The UN never said that. Ever. You're just reporting Israeli propaganda.
And here's a fun fact you apparently don't appreciate, even assuming 1/2 were either men or teenaged males (meaning 13-years old +), the teenaged males would be CHILD SOLDIERS. Under international law, you can't just carpet bomb child soldiers. You get that?
But more importantly is the fact that you pulled that presumption out of your ass, more precisely, "[I]f anywhere near half were men, let alone male teenagers, it stands to reason that a hefty portion were gunmen."
Sorry what's your basis for this statement? Are you in the IDF or something? I know that Israeli troops shoot anyone that moves but that doesn't make it legal, much less proof they are militants.
The ACTUAL widely cited figures are that 70% of the deaths in Gaza involve women and children. No idea why you were gullible enough to think that Israeli propaganda was credible.
So no, 1/2 were NOT men. We're down to 10.5K deaths now.
But let's ASSUME for a moment that indeed 1/2 of the 35K Gazans killed were in fact men and teenaged BOYS, that would bring us to 17.5K deaths.
For you to assert (with absolutely no factual basis) that 15K were "Hamas gunmen" would necessarily mean that 85% of men & male children aged 13-17 years old in Gaza are Hamas militants.
Do you realize how offensive, not to mention unhinged it is to suggest that 85% of Gazans over the age of 12 are terrorists?
I'll point you to a fun example about the Israeli approach to Palestinian lives that even your Israeli apologism will have a hard time excusing.
Remember in December when the IDF murdered three shirtless, unarmed, Hebrew-speaking, white-flag-waiving, Israeli hostages over a 15 minute period as they were trying to surrender? War crime. No one has been charged or will ever be charged for openly committing multiple murders in this case.
Gee whiz, I wonder whether innocent Palestinians civilians speaking Arabic would have fared better?
Lol, since you object to bombing teenaged terrorists even though they can shoot back, I assume you object even more strongly to bombing teenagers or anybody else who *can't* shoot back.
Which is to say, civilians. Whom the IDF has been trying, with quite reasonable success, to avoid killing, but whom Hamas has deliberately put in harm's way.
Ergo, you're either a sorry naïf or a terrorist sympathizer. Big surprise there.
And where did you concoct that 85% number? Since when does "15K [Hamas gunmen]... necessarily mean that 85% of men & male children aged 13-17 years old in Gaza are Hamas militants"? There must be at least half a million Gaza males over the age of 13.
Sorry when did I say that using child soldiers isn't a war crime? Umm that's implied as it's basic knowledge.
It's so fucking weird when Israeli apologists compare Israeli conduct to that of a terrorist organization. So you think that's the valid point of comparison? On this we actually agree as both Israel & Hamas have no regard for the Geneva Conventions.
Sigh let me help you with basic math:
1) I was, for the sake of argument agreeing that 1/2 of Gazans killed were adult men or teenaged males.
2) So 1/2 of 35k = 17.5 k.
3) You asserted (pulling the figure out if your ass) that Israel has killed 15k Hamas militants, in that casualty figure.
4) 15.k out of 17.5k = 86% (rounded up).
Bro, I'm using the same ridiculously flawed numbers YOU provided to prove your dumbass racist comment is moronic. You have only yourself to blame if you think the numbers don't make sense.
Yet another limited point of agreement, I'm 100% in agreement that the numbers you provided are completely wrong and illogical.
i am saying i dont think the IDF have the slightest clue how many hamas fighters they have killed, there have been reports from unmoblized israel troopers saying they had orders to shoot at any males [of teenager age and above that look as if they could carry a weapon]...i think from the sound of it, many [being a civilian army mainly in part] that many took this onboard and shoot anybody that came into their area[see BBC report of a tank killing 5 airbourne troops just today]...to that end, how would israel know whether a killed male[of any age] was just a innocent civilian/hamas goverment offical position[police/admin/heathworker]/a hamas fighter? and how would they distingish it? In the chaos of war [similar to reports during WW2] everybody puts down there kill as a enemy...for that is what there ammo is for,is it not?The mind doesnt want to admit to killing a innocent civilian or not..its just easier [for acceptance of the warrior] to think all kills are hamas and have done with it...thus much of the reporting of hamas kills might be inflated?
