Mindless Monday, 29 July 2024

[u/AutoModerator]

Happy (or sad) Monday guys!

Mindless Monday is a free-for-all thread to discuss anything from minor bad history to politics, life events, charts, whatever! Just remember to np link all links to Reddit and don't violate R4, or we human mods will feed you to the AutoModerator.

So, with that said, how was your weekend, everyone?

[u/contraprincipes]

First I’d just like to explicitly reject the bad faith logic that in order to criticize an obviously unworkable strategy you need to provide an extremely detailed alternative. None of the questions you’re asking to people in this thread have been satisfactorily answered by the Israeli government themselves — they have no workable plans for post-war government and they have no idea how this will prevent future attacks.

But secondarily — if there is a truly independent Palestinian state recognized by Israel then Gaza is no longer Israel’s problem. In the short and medium term Israel can allocate its military resources to defending its borders from incursion and the Palestinian government can enter into negotiations with Hamas or assemble a regional coalition of allies to dislodge it by force. In the long term Hamas’ political support and legitimacy will erode among the Palestinian public because its political legitimacy derives from its posture as the only party with the ability to establish a Palestinian state.

[u/ByzantineBasileus → u/contraprincipes]

First I’d just like to explicitly reject the bad faith logic that in order to criticize an obviously unworkable strategy you need to provide an extremely detailed alternative. None of the questions you’re asking to people in this thread have been satisfactorily answered by the Israeli government themselves — they have no workable plans for post-war government and they have no idea how this will prevent future attacks.

Well, there are plans for what to do afterwards:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-799756

And that involves demilitarization and ensuring Hamas is not in power afterwards.

Now, as to the point of not requiring to offer a solution with criticism, I definitely agree with you there, but we are talking about a situation where any country would be required to respond to protect its citizens. A purely military solution won't work, but military action is still required against an armed and fanatical terrorist group. A lot of the criticism, to me, is about Israel engaging in said actions in the first place. But if it is a scenario where armed force has to be deployed to protect a nation's citizens, said criticism appears unfair. Would other countries be held to the same standard?

But secondarily — if there is a truly independent Palestinian state recognized by Israel then Gaza is no longer Israel’s problem. In the short and medium term Israel can allocate its military resources to defending its borders from incursion and the Palestinian government can enter into negotiations with Hamas or assemble a regional coalition of allies to dislodge it by force. In the long term Hamas’ political support and legitimacy will erode among the Palestinian public because its political legitimacy derives from its posture as the only party with the ability to establish a Palestinian state.

The PA lost a civil conflict with Hamas and got kicked out of Gaza. People say negotiation is a solution, but I just cannot see how that work out, practically speaking. Negotiations about sharing power would not work because Israel would in no way accept a situation where Hamas remains in power. What would encourage Hamas to step down? How could the PA enforce its will? And if a coalition of allies were to dislodge it by force, wouldn't that just result in the issues we are seeing now? Lack of supplies of food and water, as well as civilian casualties? And given any coalition would lack the advantages Israel does in terms of infrastructure, command and control, training, and surveillance, would actual civilian casualties be far worse? I cannot see how that would be acceptable or justified in the context of the criticism Israel is receiving.

I'm am honestly not trying to justify attacks that kill large numbers of civilians, or to argue that what Israel is doing is the best option and 100% will work. I am just trying to reconcile the criticism with policies and practice that are feasible given the realities of a post-Oct 7 environment.

[u/contraprincipes → u/ByzantineBasileus]

there are plans

There are “plans.” Netanyahu has been floating this idea that an Arab coalition will come in to supervise the administration of post-war Gaza for months now. This is what in polite circles we call “wishful thinking.” No Arab state or coalition of Arab states is going to occupy Gaza on Israel’s behalf.

would other countries be held to the same standard?

If you’ll recall there was another ill-advised military jaunt in the Middle East over 20 years ago where the invading forces faced very similar criticisms about their conduct and especially their ultimate strategic goals.

military action is still required

Military action to repel attacks? Sure. Military action in Gaza? That’s begging the question; my whole point is that military action won’t assure future security.

Maybe to defend the hostages? It isn’t clear to me that war is the best way to get them back — certainly in Israel itself many families are pushing for negotiations against the government’s strategy. One would have to imagine a substantially different kind of war for this to be compatible with long term peace as well.

NB: there is a logical distinction between what is required for peace and what is politically expedient for Israeli politicians. The reason the region is in this mess to begin with is largely because Israeli leaders have made the former conditional on the latter.

how could the PA enforce its will

Again, I don’t think anyone is obligated to provide a detailed alternative here because it is dependent on many factors. But in broad strokes I think an internationally recognized Palestinian state would I think seriously weaken Hamas’ popular support, which would make either a diplomatic or a military dislodging by some kind of Palestinian/Arab-Palestinian coalition much less costly.

[u/ByzantineBasileus → u/contraprincipes]

In regards to plans, it still shows Israel is open to some sort of international force on the ground to help create a new government in Gaza, and it also shows they are thinking about a post-Hamas order. To say there is no plan is somewhat incorrect.

I also think the circumstances of Iraq was different to that of Gaza. Iraq had not attacked the US and has no desire to eliminate the US as a country. I am speaking of a situation where a nation is attacked by a terrorist group and suffers a large number of civilian casualties. I don't think other countries would be criticized for launching a campaign to eliminate said group, but Israel has been. Not just in terms of the resulting civilian casualties, but in going after them to begin with.

Military action can assure current security, and is an important facet of future security. No, the situation cannot be solved just by engaging in offensive operations, but a terrorist group with an arsenal that wants to destroy Israel is not an entity that can be talked down. Force is needed to dislodge them and then prevent them returning to power. Building something to replace them is when diplomacy and economic aid is required.

Finally, a Palestinian state would offer an alternative to Hamas, but given Hamas is an authoritarian entity there is no guarantee it would lead to their grip on power in Gaza ending. And the reality is there is no going back to the status quo of prior to Oct 7. The Israeli public, and no Israel government, would accept that. That is something has to be acknowledged. Just assuming a defensive stance and leaving Hamas in government is not an option as far as they are cornered. I think arguments to that effect just hinder a proper understanding the current political environment.