Hamas Attacks, Israel Responds

The problem is less what TikTok is allowing than the fact that the 10/7 massacre is over and done with, and most of the footage is understandably not being released into the general media and social media spheres. So yes we now have ongoing footage of what is happening in Gaza, but it isn’t balanced out with footage showing WHY it’s happening, the visceral reality of the horror of why Israel is responding so violently in the first place. Whether or not that was Hamas’ plan, it does seem to be working out pretty well for them in terms of public opinion.

 

By using those tactics they’re basically admitting they don’t give a shit about Gazan lives, as they KNEW Israel would strike back hard and destroy Gazan infrastructure and lives in the process. If they were actually freedom fighters then hiding among a civilian population they’re supposedly trying to liberate wouldn’t even be an option.

 

Well, most terror organisations are fought with arrests and surveillance rather than dropping bombs, missile strikes and shelling, particularly in confined areas such as Gaza where the occupier has military control over the area.

 

You bet that was Hamas plan from the beginning. I raised that early on in October. I also linked an Ian Bremmer article making the very same analysis. Having said that, they are getting a massive assist from the IDF as well.

 

https://archive.ph/

 

Dead Jews and the end of Israel seems to be the main goal of Hamas. They achieved the former on that date and the inevitable aftermath would be a step toward the latter. Gazan lives are just collateral damage, for both sides of this conflict.

 

I would feel anger toward Israel for that action, and also at Hamas for provoking that action without regard for the consequences for the people they supposedly represent.

 

It really is a simple question with a brutal answer. If a terrorist organization hides amongst civilians are they immune or not?

It's an honest question, how else are you to eliminate the threat?

 

That’s the approach when you’re dealing with the IRA or Al-Qaeda cells in New York. But when a terrorist organization is the de facto or de jure government of a given area, the use of conventional military force is appropriate.

 

Well, regardless of what the point might be, that's what's been happening.

I keep asking the same question... do the IDF know who the hamas individuals are? If they do, they need to gain control over the area, (and not just by flattening anything and anyone that's there), and grab them.

If they don't, (and I suspect that's the case to a large extent), then what are they planning to do? There's also the matter of how many NEW terrorists they've created by this latest murder spree. By definition, they don't know who they are because they're 'freshly minted' terrorists.

This is why this is different to places like Mosul where, although there were thousands of people killed, the Iraqi government intended to take it over and control it in the future, making themselves responsible for it's people and administration.

IOW there was an endpoint and someone was prepared to take responsibility for it afterwards.

Even in Iraq there was a vague plan to build a democratic state and let them run themselves.

Obviously that was never going to happen because there was no culture of democracy and a civil society in the way that Germany had after WWII but that's another matter.

But what's the 'plan' here? What's the 'endpoint'?

'Oh, we're gonna destroy hamas' Great... and THEN what?

I mean, they won't even do that either but, again, that's another matter.

 

Well, they're obviously NOT a government, are they if by government you mean a group selected by the people on a regular basis to represent and control them. That's why they haven't dared have an election for the past 15 years. They were voted for as an alternative to the previous lot because they were seen as less corrupt but that's about it.

What they are is basically an organised crime group that is holding the Palestinians hostage.

 

It depends what terrorists are asking for, obviously.

If it's something that you can give them and for which the request isn't that unreasonable, you can usually negotiate an agreement with them That's what happened with the ANC which was deemed a terrorist organisation by the governments of SA, the USA and UK.

In norther Ireland we negotiated a power sharing agreement where both communities shared control of the province. That was done over the objections of the hardline protestants.

With the red army faction their demands were ridiculous and couldn't be accommodated so couldn't be negotiated...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction

The basics of what the Palestinians want, however, is eminently reasonable and can be discussed... a Palestinian state where they can be free. The precise details can be negotiated.

 

So by that definition Russia and North Korea aren’t governments?

 

And if they won't recognize Israel's right to exist? I'd say that is the opposite of reasonable.

 

North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with a comprehensive cult of personality around the Kim family, (according to wiki). Not sure you can really call that a 'government, can you?

But, anyway, it's largely academic in terms of what I was talking about which was a body with significant influence over the people in an area. It's hard to know how much control they have if you remove their ability to bully and intimidate people. If they're elected they will probably be seen as being rightfully in control by the population who chose them.

As to whether they're a 'government' in a way we'd understand it in the west... that's a moot point. Also, of course, it was the OP that spoke of them as the 'de facto or de jure government of a given area'.

But, more to the point, as I said, as Israel increasingly gains control of the area, (the occupier as I mentioned), they're more the body in a position to dictate what happens.

 

There's the issue that many on this threat feel that Israel should've taken it on the chin Oct 7 and left it at that.

It's their insecurities that leave them unable to understand why Israel can't accept that.

 

The PA already has, many years ago I believe.

They're in control, (nominally, at least), in the west bank and yet the Israelis have continued to steal land from them and to murder their people.

How 'reasonable' is that???

 

This came up in the context of whether or not the use of traditional military force is justified, and you suggested that since Hamas is not a legitimate government that it’s not. But that’s a very weird metric to use when there are governments that are equally illegitimate who obviously need to be engaged with on military terms.

 

So you're saying that the ANC, which was deemed to be a terrorist organisation, shouldn't have been spoken to and shouldn't now be the government of south Africa?

As I say, it depends what people are asking for.

You can't give people the destruction of your state but you most definitely CAN give them a state of their own. That cuts the ground beneath the terrorists and makes some of them, (and the majority of ordinary people who just want to live their lives), liable to make an agreement.

Some people won't come around and some will.

Gerry Adams was a terrorist who later became first minister of northern Ireland. IIRC Nelson Mandela was head of the head of UmKhonto Sizwee the militant wing of the ANC that committed acts of terrorism, including bombings and admitted as much.

 

I think you'll find the PA STILL has, in it's articles, the acceptance of the state of Israel as an established fact. I saw a fella say that on the TV a week or so back.