As for question of wether it was stupid of the IDF to kill 15,000 gumen because they relatives might resent it,- i would say , when you fight wars, you kill your enemy, so much so that he cant maintain a defence , and then you take their terrority , and then they surrender- this is the sequence of warfare of countries - but in the shape of warfare against terrorists, it doesnt always hold, true - is killing how many terrorists going to change the battlefield? is it going to defeat hamas? i think this should be the question here? regardless of the feelings of perhaps those personal terrorists families[they might be followers of hamas,they might be slightly inclined or not] its more the killing of those that are not in hamas, that is the question,for in every casualty you are helping hamas not harming it. To some degree to defeat a terrorist organisation, you must stifly it, deny it room, deny it funding and food, and take out its head, but perhaps equally its ideology.....the SAS did a great job in malaya [https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/rebirth-sas-malayan-emergency/#:~:text=From%201948%20to%201960%2C%20the,and%20remained%20there%20until%201958.] but i think the tactics to defeat hamas here is to strangle it slowly , but equally the public have to be on yourside, for against any terrorist group, you need them onboard, with the population with you,without that its pretty hopeless really :( killing 15,000 grunts of the hamas groups, doesnt really change anything at all[killing 95% of the hamas fighters again the same]....they are fodder that hamas can readily re-recruit from diseffected gazan citizens of which there are now many :(
The Palestinian Arab public will never be on Israel's side. That was ironically why Israel was happy at the time to hand large parts of it over to Arafat and his successors. The thinking was that they would be ruthless enough to do Israel's job of stifling terrorism. Which in hindsight was a fantasy masquerading as realpolitik.
However, it's fair to infer that the Palestinian Arabs aren't crazy about having their lives and neighborhoods wrecked every time their leaders orchestrate a massacre of Israelis. So even if it's doubtful they'll ever give up their irredentist yearnings, or make serious attempts to liberalize their society, having the Sword of Damocles aka the IAF et al hanging over their heads will have to do as an incentive.
well the polls and bens peice today highlighted the recent New York Times showing how much of the population hated hamas rule in gaza.....but sighs that is now politics is it not? Now [after the devastation of Gaza] the people of gaza, may still reset hamas, but i rather fear they will hate israel more....its one thing to harrass/perscute ones life...its quite another ,to kill families members, take away their lileyhood, their home, perhaps even their children , combine this with the constant travelling, constant fear, lack of food, water and shelter, i would guess that that diplomatic chance has gone,at least for moment, unless something substantial is done to change things ? :(
Most people tend to be worried about life and how to pay bills, put food on the table for the family, as there, as anywhere most life is the same, unless of course, you have personal interest to have vendetta with the israelis....once you destroy a whole population and make them move, i rather think now they will never be on israelis side[at least for this generation], with hamas in power for twenty years, there was some room to manoeuvre, but this door is certainly near shut even to those that hated hamas, for who do you think the gazans think is the biggest threat to their life and future? :(
This is really really bad, with current tensions, with a threat to a israel PM who might be booted from office, there will be views from many , that Bibi ordered this, to push for wider war with iran [shudders] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/05/19/helicopter-carrying-iran-president-ebrahim-raisi-hard-land/ This is really bad, particularly in Azerbaijan where they are allied to israel and receive weapons with a Israel PM in trouble, who would profit with a war with iran , which would push the west to defend israel :( equally it could be said, some hardliners in iran could have set this up but to do the same, from the otherside....equally it could just be accident in heavy fog....but will Iran accept the crash investigators findings from Azerbaijan/ i think so....another headache for the world, even if this is just a innocent accident, the connotations are extra frightening :(
I know nobody's paying attention now - it's Saturday evening - least of all the writers (I say this because unlike JVL they don't respond to comments), but the "repeatedly rebuffed" link in this statement, "a plan for who will govern Gaza . . . the Sunni Arab nations have repeatedly rebuffed requests for assistance", has nothing to do with the plans for post-war Gaza. And it's not even current. Bad linking, dear Bulwark.
I very much want to know about the proposals to have the Sunni Arabs play a role in post-war Gaza. Can you address this in next week's Morning Shots?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-05-17/ty-article/.premium/israel-faces-war-on-every-front-but-netanyahu-and-his-arsonist-allies-fan-the-flames/0000018f-82fb-d430-a38f-c7ffc5770000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=Content&utm_campaign=weekend&utm_content=9a0d200a14
"The three ministers – two former chiefs of staff and one who almost was – preferred to try and advance the deal for the hostages first. In light of the serious dispute with the United States, they warned against a drive to conquer Rafah, and emphasized the need to set a political goal for the war – a settlement in which the Palestinian Authority would take part in controlling Gaza, if Hamas were indeed defeated and the IDF withdrew. A number of Likud MKs support this view, but they lack the courage to join in publicly criticizing Netanyahu."
"The main reason for Gallant's declaration lies in the dispute over the possible establishment of an Israeli military government that would govern the Gaza Strip in place of Hamas. However dangerous that may sound, it's the idea that Netanyahu is now mulling. And a new key player has recently entered the developing events, namely Brig. Gen. Roman Gofman, the prime minister's military secretary-designate. Gofman, an outstanding combat officer who was commander of the Tze'elim Base, was seriously wounded on October 7 while helping in the effort to contain Hamas' attack on the communities near Gaza. While recovering, he temporarily held a senior post at the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. In that capacity, as reported on Channel 12 News, he wrote a paper, which reached Netanyahu, containing a proposal to establish a provisional military government as a solution for supplanting Hamas."
