Israel is at War - General discussion (pt2)

[Rimmer]

A post linking  to an overly graphic video has been removed also replies

Please see our Community Standards

43. You will not post graphic or explicit images. ASEAN NOW strives to maintain a respectful and safe online environment for all community members.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Just saw this from my Bloomberg Evening Briefing. "Saudi Arabia Tries It Hand at Reining In Iran."   The article discusses the Saudi's attempt at diffusing the situation.  The Saudi's have offered Iran economic incentives if they stop aiding Hamas and Hezbollah.  They are also asking the U.S. to get involved. 

I tried furnishing a link, but the link doesn't work.

Both its outreach to Iran and to the U.S. are based on the fear of Iran rousing the masses against government seen to be too lenient towards Israel. For most of the period following the establishment of Israel, Saudi Arabia was a major sponsor of not just anti-Israeli propaganda but overtly anti-Semitic propaganda as well. The Saudis even went so far as to promote a revised version of the Koran with anti-Semitic commentary. So their people are not, to say the least, very favorably disposed towards the Israelis. The recent Saudi moves towards a rapprochement with Israel probably weren't very popular with Saudis before the Gaza War. They're almost certainly looking a lot worse now.

[Hawaiian]

 Two and a half years ago Iran-aligned Houthis attacked Saudi oil facilities with missiles and drones.  Just the other day the Saudis reported Houthi missile attacks on various energy and desalination facilities.  I would think that Saudis would be more upset with Iran than with the Israelis.

Iran is intent on becoming a nuclear power. It would give them the clout to boss around the Arab states in the Middle East.  A few years back the word was that if Israeli jets flew over Saudi airspace to knockout Iran's nuclear program they would look the other way.

That won't work anymore since Iran has moved everything to the bomb-hardened Natanz nuclear enrichment site.  Now what?

One alternative is to establish a better relationship with Israel. This may include coming under Israel's nuclear umbrella.

Sooner or later the Israelis, with or without U.S. involvement, will  find a way to sabotage Iran's plans on becoming a nuclear power.

Even Russia and China don't want to see Iran succeed.

 

 

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-11-29/bloomberg-evening-briefing-saudi-arabia-tries-its-hand-at-reining-in-iran

Thanks.  When I tested the link it went to a 404 message.  This one does.  Again, thank you.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

 Two and a half years ago Iran-aligned Houthis attacked Saudi oil facilities with missiles and drones.  Just the other day the Saudis reported Houthi missile attacks on various energy and desalination facilities.  I would think that Saudis would be more upset with Iran than with the Israelis.

Iran is intent on becoming a nuclear power. It would give them the clout to boss around the Arab states in the Middle East.  A few years back the word was that if Israeli jets flew over Saudi airspace to knockout Iran's nuclear program they would look the other way.

That won't work anymore since Iran has moved everything to the bomb-hardened Natanz nuclear enrichment site.  Now what?

One alternative is to establish a better relationship with Israel. This may include coming under Israel's nuclear umbrella.

Sooner or later the Israelis, with or without U.S., involvement will  find a way to sabotage Iran's plans on becoming a nuclear power.

Even Russia and China don't want to see Iran succeed. 

You're right about Russia and China. That's why they signed onto the Obama administrations agreement to impede Iran's development of nuclear weapons in exchange for economic access to the West. An amazing achievement. Guess who withdrew first from that agreement. And not just that, he made it impossible for Iran to do serious business with the West. So no incentive to stick to the agreement.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Thanks.  When I tested the link it went to a 404 message.  This one does.  Again, thank you.

You're very welcome.

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Yes.

 

The war is about eliminating the threat from Hamas.

 

What higher principle?

 

Imagine you are living with young children in Southern Israel. Is the principle of saving your children from being baked in a microwave valuable enough?

The war will end when Hamas no longer functions, its as simple as that. The truce unless extended finishes at 7am local time Thursday

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

Remember George Bush's statement after 9/11, "You are either  with us or against us"?  Now Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself in a similar situation.

I don't think it wise to publicly announce your war plans in detail.

Never let the enemy know what your strategy is.  Same thing applies to an exit plan.

As more and more of Hamas's atrocities and bold face lies are exposed, more Israelis will support Netanyahu.

There is no doubt that Netanyahu has made some political blunders in the past as you have mentioned.  However, I think he is the right person for the job at hand of exterminating or at least crippling Hamas.  What comes next is anyone's guess.

 

You are assuming that Netanyhu got a coherent, realistic plan to fall back on. Nothing in his career recommends this is the case. Most of the time he just wings it. One of the things Israel failed to do under Netanyahu's rule was to formulate a workable plan or vision as to its relations with the Palestinians. In lieu of an overall strategy, what's on offer are ad-hoc concessions to coalition partners, off the cuff reactions to emerging situations, and pushing things forward (aka managing the conflict) without seriously discussing goals and means to get there. The current situation is not all that different in this regard.

