Or it means mass death isn’t happening because Israel’s weapon supplier expressed public concern about that happening, has urged Israel to avoid it, and has withheld some weapons (finally) that would make it more likely to happen. The argument that “mass death” ultimately not happening when weapons of mass death are withheld from Israel means that those weapons shouldn’t have been withheld is super dumb.
If you want that, that means you want Israel to lose and the Islamists around it to advance in their genocidal conquest. That's on you.
The farther they go without mass deaths proves they did not need U.S. offensive weapons. See how that works?
Does Israel have plenty of weapons? Having plenty would mean it doesn’t need external help. If it requires external assistance to win the war against Hamas, then it doesn’t have enough weapons. Ps This isn’t about me. I’m going to again ignore the stupid and hateful statement.
Weapons get depleted in a war. And there is a constant threat not only from Hamas, but also from their genocidal cousins Hezbollah and of course the main terror sponsor Iran. You are suggesting Israel should not be helped in their existential war for survival against genocidal Islamists around them. Anyone who suggests that is ok with all Jewish people getting murdered. That goes for you and anyone else who says the same thing. Because that's what Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas want to do.
Israel is repeating the costly US mistakes… https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/13/israel-gaza-hamas-counterinsurgency/ In his dismissal of U.S. counsel, Netanyahu has been influenced not only by his own right-wing coalition allies but also by senior IDF officers, many of whom, to be candid, don’t have much respect for U.S. military advice. IDF officers privately argue that the U.S. military, after suffering defeats from Vietnam to Afghanistan, does not have the standing to lecture them on how to fight a guerrilla foe. Moreover, they point out, neither U.S. troops nor any other counterinsurgents have ever faced an enemy hiding in such a formidable subterranean fortress: Hamas has built 350 to 450 miles of tunnels beneath Gaza. The Israeli criticisms are well taken — the U.S. list of counterinsurgency failures over the decades is long and galling — but there is at least one U.S. military force that has enjoyed impressive counterinsurgency success. That would be the U.S. troops, led by Gen. David H. Petraeus (now retired), who implemented “the surge” in Iraq in 2007 and 2008. When the surge began, Anbar province appeared to be lost to al-Qaeda in Iraq (at the time, one of the most bloodthirsty terrorist groups on the planet), and Iraq seemed to be heading for an all-out civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. By the time the surge ended, sectarian violence had fallen by more than 90 percent and al-Qaeda in Iraq had largely been defeated. (After the outbreak of the Syrian civil in 2011 and the ill-advised pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq the same year, this terrorist organization would be reborn as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.) There are many reasons the surge worked so well, from an increase of 30,000 U.S. troops to the decision of prominent Anbar sheikhs to abandon al-Qaeda, but underlying the U.S. success was a change in strategy. Previously, U.S. troops had been focused on killing and capturing as many insurgents as possible, only to discover that the military’s heavy-handed use of firepower and large-scale roundups of military-age males created more enemies than they eliminated. Petraeus and his brain trust went back to counterinsurgency 101 by implementing a “clear, hold and build” strategy modeled on past counterinsurgency victories such as Britain’s mid-century war in Malaya and the U.S. war in the Philippines at the turn of the previous century. They abandoned the previous model of having U.S. troops “commute” to the fight and return every night to sprawling, heavily fortified bases. In the new approach, after clearing neighborhoods of insurgents in heavy fighting, U.S. troops would stay in the area 24/7 to provide security and prevent insurgents from reinfiltrating. They also helped locals rebuild from the ravages of war. This was not a humanitarian impulse but a hardheaded military calculation that the only way to win a guerrilla war is to secure the population. In recent days, I reached out to Petraeus and a couple members of his brain trust to ask, in light of their own experience in Iraq, what they thought of the Israeli way of war in Gaza. They are all staunch supporters of Israel, but they are highly critical of the IDF strategy — or lack there. Petraeus acknowledged in an email that Gaza is “vastly more challenging than Fallujah, Ramadi, Baqubah and Mosul combined,” referring to cities in Iraq where U.S. forces fought under his command. But, he argued, “the correct approach is a comprehensive civil-military counterinsurgency campaign that features the traditional tasks of Clear (areas of Hamas terrorists), Hold (keep the civilians secure from Hamas reinfiltration), and Build (provide ample humanitarian assistance, restore the basic services to the people, and then rebuild the many damaged and destroyed areas so that the population can return).” The problem, in Petraeus’s view, is that “the Israelis are not performing the ‘hold’ and ‘build’ elements” of a counterinsurgency campaign. “They are just clearing and leaving to fight in other areas. And that inevitably means that they will have to go back and reclear endlessly.” Recent experience confirms his warning: On Nov. 15, Israeli troops stormed al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, which they described as a Hamas stronghold. Then they left. After reports that the complex was once again being used a terrorist base, the IDF returned on March 18 for another two-week operation. A couple of Petraeus’s former officers, both noted students of counterinsurgency, focused (as he also did) on the lack of a viable political end-state for Israel’s military campaign. “The United States failed to properly consider what sort of peace it wanted to build in Iraq and Afghanistan before it invaded those countries,” said retired Lt. Col. John Nagl, now a professor of warfighting studies at the Army War College. “Without knowing what you’re trying to accomplish, operations tend to be disjointed and counterproductive. It’s past time for Israel to learn from our mistakes and think hard about a two-state solution with capable Palestinian security forces policing both Gaza and the West Bank.” In a similar vein, retired Col. Peter Mansoor, author of the definitive history of the surge and a professor of military history at Ohio State University, told me, “The Israelis in Gaza are committing the same primary mistake as the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq: Seeking a military solution to what is fundamentally a political issue. By pursuing the destruction of Hamas and ignoring the root causes of the conflict, the Israelis by their actions are creating more future combatants than they are eliminating in the near term. Inevitably, Hamas 2.0 will rise from the ashes of the current fighting.” The concerns raised by Petraeus, Nagl and Mansoor about Israel’s perverse “clear and leave” strategy are valid and compelling. The implication is that, even if the IDF goes into Rafah, doing so won’t result in a lasting victory against Hamas. Truly winning this war would require creating some sort of government in Gaza that could gain the support of the people and prevent Hamas from returning after Israeli soldiers pull out. But no such solution appears to be in the works.