"As a professional opinion, Gofman's suggestion can be seen as an idea that justifies a discussion. But Netanyahu is promoting the proposal for his own reasons, and naturally the idea was music to the ears of the leaders of the far-right parties in the governing coalition, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. From their point of view, there is nothing more permanent than the temporary (as proved by the case of the settler outposts in the West Bank), and thus the way will be paved to reestablish the settlements in the Gaza Strip. Gallant's statement was largely aimed at torpedoing that move."
"The incident occurred during an operation in Jabalya, in an area which the IDF has now entered for the third time. This time, Hamas is once more mounting significant resistance, including increased use of rocket-propelled grenades that hasn't been seen in northern Gaza in recent months. The armed Palestinian militants are relatively organized and appear to be operating as part of a command-and-control mechanism that the organization is running. Hamas' ranks are filling up again, even though the organization has lost more than 10,000 combatants in the war so far (according to some estimates, Hamas has sustained 14,000 killed and thousands more wounded)."
"Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet security service maintain that this is not by chance. The young people in Gaza see no other alternative to Hamas and are enlisting in the organization in place of the terrorists who were killed. Joining the organization promises a better chance of the family's survival, even in the harsh living conditions in the Strip. The Gazans are apparently assuming that Hamas will survive the war and remain in power. Since October, Gallant, backing the security chiefs, has been demanding that both cabinets discuss the day-after arrangements, but Netanyahu, who has the authority to set the agenda, has balked at this. The defense minister's proposal includes the entry of an international Arab coalition that will include "local Palestinians who look to Ramallah," a complicated formulation meant to bypass Netanyahu's veto of the PA's involvement."
"The bottom line, in the eyes of Gallant and the other top defense officials, is that Israel is wasting the credit generated by the military moves. Hamas has not been defeated but is rehabilitating in the areas from which the IDF withdraws. And in the absence of any governmental alternative, the organization could actually grow stronger. The frustration increases when more and more soldiers are being killed in places where the IDF has returned for a second and a third time, pointlessly and aimlessly, apart from Netanyahu's empty promises of a total victory. "It's true Vietnamization," says a person who takes part in the security consultations."
This Haaretz article says what i feared, that young palestinian men, with no hope and out of options are turning to hamas, to get revenge/to get food/support for their families..and re-energizing the struggle, put as americans can see it as "its true Vietnamization" [sighs] :(
Does the Bulwark actually believe that the only reason the Palestinian population hates Israel is because of anti-semitism?
I guess we are proceeding on with the official government policy in the United States and in Israel that ethnic cleansing and genocide are the tool to use against Palestinians to get to Hamas. The irony that in accusing Hamas of being a brutally pragmatic and effective terror state, the author ignores that it has learned its effective and brutally pragmatic state terrorism from the larger neighbor that is their sworn enemy: Israel. We can paint the Israeli pig all the lipstick in the world, but it won't hide that Israel is behaving like a terrorist state, threatening to unleash terror amongst civilians in Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon. Israel has become a liability to American interests but our elites are so stuck in their erroneous positions that they are afraid to admit they have been wrong for 75 years. Like our foreign policy disasters came to roost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam, this latest blunder in Palestine will haunt us. I particularly have no faith in the leaders that sent myself and my fellow soldiers to fight two unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe add this deeply reported investigation to the equation: (gifted) The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.sU0.ZRof.NXbiVW5vRhtZ
"That doesn’t mean the Rafah operation shouldn’t take place. It should. It must. Hamas is not only a terrorist group; they are also an army. The last remaining battalions are dug into a complex series of tunnels throughout Rafah. These operations are proceeding much slower than the IDF prefers because of the Biden administration's increasingly stringent parameters."
Thanks to Mr. Selber for his hard-cutting analysis, but these "increasingly stringent parameters" amount to:
1) Stop indiscriminately killing civilians, or at a minimum stop killing them in grossly disproportionate numbers to your military objectives.
2) Stop blocking INTERNATION AID to Gaza (god knows Israel hasn't provided a single grain of rice in aid) given that 2.2 million people are food insecure, 1 million are in the process of starving, and some 30 plus people, mostly kids, have died of starvation already.
Selber and all of the the Bulwark staff with the exception of Saletan (who is Jewish) consistently gloss over the fact that #1 & #2 are WAR CRIMES (disproportionate killing of civilians & collective punishment, arguably genocide in so far as both measures have forcibly relocated pretty much 100% of Gazan residents and is making life miserable for them with the intention of having them seek refuge elsewhere, namely Egypt). It's not optional for Israel to abide by these laws.