 

What makes you think Netanyahu is 'the right person'? He's notoriously indecisive, over-invested in his own political survival, and lack any semblance of credibility.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

More support is growing? Really? One sided much?

 

I think it depends - the more information is revealed about the Hamas attack, the more chances support for Israel's actions would grow. But on the other hand, the same goes for more details on Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, and the destruction meted. So maybe balances out, sort of. I do think that the more ardent Palestinian supporters on the progressive 'wing' of the Democrat party are less popular (in general, not their constituencies) with their colleagues and general democratic voter base. Again, more of an impression than a researched view. Since it's hard to see any of, say the 'squad' members losing seats, maybe not a major issue/point anyway.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Both its outreach to Iran and to the U.S. are based on the fear of Iran rousing the masses against government seen to be too lenient towards Israel. For most of the period following the establishment of Israel, Saudi Arabia was a major sponsor of not just anti-Israeli propaganda but overtly anti-Semitic propaganda as well. The Saudis even went so far as to promote a revised version of the Koran with anti-Semitic commentary. So their people are not, to say the least, very favorably disposed towards the Israelis. The recent Saudi moves towards a rapprochement with Israel probably weren't very popular with Saudis before the Gaza War. They're almost certainly looking a lot worse now.

 

I don't know how well popular Saudi public opinion trends can be ascertained or gauged, so not sure what you base your strong comments on. There seem to be three different issues involved: (a) SA-Israel relations, (b) SA-Palestinian relations and (c) SA-Iran relations. Generally speaking, an apart from 'seasonal' peaks (such as now) following extreme events, attitudes toward Palestinians seem to be pretty much as in many other places in the ME - contempt mixed with boredom. Not sure which 'masses' you're on about. I think that's one reason SA felt it could (cautiously) move forward on normalizing relations with Israel. There were some indications already given (linked way earlier on these topics) that SA signaled the process could be put back on track when things calm down some (no doubt with some extra concessions from Israel involved). But the driving force of SA diplomacy is the threat Iran represents - so how SA moves on the other two issues relates to how it intends to tackle things Iran. As to that....I think there's no clear answer.

[Hawaiian]

55 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think it depends - the more information is revealed about the Hamas attack, the more chances support for Israel's actions would grow. But on the other hand, the same goes for more details on Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, and the destruction meted. So maybe balances out, sort of. I do think that the more ardent Palestinian supporters on the progressive 'wing' of the Democrat party are less popular (in general, not their constituencies) with their colleagues and general democratic voter base. Again, more of an impression than a researched view. Since it's hard to see any of, say the 'squad' members losing seats, maybe not a major issue/point anyway.

 

One point I disagree on is about 'squad' members.  Rashida Tlaib faces a serious opponent in the Democratic primary.  It's Shanelle Jackson, a Black woman who is pro-business and pro-Israel.  She has an interesting private sector and political background.  A very articulate person who seems quite capable to tackle the radical, left-wing congresswoman.

Another one on shaky grounds is Ayanna Pressley.  She is married to a supposedly reformed ex-con who served 10 years for drug trafficking. 

I think the more sordid details are exposed about the savagery of Hamas the more people will tend to dismiss the climbing Palestinian casualties.   Some will rationalize that these people are getting what they deserve for putting Hamas in charge.  Only time will tell which sentiment wins.

[Bkk Brian]

Truce just been extended for one more day.

 

Gaza truce extended until Friday after last-minute standoff

Israel and Hamas agreed on Thursday to extend the ceasefire in their war by at least one more day, minutes before the six-day truce was due to expire. 

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

The war will end when Hamas no longer functions, its as simple as that. The truce unless extended finishes at 7am local time Thursday

 

 

 

 

The issue, now, seems to be one of making a choice - either bringing back the hostages, or trying to 'destroy' Hamas. I don't see how both could be managed under current circumstances. Either option got it's share of problems and potential setbacks, and any choice made would imply some serious negatives as well. This is where spokesmen commentary is neither here nor there - they are not the decision makers, and especially when Netanyahu and/or Hamas leadership are concerned, underlings are not always in the loop at this phase.

[Hawaiian]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

The issue, now, seems to be one of making a choice - either bringing back the hostages, or trying to 'destroy' Hamas. I don't see how both could be managed under current circumstances. Either option got it's share of problems and potential setbacks, and any choice made would imply some serious negatives as well. This is where spokesmen commentary is neither here nor there - they are not the decision makers, and especially when Netanyahu and/or Hamas leadership are concerned, underlings are not always in the loop at this phase.

This is what I mentioned in a previous post.  You don't publicize your strategy.  Keep the enemy guessing.

