Oh yeah? I bet you can’t even name one 20 year war on terror that never ended because you can’t fight an ideology while also enabling the spread of that ideology through civilian casualties. Wait.
But seriously, it’s like Israel looked at Afghanistan and decided the issue was there weren’t enough civilian casualties. Which, yeah, if there’s no civilians left then there’s nobody left to radicalize, but I think there’s a word for that and it rhymes with genocide.
In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.
Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel’s response, the immediate followup should be “how did the American response work out”?
Well, it’s certainly not a fun subject to talk about but there’s always a point where a threat of bullying, discrimination, violence, ethnic cleansing and eventually mass murder will eventually break a population. Take recent examples of Nagorno-Kharabag ending in a complete exodus with very few casualties, or Western Sahara where clear military superiority broke the resistance against annexation.
Regarding Afghanistan: one can certainly ask the question whether more violence or the threat of it could not have produced a better outcome. NATO tried to go cheap on manpower (compared to Germany and Japan for example), instead buying off warlords to compensate and mistakely thinking the more progressive forces in the country would become strong enough to take over at some point. Had they went in heavier with less regard for collateral damage, or have a soldier looking at every Pashtun all of thetime, the result could have been very different and, dare I say, better
Yes they are aiming militants, never said they’re consciously targeting the populace, just appalled at their indifference towards civilian deaths as ‘acceptable’.
The IDF/war council is seemingly a-okay if they have to kill 10, 50, 200+ civilians to get at Hamas mid-level commanders - is that okay with you?
Well if you agree that it’s a question of how far you’re willing to move the slider, it’s a question of empathy. But when you say “aimed at the populace” that implies you believe they’re using Hamas as an excuse to kill innocent civilians.
Do you honestly believe Israel would not prefer Hamas to assemble somewhere in the desert away from any civilians so they can take all of them out with a single bomb? Do you believe the Israelis would be sad if Hamas surrendered?
Again, the displayed indifference towards civilian suffering is the core issue. Declaring the south as a ‘safe zone’ pre-ceasefire was a moral move (with disasterous humanitarian results), but now the safe areas are capricious defined and aren’t static,
Regarding the “one bomb in the desert” question? Any other year, yes I’m sure they’d prefer that. But Bibi was already in serious legal trouble before Oct.7 and is openly deferring that issue until after the Hamas war. Keeping the conflict open, progressing slowly, or unresolved buys him time to find a way to stay out of jail.
Is this an excuse for wanton murder of Gazans? You tell me? Certain elements of the coalition have openly made statements that at best call for displacement of Palestinians. Cutting off fuel, food, and water to a region under blockade, while those people are displaced and simultaneously refusing to allow aid in is ghoulish.
Well if the article is correct, it’s still aimed at the militants
What a great way to create more militants.
Oh yeah? I bet you can’t even name one 20 year war on terror that never ended because you can’t fight an ideology while also enabling the spread of that ideology through civilian casualties. Wait.
But seriously, it’s like Israel looked at Afghanistan and decided the issue was there weren’t enough civilian casualties. Which, yeah, if there’s no civilians left then there’s nobody left to radicalize, but I think there’s a word for that and it rhymes with genocide.
In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.
Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel’s response, the immediate followup should be “how did the American response work out”?
Well, it’s certainly not a fun subject to talk about but there’s always a point where a threat of bullying, discrimination, violence, ethnic cleansing and eventually mass murder will eventually break a population. Take recent examples of Nagorno-Kharabag ending in a complete exodus with very few casualties, or Western Sahara where clear military superiority broke the resistance against annexation.
Regarding Afghanistan: one can certainly ask the question whether more violence or the threat of it could not have produced a better outcome. NATO tried to go cheap on manpower (compared to Germany and Japan for example), instead buying off warlords to compensate and mistakely thinking the more progressive forces in the country would become strong enough to take over at some point. Had they went in heavier with less regard for collateral damage, or have a soldier looking at every Pashtun all of thetime, the result could have been very different and, dare I say, better
Yes they are aiming militants, never said they’re consciously targeting the populace, just appalled at their indifference towards civilian deaths as ‘acceptable’.
The IDF/war council is seemingly a-okay if they have to kill 10, 50, 200+ civilians to get at Hamas mid-level commanders - is that okay with you?
Well if you agree that it’s a question of how far you’re willing to move the slider, it’s a question of empathy. But when you say “aimed at the populace” that implies you believe they’re using Hamas as an excuse to kill innocent civilians.
Do you honestly believe Israel would not prefer Hamas to assemble somewhere in the desert away from any civilians so they can take all of them out with a single bomb? Do you believe the Israelis would be sad if Hamas surrendered?
Again, the displayed indifference towards civilian suffering is the core issue. Declaring the south as a ‘safe zone’ pre-ceasefire was a moral move (with disasterous humanitarian results), but now the safe areas are capricious defined and aren’t static,
Regarding the “one bomb in the desert” question? Any other year, yes I’m sure they’d prefer that. But Bibi was already in serious legal trouble before Oct.7 and is openly deferring that issue until after the Hamas war. Keeping the conflict open, progressing slowly, or unresolved buys him time to find a way to stay out of jail.
Is this an excuse for wanton murder of Gazans? You tell me? Certain elements of the coalition have openly made statements that at best call for displacement of Palestinians. Cutting off fuel, food, and water to a region under blockade, while those people are displaced and simultaneously refusing to allow aid in is ghoulish.