3) If you're intent on committing war crimes, don't use the weapons we are giving you for free. Notably the ONLY weapons that have been blocked have been 2000 lb dumb bombs which are COMPLETELY inappropriate for use in a dense urban setting.
#3 isn't optional for the U.S. either, never mind international law prohibiting the same, but domestic law strictly prohibits this as well.
Sooooo Selber thinks that the Biden administration is unreasonably imposing "stringent parameters" on the weapons Israel receives for free, by simply demanding that Israel abide by international law?
Selber should know better based on his experience as an active service member in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then again the U.S. military's conduct in both theatres (under both Republican & Dem administrations) didn't exactly comply with the Geneva Conventions.
God, Will Selber is so full of shit on Israel. The invasion of Rafah and massive slaughter of innocent civilians MUST happen? Only if you only care about protecting Israeli lives. There are better ways to degrade Hamas militarily than just flattening a city and killing tens of thousands of civilians inside it.
100% agree.
You know what is most disturbing? Look up his background, he's a 20 year military intelligence veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet for Selber, the Biden administration's legally required demand that Israel not use the weapons it is being provided for free by the U.S. to commit war crimes. Full stop. That's it. But Selber declares that these legally required measures are "increasingly stringent parameters".
I sure as hell hope that Selber knows better and is being disingenuous. On the other hand, it's also equally likely that he truly doesn't know the contents of the Geneva Conventions, given the illegal conduct that was encouraged by the American intelligence community in both theatres of war.
The Bulwark is actually MUCH MUCH closer to the likes of Fox "News" when it comes to the commentary and reporting on the conflict in Gaza. In fact, the Bulwark is probably more radically right-wing because at least the likes of Fox News don't want funding to Israel to be a spigot that can never be closed.
I just don't understand why it's so difficult to empathize with the fate of civilians in Gaza that have been killed in grossly disproportionate IDF attacks. The only conclusion I can draw from the lack of empathy is that, as with senior Israeli cabinet members, they don't regard Gazans as full sentient human beings worth of compassion.
A great example that is illustrative of the IDF's approach to Palestinian human life is the IDF rescue of the two Israeli-Argentine hostages on February 12, 2024 (incidentally the only hostages rescued by the IDF, by count the IDF has in contrast directly killed at least 12 Israeli hostages).
Not only did two Israeli soldiers die in the process (thus negating the net gain in even Israeli human lives), the IDF carpet bombed the area prior to the attack killing at least 100 Palestinians. You think anyone in the international community or Israel, much less the Israeli government gave a damn about those GROSSLY disproportionate civilian deaths (unless you actually think that 2 Israeli hostages were guarded by 100 Hamas militants)? Nope.
Thank you Will for another great newsletter about this complex issue that most people don't understand well.
As they keep insisting on demonstrating, at great length. Both above and below your comment.
Not so much. He either doesn't actually understand the issues (unlikely given his military experience), or he's being massively disingenuous (Jesus I hope that's the case, because otherwise it would be disturbing that a 20-year military intelligence veteran is completely unaware of the contents of the Geneva Conventions).
What part of the Geneva Conventions is he unaware of?
I fear its a mix of both, it is disturbing the level of ignorance amongst the so called veterans of American foreign and military policy.
The way both Trump and Biden are framing their upcoming debates sounds more like trash talk at a World Wrestling Entertainment match than a serious encounter of two people vying to become President of the USA.
I hate these "faux" debates to start with and these are probably going to be the worst in since 1988 when CNN's Bernard Shaw wondered if Dukakis' wife were raped and murdered would he change his opinion on the death penalty. A ridiculous question designed to show Dukakis as a either a hypocrite or as being heartless and unmanly in not seeking to avenge the rape and murder of his wife.
That said it will be good that there will be no audience at least at the first debate... no cheering sections and no one for Trump to perform for.
I have never understood why the opinions of old white American men on what is or is not happening in Gaza and Ukraine has any merit other than simple cheerleading for whatever side they are on... it isn't so much propaganda as it is a form of marketing. I would prefer just to be given the facts as they happen and not speculation about what those facts mean.
It might be a fact that 35,000 Palestinians have died in the fighting. It might be a fact the 15,000 Hamas gunmen have been removed from the field. The question to ask is their removal worth the death of 20,000 non-combatants?
I don't know if Israelis are being inhumane or not but much of the discussion that our armchair critics of, and cheerleaders for, Israel is pretty inhumane. The lasting costs to communities, families and the trauma that will be passed on to future generations sure gets little consideration.
i could tell from the framing of the piece that the gaza, one was written by will selber[sighs]
a)"That doesn’t mean the Rafah operation shouldn’t take place. It should. It must."-
when you deal in "it must" without justification, it really shows a lack of depth of understanding of the problem, maybe emotion is replacing rational thought? Additoinally miltary thought and actions must remain flexable, to have such a thought, suggests the lack of such?
b)"Hamas is not only a terrorist group; they are also an army. The last remaining battalions are dug into a complex series of tunnels throughout Rafah. These operations are proceeding much slower than the IDF prefers because of the Biden administration's increasingly stringent parameters."
