Post New

It's the 1960s all over again. Hamas is operating as a guerilla group. Basically like the VC in the 60s. Plain clothes, hiding among residents in plain sight, using tunnels. And yet Israel keeps bombing hospitals and other civilians to try to get a single Hamas commander, for example. If they had called a halt several weeks/months ago, they might have spun it that they were the good guys that didn't want civilian suffering to continue. But now they've been drawn into a whack-a-mole situation where they won't get everyone (impossible), and public perception will continue to worsen (which means they lose).

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/13/world/middleeas...

They should learn from us. We did it in Vietnam, and again in Afghanistan. Also, Russia (USSR) learned it in Afghanistan. Lots of examples, but apparently Israel thinks "this time will be different". No, it won't.

But now they've been drawn into a whack-a-mole situation where they won't get everyone (impossible), and public perception will continue to worsen (which means they lose).

If Trump wins, they win. Because there's no scenario where Trump starts making it look like he'd listen to the UN. The US would veto every single security council attempt to rein in the IDF and there would no shortage of aid or weapons to Netanyahu.

Irrelevant. UN doesn't matter. It's Vietnam or Afghanistan all over again. They can't destroy Hamas any more than we could destroy the Taliban. At this point they are just killing more civilians, and garnering negative perception around the world. Doesn't matter what the US does, or the UN does.

They have parlayed the public sympathy they had a year ago into a PR nightmare. The longer they continue, the worse it will get.

We did it in Vietnam, and again in Afghanistan. Also, Russia (USSR) learned it in Afghanistan. Lots of examples, but apparently Israel thinks "this time will be different". No, it won't.

It can be. You know what Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iran all have in common, for both the U.S. and Russia?

They're far away.

A domestic guerrilla movement can outlast the conventional military of a remote power. Because the interests of that remote power, however important they seem to that remote power, are always going to be smaller than those of the people fighting on their home turf. The remote power can always leave; the domestic guerillas never can. If the remote power gives up, they can just go home; if the guerrillas give up, they're all going to jail or die. Etc.

That doesn't work when the combatant nations aren't remote from each other. Now, the nation with the conventional army has huge interests in winning the conflict. If they withdraw, they're not retreating safely across an ocean or thousands of miles of forbidding terrain. If they withdraw, the guerrillas are still right next door.

Domestic guerrilla rebellions get crushed all the time. Sometimes they win, and sometimes they're defeated.

Ironically, all those examples you mention are illustrations of why Hamas can't win in the same way. Because unlike the U.S. or Russia (or Britain in India), Israel can't leave the region.

Irrelevant. UN doesn't matter. It's Vietnam or Afghanistan all over again.

The UN matters if a left wing progressive (who is answerable to the From the River to the Sea crowd in the US) is sitting in the White House. Anyone else - and this includes a Bill Clinton type - and you're correct, the UN doesn't matter. But Biden is partially beholden to that set, so if he wins the UN DOES matter.

I will grant that since this is his last election in a hypothetical second term he may not care what they have to say.

The tunnels were there for years, literally decades. Where do you think all the "Aid For Palestine" went? It went into building tunnels and missiles. Not a dime for the actual people.

The US would veto every single security council attempt to rein in the IDF and there would no shortage of aid or weapons to Netanyahu.

But is that really a win? It could certainly be a win in this particular battle. But does it help win the long term war between Israel and Hamas?

--Peter

If they had called a halt several weeks/months ago, they might have spun it that they were the good guys that didn't want civilian suffering to continue. But now they've been drawn into a whack-a-mole situation where they won't get everyone (impossible), and public perception will continue to worsen (which means they lose).

It’s politically hard (read: impossible) to stop a military operation until you can declare victory, which Israel can’t at this point. Bibi would be attacked from the Right for “giving up”, a flank he can hardly afford to lose.