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The issue, now, seems to be one of making a choice - either bringing back the hostages, or trying to 'destroy' Hamas. I don't see how both could be managed under current circumstances. Either option got it's share of problems and potential setbacks, and any choice made would imply some serious negatives as well. This is where spokesmen commentary is neither here nor there - they are not the decision makers, and especially when Netanyahu and/or Hamas leadership are concerned, underlings are not always in the loop at this phase.

I think the choice is rapidly approaching for a return to the Hamas elimination stage. The women and child hostages now are getting less, not sure how many left? The IDF is itching to return to the front, I suspect this will happen over the weekend.

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

You are assuming that Netanyhu got a coherent, realistic plan to fall back on. Nothing in his career recommends this is the case. Most of the time he just wings it. One of the things Israel failed to do under Netanyahu's rule was to formulate a workable plan or vision as to its relations with the Palestinians. In lieu of an overall strategy, what's on offer are ad-hoc concessions to coalition partners, off the cuff reactions to emerging situations, and pushing things forward (aka managing the conflict) without seriously discussing goals and means to get there. The current situation is not all that different in this regard.

 

What makes you think Netanyahu is 'the right person'? He's notoriously indecisive, over-invested in his own political survival, and lack any semblance of credibility.

Netanyahu has some very capable, battle tested people advising him.  Whether he takes their advice we may never know.  The destruction of Hamas is very much what he intends to accomplish.  If he succeeds he will viewed as a hero among most Israelis.  If it brings him glory and political success, so be it.  One of the greatest concerns many have is how much is this going to cost in lives lost on both sides.  World opinion is another concern.  The old saying "War is hell,"  surely applies. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

This is what I mentioned in a previous post.  You don't publicize your strategy.  Keep the enemy guessing.

 

And I'll repeat - you assume that there is a coherent plan. That there's an agreed upon, clear and reasonable end game goal.

There is nothing to suggest this is the case - while ongoing statements and past instances support the notion that it's a mess.

[Hawaiian]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And I'll repeat - you assume that there is a coherent plan. That there's an agreed upon, clear and reasonable end game goal.

There is nothing to suggest this is the case - while ongoing statements and past instances support the notion that it's a mess.

I suppose your intelligence source has revealed what Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Ganz are up to.  You seem so stuck on bashing Netanyahu.  Your prerogative.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

I think the choice is rapidly approaching for a return to the Hamas elimination stage. The women and child hostages now are getting less, not sure how many left? The IDF is itching to return to the front, I suspect this will happen over the weekend.

 

And then what? Sacrifice all the rest? I think people underestimate how 'soft' Israel is when it comes to captives, hostages and the like. Other places, a soldier dies and people treat it more like sad-but-it's-his-duty. Israelis often react to soldier's deaths as if they are innocent kids. I'm not putting this forth as criticism, different people, different notions - just how it is. There's no precedent for an Israeli government saying 'oh well...' in a situation like that. To put it in a more relevant context for Netanyahu - his elder 'hero' brother died leading 'the' mission to release Israeli hostages (Entebbe Raid ). I kinda doubt this will not be floated if the decision would be to ditch the hostages - and it would shatter any illusions he might have regarding returning to power.

 

On the flip side, how would going back to the war go? The campaign in the northern Gaza Strip was conducted with most of the civilian population evacuated. There is no such option when it comes to south. Leaving them in place would mean way higher civilian casualties, operations going an snail pace, and more opportunities for Hamas to use them as human shields. Can't evacuate them back north, as there's not enough facilities to support them, and then the IDF will be fighting with a hostile population on the rear - plus requiring more troops to act as border guards. Evacuating them to Egypt? Egypt won't accept it, as will the international community - while it will certainly be used as a propaganda meme ('Nakba 2024' or something).

 

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Netanyahu has some very capable, battle tested people advising him.  Whether he takes their advice we may never know.  The destruction of Hamas is very much what he intends to accomplish.  If he succeeds he will viewed as a hero among most Israelis.  If it brings him glory and political success, so be it.  One of the greatest concerns many have is how much is this going to cost in lives lost on both sides.  World opinion is another concern.  The old saying "War is hell,"  surely applies. 

 

What 'people'? On his current cabinet, there's a mediocre ex-general as Defense Minister, and a couple of former IDF chiefs turned politicians belonging to an opposition party who joined government as an emergency measure. Again, given past instances, you can count on Netanyahu picking whatever action he feels would be most beneficial for his personal political interests. The other version regarding his decision making capabilities was referenced by a long term political ally - to the effect that Netanyahu's decisions are governed by the last person he speaks to. All the confident baritone voice bravado is a facade. About half of the Israelis would probably say bottom line it's his wife and eldest son who call the shots. 

[Jeff the Chef]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

More nonsense.

 

26 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

LOL, this belongs in the medical forum.  This guy is a psychopath.