- maybe as the israelis keep telling us, they have plenty of ammo and supplies for this operation , you comments seem surprisingly ill informed? unless of course, the IDF is lying? To blame biden for withholding bombs that do overwhelming damage to civilians ,either shows a lack of care towards the civilians? or lack of care about biden diplomacy? but what would a military man know of diplomacy?Some know alot , some know nothing at all :(
c)"After Rafah, part of the IDF will focus on fighting Hamas’ remnants. Netanyahu has said as much during a recent interview. The IDF must ensure that Hamas does not become a terror army again. In short, the fight will continue, but it is unlikely to reach levels of carnage seen in earlier operations."
- Netanyahi says alot ,not all of it is true, to say that you take his word completely speaks to your lack of diplomacy. Earlier, you said that hamas is dug into a complex tunnel network?do you not think that a cornered rat will fight all the harder?
d)"How would anyone maintain any semblance of legitimacy working with the hated Jews?"
- this seems more a emotional statement of your opinion rather than any journalistic objective statement of fact?
e)"However, in Gaza, antisemitism runs deep, especially after the last seven months"
- I would say again this is your opinion...In my opinion, i think perhaps if you have had the israelis killing your family, destroying your home, killing your children, starving you out, and chasing you around a moonscape, it might provoke a reaction...i think anybody would have that reaction regardless of their religion of the people doing that to me? :(
f)"Thus, while all eyes turn to Rafah, this war will not end there, even if the IDF is wildly successful. It will continue in Gaza and the West Bank, and if Hezbollah doesn’t move behind the Litani River, it will spread to Lebanon, too."
- Netanyahu said it would be over after Rafah, so you even reject his words here without knowing it, i do not doubt the conflict will move to the north, but i rather think that hamas adopting guerrilla tactics will continue the effort in gaza, after all , they are new reoccurring attacks in the north, after we were assured they have been cleared the area, the old adage of "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is in fully effect here, i disagree with your structured opinion of how this will shape out...it rarely shapes out how you wish it to be.....it usually morphs into something you dont have control of anymore :(
c)
Thank you for this.
Sadly, I think Selber is being disingenuous. There's no way that a 20-year military intelligence veteran of Iraq & Afghanistan doesn't know that the Geneva Conventions apparently exist.
Apparently, "stop using our weapons to commit war crimes" is a step too far for Selber ...
i think Selber is taking this issue personally, most of the american miltary work closely with the israel forces....it brings a close relationship...but this should prevent a person ,particularly if you must view such conflicts objectively and dispassionately to give a accurate projection of what you think will happen....i see several indictors of emotion and bias in his article, i think he is closer to people involved in this conflict[on the israeli side], than we know..in such cases, it can effect judgement? :( does that advocate his actions and his words? No..but we are all human,with human frailties
Yeah, fair enough and a very kind interpretation, I'm definitely too cynical.
I guess that, taking a broad contextual view on Selber's comments, I was faaaaar less disturbed about them when I thought he was just another typical right-wing political commentator who doesn't know his head from his ass in real-life experience.
When I looked Selber up and confirmed he's a 20-year Iraq & Afghanistan military intelligence veteran, I felt sick to my stomach because Selber's complete disregard for the limitations on military conduct since the Geneva Conventions, is uncomfortably congrous with the American disregard for the Geneva Conventions in both theatres of war.
yeah i also thought he would learn different lessons especially from recent conflicts especially like general petreus? well yes, but the military sphere is a wide area.....but one things for sure, like the irish problem for britain[of which we have broad knowledge here in england]where we know that the solution is not a military solution...a hammer [that many miltarymen advocate[its al they know]] is not the solution in ireland, and its not the solution here...its just makes things worse] :(
And yup the blunt instrument of war in these situations, as with Ireland, just ensures that for every militant you kill, the indiscriminate killing of civilians creates 20 more. And that's even from a purely Israeli selfish perspective that disregards the value of human life.
Ahhh back to one of three topics we get in this newsletter.
It's OK for people to focus on what they know or care about. Preferable, for the most part.
It’s literally the same newsletter every week: Israel, Ukraine and political horse race. It’s always 3 of the 5 topics.
It's not a state secret that Israel's military doesn't want to be dragged into policing Gaza after the war.
The problem is that the PA wants its own state on a silver platter (and the Arab states obligingly concur), but at the same time can't or won't cooperate with Israel for fear of (further) alienating its prospective subjects.
Which brings me back to Natan Sharansky's insight that corrupt dictatorships don't make reliable peace partners. Even when there's nobody else on the horizen.