But if he could finesse a way out, I’m surprised he hasn’t and then gone to the playbook of just eliminating the Hamas leaders on a onesie and twosie basis, as they did with the Olympics massacre masterminds. They surely have the ability to do that; it’s right next door, they have the ability to monitor communications, they can even blend in to the population pretty easily.

So I’m just gonna guess he doesn’t care about the “world view” at all . And he’s not gonna stop, especially with a likely change in administration coming in the US.

I get what you're saying, albaby. Hamas never had a chance to win militarily. Israel can't leave. Hamas doesn't want to leave. But they are winning the PR aspect at this point. Bombing hospitals has a bad look.

Hamas is as much an idea as a fighting force. Israel has knocked it down, but it will rise. And possibly with more support than it had before. I make no claim to knowing when the sweet spot of stopping combat operations, but I think that time has long past. Maybe 2 months ago. Maybe 4 months ago. I don't know. They have diminishing returns militarily, and growing negative PR, at this point in time.

How are the proposed agreements with other Arab nations going? Originally that was why Hamas attacked. Did they derail it? If so, they won.

But is that really a win? It could certainly be a win in this particular battle. But does it help win the long term war between Israel and Hamas?

Because a "win" condition for Israel is that it gets to continue to exist.

One thing that discussions of the conflict often leave out is the possibility that there will never be an end to the fighting as long as Israel exists. It may be that there's no way to reconcile the two conflicting goals of Palestinian self-determination and Israeli existence.

It is possible. Burma/Myanmar has been in a continuous civil war since WWII, with no apparent way to square the desire of minority peoples in the area to have self-determination with the territorial integrity of the country. Been going on for eight decades, with no signs of stopping.

Maybe there isn't a stable end condition that Israel can ever live with, and the only "winning" is to just win particular battles even though the long term war will never end.

...I’m surprised he hasn’t and then gone to the playbook of just eliminating the Hamas leaders on a onesie and twosie basis, as they did with the Olympics massacre masterminds.

I agree. Officially, it is frowned upon. But the whole point is doing it covertly in such a way that no one can prove it was you. They may know it was you, but they can't prove it.

A lot less-bad publicity than killing dozens of children in a strike. Bibi may not care, though it will damage other international relations, possible treaties or pacts, etc. I think the Saudi pact is dead for now (which I believe was what precipitated this attack in the first place).

How are the proposed agreements with other Arab nations going? Originally that was why Hamas attacked. Did they derail it? If so, they won.

They are all in abeyance.

The war paused all movement on that front. But those proposed agreements didn't arise in a vacuum, so none of them are - or can be - permanently derailed as long as the conditions that prompted them remain. The Arab nations want them in order to provide a regional check against Iranian hegemony. The U.S. wants them for the same reason. Israel wants them in order to provide greater security and increased economic opportunity. None of those underlying factors has changed with the current war. The parties all still want them to happen. The Arab nations don't want to face their various Streets while the Gaza war is ongoing, but they still want the deal.

So while progress has been stopped for now, neither have conditions changed to where the agreements won't go forward.

Maybe there isn't a stable end condition that Israel can ever live with, and the only "winning" is to just win particular battles even though the long term war will never end

I would hope that a stable condition would arise at some point. The accords looked promising, but that brought out Hamas, with a successful derailment of that process. And when Iran develops a bomb, there will be no end. It seems very advantageous to Iran to keep this conflict going.

How are the proposed agreements with other Arab nations going? Originally that was why Hamas attacked. Did they derail it? If so, they won. - 1pg


----------------

No, Hamas wins if 1) they attain permanent a ceasefire 2) and they continue to exist to rebuild, with massive foreign aid, until their next atrocity.

Because a "win" condition for Israel is that it gets to continue to exist.

If it stops now, that would be a "win", evidently. Though, as pointed out by another poster, there are internal politics to consider.

One thing that discussions of the conflict often leave out is the possibility that there will never be an end to the fighting as long as Israel exists. It may be that there's no way to reconcile the two conflicting goals of Palestinian self-determination and Israeli existence.