The other factor that no one wants to talk about is how much Obama is controlling Israel policy. Obama is no fan of Israel, he lives in DC (unheard of for a former President), and Biden's team is full of Obama holdovers who meet with him regularly (and Biden is senile). Do you think Israel can/should allow Hamas to continue to exist?
You are reading too much into a simple question. I'm not suggesting anything but simply asking a question. I asked the same question weeks or maybe months ago. I don't know if Israel has enough and can produce weapons on its own for its war. Weeks/months ago, I stated the US should not be providing weapons to Israel, but if it's needed for Israel to defend itself, they should. No one seems to know the answer or even ask that question. Maybe it's obvious. It's not very obvious to me - Israel is very technologically advanced, has plenty of wealth, but I don't know if they have the capability to produce weapons on their own for their defense. If they don't have that capability, they should build up that capability. Take Ukraine for example. They do not have enough weapons and do not have the capability to build their own. The right strategy there is to provide weapons to Ukraine and help Ukraine build up the manufacturing capability to produce their own local source of weapons. Israel, given its constant struggle and Iran as a nearby neighbor, I would assume is already well on its way if not already fully capable of producing weapons locally - but again, I don't know the answer to that. The US being in the business of helping countries like Ukraine and Israel is all good, but it should also demand those countries to build up their own capability so it can release itself from that responsibility. Ps Do you actually think anyone on this board wants Jewish people to get murdered? That mindset of yours is the same mindset that thinks you want Palestinians murdered. It's a very strange (something broken) mindset.
Hamas going away would be the best outcome for Israelis and Palestinians. The question is how do we achieve that without allowing Hamas or a similar group with the same aims to resurface. Hamas's enemy is agreement on a path to a 2-state solution with strong Palestinian leadership that doesn't include them at the table. My view is that this is how you get rid of them and prevent them from establishing a foothold at a later point. As long as Israelis and Palestinians are mortal enemies, Hamas (or their equivalent) will find a way to exist.
I am not saying you WANT them to get murdered. But if you advocate for cutting aid to Israel, the ultimate consequence of doing that would be a high risk of genocide against Israelis. Knowing that, and still advocating for cutting aid to Israel means one accepts that consequence.
Israel is a nuclear power (not just US missiles on site, but actual Israeli owned and maintained nuclear arms) with Air Force with the latest and greatest F35s. It’s not in the same league as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt. Hezbollah are the Vietcong to their US/France. Hamas are the Mujahideen (sp?) to their Soviet Union/US. If the two aforementioned conflicts highlight anything it’s that superior arms and indiscriminate air raid missions are not enough to pacify a people without an actual plan. And for Israel, there is no acceptable plan for the Palestinians AND the Israelis. Both want what the other has.
Cut aid to Israel, full stop. Let them buy arms from us with the same terms and conditions just as we would any other military ally, full stop.
Got it. As I said, I'm for providing weapons for Israel to defend itself. No one seems to know the answer about if Israel actually needs external help with weapons; my question remains unanswered. (Iran is the real threat, Hamas isn't capable)
Let me rephrase this. I believe Israel is the dominant economic and military power in the Levant. It’s been fighting against Palestinians (or stateless Arabs, if you prefer) for decades. Israel does not need more aid to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians. It needs a durable peace plan that establishes borders and it needs a government in the region whose goals are not its destruction. Israel is allied with Jordan and Egypt. Jordan supports Israel and Israel supports Jordan. Lebanon is a failed state with a paramilitary force armed by Iran. Syria is a failed state who has made no overtures at conflict in Israel. Israeli planes have full control of the skies in Syria. The governments of the Saudis and UAE like Israel. The government of Turkey pretends to hate Israel but in reality they are quite intertwined. This leaves Iran. A pariah state in the west and arguably a client state of Russia. The Tehran-Moscow axis. So in a conflict between Israel and Iran, does Israel need billions of additional aid (not talking arms sales) to defeat the Ayatollahs? The same nation that lacks an Air Force or navy. The same nation that had all of its missiles shot of the sky? Likely not. Aid is an expression of soft power. We unfortunately have trillion dollar deficits. Ukraine gets aid because it’s fighting a conflict against a larger, better armed adversary who is also our adversary. Ukraine without our aid stops existing. Israel gets aid because it won the Yom Kippur war. It’s currently fighting a conflict against a smaller, poorly armed adversary who is also our adversary. But Israel without our aid continues to thrive. Israel can annex the West Bank and Gaza on their own without my tax dollars being used. If Israel and Iran do eventually spiral into all out war, we can and should support them. But we in the West and the Chinese would leave Israel to dry if Israel proactively attacked Iran because the global economy is worth more than Israel wiping out its mortal enemy.
Well yeah - the long-term goal is the removal of Palestinians from the area and the increased settlement of Jews from outside the Middle East. The long term goal is to increase the population and influence of Jews in Israel to balance out their Arab neighbors and to pursue relationships advantageous to the power of Israel. I will be curious to see how far down the river Bibi gets them before they change course. Right now he is not a popular man in Israel, but once the Palestinians are largely removed, it is possible that the Israeli's will "forget" how they got there. I am half way expecting to see settlements pop up soon in Gaza.