If Israel nonetheless grits its teeth and finds a fig leaf for the PA, does anybody seriously think the latter will do a better job keeping Hamas at bay than it did after the first Israeli disengagement in 2005?
Which presumably means the IDF will ultimately be called in whether either the PA or the IDF like it or not.
I mean, are there any other volunteers? The Pentagon? Bueller?
There is no path put of this that does not involve Israel as at least a partner, if not the whole deal.
I think that has always been true, actually. Palestine is Israel's problem, to solve or not.
Selber is convincingly clearsighted.
I think you meant "nearsighted"
The refusal to apply the clear lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan to Israel's invasion of Gaza is beyond tragic. Slaughtering a bunch of civilians in a fit of revenge was as politically popular in post-9/11 America as it is now in Israel. As was the illusion that moderates would somehow rise from the ashes to replace the radicals. But how many Americans now believe the invasions made us any safer, or accomplished any of our goals for that matter? The only real difference is that America was a superpower on the other side of the planet from the chaos we initiated. Israel has a far smaller margin for error, which means the consequences will be far more dire.
Before i read this new piece here, i want to address Ben's piece:-
In "Is the Endgame for the Gaza War in Sight?", we have perhaps some pretty bad nuances indeed
Ben takes the report by the New York Times which talks about the harassment and in some
cases deadly pressure that hamas bought upon the people of gaza[nothing objectional here,its
just fact that hamas is a horrendous organisation].
But then Ben concludes the following facts..
"Fasfous also told the Times something striking: “We can’t have a life here as long as these criminals remain in control.” That statement, at once obvious and profound, could have been uttered by a senior member of the Israeli government or military and no one would have been surprised.
It’s in the best interest of both Israelis and Gazans that Hamas be destroyed."
Well i cant not conclude that removing hamas, would make the gazans peoples life better..but[and its a big but] you cant then allude that israel is then doing the right thing by killing hamas in this way....
You see, Ben , its a little hard to equate the two, lets say its the completion of gazan[after a year or so]
with 70-100,000 gazans dead, perhaps 200,000 wounded[without limbs and stuff], with no housing[its all been] destroyed ,with no water[all the facilities have been destroyed],without food or medicine, with perhaps numerous members of your family[including children or perhaps the children are alive and the parents are dead]and then go upto them , and say, "see you life is expedientially better now those nasty hamas" are gone, and expect a good result....?
"That is why Israel is willing to incur high costs right now. It is willing to absorb large numbers of casualties (by Israeli standards), the economic costs of a large mobilization, and the political costs of frayed relations with the Arab world, Europe, and even the United States. This isn’t just old-fashioned Israeli unilateralism—it’s also an appreciation that these costs are up-front investments that, hopefully, can lead to a peaceful, productive future without Hamas."
To refer to the tremendous sacrifice of israels in political costs, troops and "large numbers of casualties (by Israeli standards)" for israel..and just for israel seems a little how may i say it, almost moving into hypocrisy, when the real cost of removing hamas is being done by the people of gaza, perhaps them even suffering "large numbers of casualties [by Gazan standards] ,its almost as if you are not even weighing in the palestinine people as human beings worthy of consideration in your calculations, seems increasingly cold, almost negligible :(
You will not make these people love israel for their efforts, for they will see israel as equally bad
and probably[in all honesty] see israel as just hundred times worse, yes, they might say ,hamas was bad,yes we lived in fear, but we did actually "live", now israel has removed even that factor, some dont even live anymore, and those that are left, in a bombed out, hellscape, where nothing exists[except some of the people]
you say that there lives are better? To put the best words on this[without resorting to rude ones]its just
a complete lie....if you want to put the spin on it, to justify isreali's war on hamas, it might have
been very different, if it was done in different way , selective, without the mailed fist of a modern military with people considering the value of Palestinians lifes before targeting, now ...its just too late :(
Additionally you seem to worry about the future of Israel with no plan, well the other worrying factor here is that the right wing settlers [who preach death to Palestinians, and settlements for gaza] have the mettle of this government, as was said in dune"he who can destroy a thing ,controls it]and the right wing can destroy this government if they wish it...so lets expect some settlement of gaza at the very least. But i hear you cry , [with concern for Palestinians in your words]what about the guarantees that america has assured us, that the israeli government would'nt do any settlements or expel people from gaza, well i would argue back, the israelis did'nt listen to you before[they didnt stop the settlements]there are not listening to you now[rafah], so its not a small step to say they will not listen to you in the future? Its what happens when the dotting father spoils a son, and gives him what all that he wishes , with no consequences, whilst the rest of world, objects :(
40% of total Gazan deaths based on unverified data https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-801433?utm_source=jpost.app.android&utm_medium=share
Sorry, even the Gaza Health Ministry claims 35,000 fatalities and the UN itself says that almost half of the 25,000 identified ones were adult men. Many if not most of the latter were Hamas gunmen, as doubtless were a fair number of males under age 18 (the UN cutoff age for children).