Well, the Israelis have to take some responsibility for their illegal settlements. But, yes, there are elements on each side that believe the other side has no claim to anything. Some Palestinians want all of Israel as part of Palestine, some Israelis think that the remaining Palestinian lands were promised to them by their deity. There are a lot of folks in the middle (on both sides) who would be good with peaceful coexistence. As pointed out months ago, most Palestinians of voting age had never had the chance to vote. Hamas was voted-in, and pretty much canceled democracy after that. I don't know if that would qualify as "self-determination", in which case I don't think we've had a chance to see what that would like for Palestinians.

I suspect that the continued Israeli bombing is creating new Hamas members every day. Unless they (Israel) plan to commit to a genocide, they really should stop. Of course, genocide is an option. But, again, a PR nightmare.

So while progress has been stopped for now, neither have conditions changed to where the agreements won't go forward.

But my question would be, what affect would the agreements have on Iran? What example could Iran look to where a theocracy managed to stay in power and raise the standard of living of its inhabitants while maintaining power? China is the only example I can think of and it isn't a theocracy.

No, Hamas wins if 1) they attain permanent a ceasefire 2) and they continue to exist to rebuild, with massive foreign aid, until their next atrocity.

This. And the thing is...every Arab country gets that. After what Hamas did on 10/7, there's no universe where they're around and the Israelis will accept that. Not the right wing in Israel and not the left wing, either. They *all* want Hamas dead and gone.

Anything less than that is unacceptable to 99% of Israel's population.

It seems very advantageous to Iran to keep this conflict going. - Lapsody</>

------------------

What Iran needs to worry about is some form of consequence that affects them directly and personally, something they have not been getting under Biden. Direct consequences are coming is six months.

Interesting.

So another reason to cease combat operations is so that the deals/pacts can continue towards passage? As you say, greater security and economic opportunity is the payoff for Israel. (I'm not sure how that improves their security, unless part of that is cutting off funding for Hamas and Hezbollah, though I think most of that is from Iran.)

At some point those pacts might have to be canceled simply because the blowback for entering them would be too great for the Saudis and others, because of Israeli atrocities (or, more politely, "excesses") in Gaza.

What Iran needs to worry about is some form of consequence that affects them directly and personally, ... Direct consequences are coming is six months.

Sounds like, "Something big is going to happen!" The last time you did this, the guys who did it suffered a lot. Is Project 2025 in on this big thing? You all are going to start WW3?

So another reason to cease combat operations is so that the deals/pacts can continue towards passage?
The Israeli public will never accept a cease-fire, especially if ALL the hostages aren't accounted for. Or if Hamas' leadership is still breathing.

If it stops now, that would be a "win", evidently.

Not really. Again, the goal (for Israel) is for Israel to continue to exist going forward. So the fact that Israel is certain to exist next year even if Israel were to withdraw every soldier immediately today doesn't address the fundamental question - does continuing the fight, or leaving, improve Israel's overall security situation? Right now, the Israeli government believes that continuing the fight improves their overall security position. Others disagree.

I suspect that the continued Israeli bombing is creating new Hamas members every day. Unless they (Israel) plan to commit to a genocide, they really should stop.

There will always be new Hamas members, because unlike many other rebellions and domestic conflicts (like Northern Ireland), Hamas and other terrorist groups within Israel are part of a proxy war supported by other regional powers. Iran and Syria (but I repeat myself) will make sure that whether its the PLO or Hamas or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, that there is always an armed organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

They don't plan to commit to a genocide, but that doesn't mean they should stop. If things would be worse for them by leaving now, rather than staying to continue to degrade Hamas, then they should stay. That's an insanely complicated calculus, involving considerations not just of the damage they inflict on Hamas and its leadership, but all sorts of international and domestic factors. But it's not "genocide or leave."