So what do you suggest as an "End Game" more of what's gone on since 2006/7?

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I suppose your intelligence source has revealed what Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Ganz are up to.  You seem so stuck on bashing Netanyahu.  Your prerogative.

 

Netanyahu has been Israel's PM for years. How is works, how he thinks, whom he listens to, how he reacts - there's enough material to assess such things. Nothing of what I posted is particularly ground-breaking in this regard, and not very different from much of the commentary appearing on various Israeli media venues (never mind foreign ones). Ganz is neither the PM, nor the Minister of Defense. His current role in unclear, and same goes for the level of influence he wields over decision making. What I can assess about Ganz (again, same comments as above regarding where this comes from) is that he's politically naive, certainly in comparison to Netanyahu.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

So what do you suggest as an "End Game" more of what's gone on since 2006/7?

 

What do you think, Jeff? Or do you expect other posters to comment in-depth on clip you posted by haven't bothered commenting on?

[Jeff the Chef]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What do you think, Jeff? Or do you expect other posters to comment in-depth on clip you posted by haven't bothered commenting on?

You get asked a question, don't answer it, then ask me the same question, when clearly I agree with Norman Finkelstein's comments.

[Bkk Brian]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And then what? Sacrifice all the rest? I think people underestimate how 'soft' Israel is when it comes to captives, hostages and the like. Other places, a soldier dies and people treat it more like sad-but-it's-his-duty. Israelis often react to soldier's deaths as if they are innocent kids. I'm not putting this forth as criticism, different people, different notions - just how it is. There's no precedent for an Israeli government saying 'oh well...' in a situation like that. To put it in a more relevant context for Netanyahu - his elder 'hero' brother died leading 'the' mission to release Israeli hostages (Entebbe Raid ). I kinda doubt this will not be floated if the decision would be to ditch the hostages - and it would shatter any illusions he might have regarding returning to power.

 

On the flip side, how would going back to the war go? The campaign in the northern Gaza Strip was conducted with most of the civilian population evacuated. There is no such option when it comes to south. Leaving them in place would mean way higher civilian casualties, operations going an snail pace, and more opportunities for Hamas to use them as human shields. Can't evacuate them back north, as there's not enough facilities to support them, and then the IDF will be fighting with a hostile population on the rear - plus requiring more troops to act as border guards. Evacuating them to Egypt? Egypt won't accept it, as will the international community - while it will certainly be used as a propaganda meme ('Nakba 2024' or something).

 

And then what? Sacrifice all the rest?

 

I did not say that or imply it. I stated what the players involved have been expressing. Hamas has also publicly told its fighters to gear up for the continued offensive in preparation. Once most of the civilian hostages are released and only military or security left along with men of fighting age the stakes for a resumption of the war rise significantly, that is a fact. How that transpires is yet to be seen.

 

My personal opinion is on side with IDF and Israel, wipe out Hamas. My other opinions would be a complete overhaul of the Palestine education system along with real opportunity given to them. How's that all achieved? I am not a general, a politician or key player. I can only leave that to the experts that do profess to hold those qualifications. If you different thoughts then feel free to express them without the need to ask me what I would do. 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

You get asked a question, don't answer it, then ask me the same question, when clearly I agree with Norman Finkelstein's comments.

 

No. You post something, which is not your opinion, not your contribution - but an outside source. You do not comment on it, nor convey your views and thoughts - but demand others do so. Please expand on what, exactly, appeals to you in the guy's clip.

[Hawaiian]

35 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

So what do you suggest as an "End Game" more of what's gone on since 2006/7?

Israel should get back to business.  If Hamas is not destroyed or crippled they will be a threat again in the future;  just like cancer cells need to be killed before they regrow.

[metisdead]

A post with video from an unapproved YouTube source contravening our Community Standards and the replies have been removed.

[Hawaiian]

18 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

And then what? Sacrifice all the rest?

 

I did not say that or imply it. I stated what the players involved have been expressing. Hamas has also publicly told its fighters to gear up for the continued offensive in preparation. Once most of the civilian hostages are released and only military or security left along with men of fighting age the stakes for a resumption of the war rise significantly, that is a fact. How that transpires is yet to be seen.

 

My personal opinion is on side with IDF and Israel, wipe out Hamas. My other opinions would be a complete overhaul of the Palestine education system along with real opportunity given to them. How's that all achieved? I am not a general, a politician or key player. I can only leave that to the experts that do profess to hold those qualifications. If you different thoughts then feel free to express them without the need to ask me what I would do. 

Someone has gotten up on the wrong side of the bed and has become very argumentative.  It ain't you and it ain't me.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Hawaiian said:

Someone has gotten up on the wrong side of the bed and has become very argumentative.  It ain't you and it ain't me.

Yes I noticed, but I think we can all agree that Hamas has to be eliminated, without that nothing else can fall into place.