Perhaps you can make your arguments without relying on agitprop.
yes i saw this one the other day, on morning joe, sadly the UN have put out a statement as the FDD[ Foundation for Defense of Democracies] spun the data, giving it to the jpost, that 10,000 deaths had no clear identification...the UN came out the other day, clearing up this misreporting, to say , yes they dont despite the bodies are there, its just that noboby was around ,or the bodies were so badly disfigured, or there was no identification on the bodies to determine exactly who they where........i sadly admit this is a part of warfare, that bodies are sometimes without features, but i guess, you dont want to talk about that part of it , at all, i think you just wish to accept the spun misinformation , i guess? :(
You miss my point. I'm perfectly content to stipulate to the 35,000 figure. But if anywhere near half were men, let alone male teenagers, it stands to reason that a hefty portion were gunmen.
Are you implying that it was stupid of the IDF to kill 15,000 Hamas gunmen (as it alleges) because their relatives might resent it?
What are you talking about?
Okay let's get some facts on the ground.
1) As much as journalists have brainlessly adopted the practice of referring to casualty figures with the caveat "according to the Hamas controlled Ministry of Health", there are several problems with this idiocy:
a) It's fundamentally lazy journalism. Hamas provides Palestinian ID numbers for every single reported death, so any dedicated journalist could verify or deny the numbers if they were so inclined. There's absolutely no excuse now that the daily numbers are much lower than at the start of the conflict;
b) There are good fundamental reasons to generally accept the reliability of such measures. I'm sure a lot of Americans think of the Palestinian territories as third-world villages, but the civilian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza have an interest in maintaining detailed and accurate death records to manage and record changes to property titles in geographically dense areas;
c) The general accuracy of the death figures have historically and currently been confirmed by independent aid agencies. Moreover, the bloody Israeli government has relied on the accuracy of these figures for years.
Let's get to your claims now:
"... even the Gaza Health Ministry claims 35,000 fatalities and the UN itself says that almost half of the 25,000 identified ones were adult men."
The UN never said that. Ever. You're just reporting Israeli propaganda.
And here's a fun fact you apparently don't appreciate, even assuming 1/2 were either men or teenaged males (meaning 13-years old +), the teenaged males would be CHILD SOLDIERS. Under international law, you can't just carpet bomb child soldiers. You get that?
But more importantly is the fact that you pulled that presumption out of your ass, more precisely, "[I]f anywhere near half were men, let alone male teenagers, it stands to reason that a hefty portion were gunmen."
Sorry what's your basis for this statement? Are you in the IDF or something? I know that Israeli troops shoot anyone that moves but that doesn't make it legal, much less proof they are militants.
The ACTUAL widely cited figures are that 70% of the deaths in Gaza involve women and children. No idea why you were gullible enough to think that Israeli propaganda was credible.
So no, 1/2 were NOT men. We're down to 10.5K deaths now.
But let's ASSUME for a moment that indeed 1/2 of the 35K Gazans killed were in fact men and teenaged BOYS, that would bring us to 17.5K deaths.
For you to assert (with absolutely no factual basis) that 15K were "Hamas gunmen" would necessarily mean that 85% of men & male children aged 13-17 years old in Gaza are Hamas militants.
Do you realize how offensive, not to mention unhinged it is to suggest that 85% of Gazans over the age of 12 are terrorists?
I'll point you to a fun example about the Israeli approach to Palestinian lives that even your Israeli apologism will have a hard time excusing.
Remember in December when the IDF murdered three shirtless, unarmed, Hebrew-speaking, white-flag-waiving, Israeli hostages over a 15 minute period as they were trying to surrender? War crime. No one has been charged or will ever be charged for openly committing multiple murders in this case.
Gee whiz, I wonder whether innocent Palestinians civilians speaking Arabic would have fared better?
Lol, since you object to bombing teenaged terrorists even though they can shoot back, I assume you object even more strongly to bombing teenagers or anybody else who *can't* shoot back.
Which is to say, civilians. Whom the IDF has been trying, with quite reasonable success, to avoid killing, but whom Hamas has deliberately put in harm's way.
Ergo, you're either a sorry naïf or a terrorist sympathizer. Big surprise there.
Its not surprising, either, that you don't seem to care that *using* child soldiers is a war crime. https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/#:~:text=Human%20rights%20law%20declares%2018,by%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court.
And where did you concoct that 85% number? Since when does "15K [Hamas gunmen]... necessarily mean that 85% of men & male children aged 13-17 years old in Gaza are Hamas militants"? There must be at least half a million Gaza males over the age of 13.