As for the benefit of international agreements, again those are only in abeyance. They'll be in more or less the same spot if Israel pulls out now or in a few weeks from now. It's not especially likely that they'd get taken off the table for good even if the war continues for quite some time.

The UN matters if a left wing progressive (who is answerable to the From the River to the Sea crowd in the US) is sitting in the White House.

Answerable: required to explain or justify one's actions to; responsible or having to report to.

I think you don't know the meaning of the word, because there is no one answerable to that crowd.

What example could Iran look to where a theocracy managed to stay in power and raise the standard of living of its inhabitants while maintaining power?

I’m not sure people at the pinnacle of power care much about previous examples. Some do, surely, but we are seeing many even today who could give a rat’s patootie about such niceties. And throughout history we have dozens, even hundreds of different forms of organization and power. We have Kings (usually with religion) and Pharaohs (who were the embodiment of their religion) and real theocracies such as was practiced in the pre-European era of Central America - and all of which did OK by their people, judging from the pyramids and landmarks they left behind.

Religion has been a central organizing force for humanity throughout history, the irony of course is that each one believes it is the “one and only true religion”, which causes the formative us/them conflict that so often brings it low. From the Roman gods and Egyptian empire to the Japanese Shinto which strove to anniliate Buddhism and spawned the extreme militarists of the early 20th century.

Iran’s theocrats have power. Don’t expect them to think too deeply about what they might do better if not they had less. They’re more concerned with holding on to it - as everyone in power anywhere and for all time is.

Iran’s theocrats have power. Don’t expect them to think too deeply about what they might do better if not they had less. They’re more concerned with holding on to it - as everyone in power anywhere and for all time is.

My point. I don't expect them to, and they don't have any modern examples. China is the example of an authoritarian regime that has held onto power with the tacit agreement of the people that as long as people are raised out of poverty into the middle calls they can hold power, China looked at Singapore to understand how they did it, and modified their approach. There's no equivalent that I know of, so advancement will be hindered and slow. China begins by educating people and industry doesn't initially develop in population centers, it develops in rural areas and then concentrates.

There's no modern theocracy that's done well by its people that I know of, they've always hindered the population to stay in power.

There's no modern theocracy that's done well by its people that I know of, they've always hindered the population to stay in power.

Well, there's always Saudi Arabia.

The thing is, there aren't a lot of theocracies in the world. Iran, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vatican City, Saudi, and Sudan (at least in the north), by most lists. But VC is a microstate that has virtually no impact on the economic lives of its people. Afghanistan, Sudan, and Yemen are in desperate straits...but the most likely outcome for those countries with a non-theocratic government would be to be in desperate straits as well.

So if there's only two countries in the world that had the potential to do well by their people economically that are governed by a theocracy, and they split in terms of those outcomes, it's hard to draw any real conclusions.

There's no modern theocracy that's done well by its people that I know of, they've always hindered the population to stay in power.

Well, there's always Saudi Arabia.

Yes, and last night I started thinking Brunei. I wanted to visit there after discovering the level of education was high. They tolerate Christians but have adopted Islam as their main philosophy. It's a monarchy but highly religious. I don't know much about them other than that.

So if there's only two countries in the world that had the potential to do well by their people economically that are governed by a theocracy, and they split in terms of those outcomes, it's hard to draw any real conclusions.

I agree. Indonesia seemed to tolerate Christians for some time, but now seem to have strife in areas. The heavy Sharia punishments seem to be ignored for blasphemy, etc.

One thing has always puzzled me. I could see how the Ashkenazi (?) Jews could develop a higher IQ. I have noticed "flash" thinking in some people. I'm more of a deliberate thinker - slower. But if you have a physical advantage and a culture that values education, after a while it should show. I only theorize a physical advantage, but it's after observing flash thinking - where in an instant the person seems to have done an analysis I would have to think through and double check. But how can the Chinese be on top of IQ with so many in the countryside and less educated? Perhaps I don't understand fully how they are measuring populations.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.