30
Few Good Options as Israel Weighs a Ground Assault on the Gaza Strip
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22057 readers
54 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Who the fuck said anything about neglecting security and being naive?
No. That's an excuse to avoid being creative and if you'd reflect about it you'd see it. It's social conditioning saying "we're the victims, always".
What's your plan for the future? Continue the Otzma Yehudit way of "antagonising until they give up"? That's what got you into this position in the first place. It's the reason the IDF wasn't near Gaza and Hamas saw an opening because the IDF was busy in the west bank backing settlers harassing Palestinians. Realise that there's portions of the Israeli society who want this to continue, whether they admit it or not, because it is convenient for them, because a scared populace can be way more easily convinced to vote for them. Don't be complicit in that.
Of course precautions would be taken. Short of going in with significant military protection, it wouldn't be enough. Hell, going in WITH significant military protection still wouldn't be enough amongst people who believe in martyrdom and jihad. Israel going in with military protection wouldn't be seen as a safety measure, it would be seen as provocation. Folks like you would be ranting against Israel for doing so and claiming that the deaths of the construction workers was justified cause, you know, Israel.
You're the one who's naive if you hadn't thought that through.
I have reflected on this a great deal. My position is considered, informed and grounded in a very unfortunate reality I wish was different. I've not said that Israelis are the victims, always. You've not understood if you think that. Recognising the agency of Hamas, other militant groups and the infrastructure which supports them in and outside of Gaza is very different.
How little you've comprehended if you think that I am.
I don't have a plan for the future. Hamas and the other militant groups aren't going to recede any time soon. Quite the opposite now, they will be emboldened by their 'success' in brutalising Israelis. Israel can't attack Gaza hard enough to eliminate the militants. If Israel does less, it will be perceived by militants as a sign of weakness in Israel and continued evidence, not of Israel being strong or any other good quality, but of what the militants forced them to do. If Israel does less, the militants will do more.
It's an impossible situation. I don't have an answer. I do know that continuing to blame the entirety of blame and responsibility of Israel doesn't move us closer to any sort of resolution.
What about handing the cement over to Palestinians you can trust (and you know very well they do exist), or international aid organisations, and watching the whole thing with drones?
You seem to be keen on using your creativity and imagination to show how things can't work. That's not bad, that's providing security. Where it becomes a problem is when it replaces thinking of ways how it can work.
Indulge me, suspend your disbelief for a couple of minutes and apply yourself to coming up with something that can be done. Hamas is using pipe sections to build rockets? Fine, tank trucks and canisters exist. Logistically inefficient? Yes. Unviable? Hell no. Then you can say "because of Hamas you now have to carry your water", not "because Hamas you now have no water". In one of those two you come across as guarded, but friendly, in the other as heartless.
Who the fuck cares about the perception of militants. Worry about the perception of the rest. Worry about Palestinians seeing Israel as the bigger problem than Hamas, worse, as a fucking ally of Hamas.
And blaming everything on Hamas and demanding the impossible -- that fascists magically deradicalise -- is moving us closer to resolution? That's the absolutely least likely scenario, yet you declare it to be the only possibility when you say "the ball is in Hamas court".
Maybe, in this all, we're looking too far ahead. Would you oppose a Smolanim government that would not giving up on passive security, but stop all the antagonising? The settlements, the turning of PLO territory into Swiss cheese, the "fund Hamas because Fatah is too reasonable" approach? Because if anything should come out of this then it's wide understanding that the right's approach to security failed even more than the left's. Yes maybe Rabin was too naive, people were too hopeful back then (I certainly was), that doesn't mean that moving to annex the west bank will bring security.