You are out of your everloving gourd.
Sorry when did I say that using child soldiers isn't a war crime? Umm that's implied as it's basic knowledge.
It's so fucking weird when Israeli apologists compare Israeli conduct to that of a terrorist organization. So you think that's the valid point of comparison? On this we actually agree as both Israel & Hamas have no regard for the Geneva Conventions.
Sigh let me help you with basic math:
1) I was, for the sake of argument agreeing that 1/2 of Gazans killed were adult men or teenaged males.
2) So 1/2 of 35k = 17.5 k.
3) You asserted (pulling the figure out if your ass) that Israel has killed 15k Hamas militants, in that casualty figure.
4) 15.k out of 17.5k = 86% (rounded up).
Bro, I'm using the same ridiculously flawed numbers YOU provided to prove your dumbass racist comment is moronic. You have only yourself to blame if you think the numbers don't make sense.
Yet another limited point of agreement, I'm 100% in agreement that the numbers you provided are completely wrong and illogical.
i am saying i dont think the IDF have the slightest clue how many hamas fighters they have killed, there have been reports from unmoblized israel troopers saying they had orders to shoot at any males [of teenager age and above that look as if they could carry a weapon]...i think from the sound of it, many [being a civilian army mainly in part] that many took this onboard and shoot anybody that came into their area[see BBC report of a tank killing 5 airbourne troops just today]...to that end, how would israel know whether a killed male[of any age] was just a innocent civilian/hamas goverment offical position[police/admin/heathworker]/a hamas fighter? and how would they distingish it? In the chaos of war [similar to reports during WW2] everybody puts down there kill as a enemy...for that is what there ammo is for,is it not?The mind doesnt want to admit to killing a innocent civilian or not..its just easier [for acceptance of the warrior] to think all kills are hamas and have done with it...thus much of the reporting of hamas kills might be inflated?
As for question of wether it was stupid of the IDF to kill 15,000 gumen because they relatives might resent it,- i would say , when you fight wars, you kill your enemy, so much so that he cant maintain a defence , and then you take their terrority , and then they surrender- this is the sequence of warfare of countries - but in the shape of warfare against terrorists, it doesnt always hold, true - is killing how many terrorists going to change the battlefield? is it going to defeat hamas? i think this should be the question here? regardless of the feelings of perhaps those personal terrorists families[they might be followers of hamas,they might be slightly inclined or not] its more the killing of those that are not in hamas, that is the question,for in every casualty you are helping hamas not harming it. To some degree to defeat a terrorist organisation, you must stifly it, deny it room, deny it funding and food, and take out its head, but perhaps equally its ideology.....the SAS did a great job in malaya [https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/rebirth-sas-malayan-emergency/#:~:text=From%201948%20to%201960%2C%20the,and%20remained%20there%20until%201958.] but i think the tactics to defeat hamas here is to strangle it slowly , but equally the public have to be on yourside, for against any terrorist group, you need them onboard, with the population with you,without that its pretty hopeless really :( killing 15,000 grunts of the hamas groups, doesnt really change anything at all[killing 95% of the hamas fighters again the same]....they are fodder that hamas can readily re-recruit from diseffected gazan citizens of which there are now many :(
The Palestinian Arab public will never be on Israel's side. That was ironically why Israel was happy at the time to hand large parts of it over to Arafat and his successors. The thinking was that they would be ruthless enough to do Israel's job of stifling terrorism. Which in hindsight was a fantasy masquerading as realpolitik.
However, it's fair to infer that the Palestinian Arabs aren't crazy about having their lives and neighborhoods wrecked every time their leaders orchestrate a massacre of Israelis. So even if it's doubtful they'll ever give up their irredentist yearnings, or make serious attempts to liberalize their society, having the Sword of Damocles aka the IAF et al hanging over their heads will have to do as an incentive.
well the polls and bens peice today highlighted the recent New York Times showing how much of the population hated hamas rule in gaza.....but sighs that is now politics is it not? Now [after the devastation of Gaza] the people of gaza, may still reset hamas, but i rather fear they will hate israel more....its one thing to harrass/perscute ones life...its quite another ,to kill families members, take away their lileyhood, their home, perhaps even their children , combine this with the constant travelling, constant fear, lack of food, water and shelter, i would guess that that diplomatic chance has gone,at least for moment, unless something substantial is done to change things ? :(
Most people tend to be worried about life and how to pay bills, put food on the table for the family, as there, as anywhere most life is the same, unless of course, you have personal interest to have vendetta with the israelis....once you destroy a whole population and make them move, i rather think now they will never be on israelis side[at least for this generation], with hamas in power for twenty years, there was some room to manoeuvre, but this door is certainly near shut even to those that hated hamas, for who do you think the gazans think is the biggest threat to their life and future? :(