[Discussion] The Middle East in Crisis

No surprise. Prelude to a larger ground operation is to take out all "easy" methods of communications. They'd be using jamming, anyway, but this prevents inconvenient videos of war crimes (on either side) getting out easily.

How quickly we forget...

First, the reason people are appalled is not the attack on Hamas, it's the dropping of any pretense that Israel is trying to protect civilians. Over 7,000 dead so far. The end of the "roof knock" warnings. One day, maybe two, to move a million people to South Gaza, saying it was safe, then hitting civilian travel columns and locations in South Gaza. The ending of water, food, electricity, fuel, internet, cell and phone service, and import of critical goods; Israel has even described this state as a "medieval siege", which of course were harder on civilians than soldiers, who - like Hamas and IJ - had stored of supplies but did not share them.

To put this in perspective, OHCHR estimates that about 9600 Ukrainian civilians had died in the war in Ukraine by the end of last July, since it started Feb 24, 2022. Most of us had no trouble with the description of Russia's actions in attacking civilians as "war crimes", at a minimum, and "genocide", based on their repeated statements of intent.

In both conflicts, these are numbers that are verified by the UN. The actual numbers are higher. But Israel has racked up enough civilian killings to approach in 3 weeks or so what it took Russia, in deliberate actions, nearly 18 months to achieve. How is this self-defense?

Hamas had their greatest success ever, having killed around, what, 2000 Israelis so far? Maybe 1500 civilians including the 200+ captives? Most Western countries don't hold killing civilians wholesale in numbers well beyond their own casualties to try to take out a military or a government. That's called disproportionate response. It's "you kill one of us, we kill 3 (or 4, or 7, or 10) of you", something that is supposed to scare opponents from attacking you in the first place - as explained to me by an Israeli veteran in the early 80's, actually. But there are other countries that have practiced this kind of retaliation and it's not something that is held to be moral, especially by the country that holds the power and therefore has choices. It does not keep a country safe, as Israel's history since 1982 shows. It empowers escalation, retaliation and hatred.

What choices? Yeah. In the past, terrorist actions, incursions, missile barrages, even full-on war like with Hezbollah were met with extended airstrikes and limited ground actions over a period of weeks or a few months at most. Civilians were given warning of attacks even if it might allow targets to escape; often ground troops were placed at some risk to try to kill escaping enemies before a mixed use (military/civilian) building was taken down. This is the obvious response. How would it be done?

This is more complicated, but the UNHCR has demonstrated a readiness to set up tent camps in the Sinai, outside of Gaza, to shelter civilians. Israel would be quite capable of processing people trying to leave to pick out terrorists and government members. It would be a monumental task but the food and other supplies could flow while it was being done. Oh, you say, there's no way you can move several million people to camps, even given months, it's inhuman, inhumane?

Israel ordered the movement of one million people from one end of the Gaza Strip to the other in a day, and then argued that they were trying to preserve civilian lives. This is not the case. This is terror and excessive slaughter wrapped in implausible deniability. Just look at the satellite maps. If all the sites hit were simply military in nature, there would have been 100,000 fighters coming across the border instead of 2000 or so. There are significant percentages of Gaza being leveled in this campaign. There's no attempt, when Hamas fighters are found, to protect nearby civilians or property. This is an escalation from the past.

How does Hamas get handled in this? Tunnels get discovered and shut down on both ends, collapsed, maybe for important ones infantry go in and take them. Infantry, armor, artillery and air units are used as in earlier conflicts in targeted raids against Hamas leaders, soldiers, training sites, storage areas, etc. - more against verifiable military sites than just taking down a 10 story apartment building because one bad guy lives there. It's painful and time-consuming, and risks Israeli lives. But here's the important part - even done partially, it can bring five years or more of relative quiet to the situation when it's over. It breaks the military power and renders the government into disarray for a long time. That's what's been happening for the last 20, 25 years, I don't have the exact dates in front of me. It's worked.

And that time can be used to negotiate, to work to build new alliances and strengthen them, to show good faith on the part of the Israeli side that has all the power and has taken to using it to inflict pain instead. It can be used to withdraw the settlements in the West Bank that have stolen land from uncountable numbers of Palestianians, and find a solution to at least try to build a functional government in Gaza, maybe the PA, who knows? It can be used to start to turn the tide of opinion, something that will take generations, but is a necessary process. It just needs the will to do it while suffering at times (and responding proportionately).

The problem here, and what Hamas is reacting to, is that as Israel becomes more and enthralled with the power fantasies of the religious and secular right, it becomes more brutal, it moves away from the principles of a secular democracy towards a state of Apartheid within its borders and aggression without. It escalates the problem by doing this, uniting its enemies who each time strive to increase the damage and terror they can inflict, and Israel today is happy to respond in kind. It is moving away from any idea that it needs to treat Palestinians as humans. In this, it mirrors the stance of Hamas and IJ towards Jews. But it has a powerful economy behind it, and a powerful military.

We expect moral democracies to be able to control their worst impulses, to not give in to authoritarianism, to not brutalize enemy civilians and call it self-defense as the Russians have done. But Israel - and this breaks my heart - has chosen the same path as Hamas; annihilation of the enemy when aroused, which supposedly will create so much fear, pain and heartbreak that it will demoralize them once and for all. Then they will hand over Gaza to Egypt or some coalition of Arab states, or the UN, and say "this is your problem now".

The problem is that Israelis know that this approach did not break them in the 30's and 40's when they fought the British (with terrorism, no less, even by people who became leaders of the country later on), and it certainly failed to stop them in 1948. They believe somehow that their power will break the spirit of the Palestinians who somehow must be supporting Hamas (when in fact a large proportion are simply trapped in Gaza with the crazies, remember?). But they are tough, too. And this just makes them harder, more resentful, more willing to fight in the next fight.

The way Hamas gets handled is by working to end *it*, not killing civilians by the thousands. That's the way it becomes empowered.

It's horrific. Both sides are fighting in a moral swamp. There is no high ground. God help all of them, because they are both intent on atrocities as a way of "solving" the conflict. And that just won't get the right results in the long run. It simply makes things worse.

Your comment and the earlier one raised an insight. Israel has been acting not only to put down the aspirations and capabilities of Hamas and IJ, but have been neglecting the Hearts and Minds side of the strategy as well. And what that means is that every time they push off actually doing the hard work, which would conceivably cost them more than the Palestinians, they make it harder to do the next time, and easier to "justify" just leveling buildings and crushing tunnels and calling it done.

Their own strength is being reflected back against them, and the exit strategy seems to fade more into the distance with each conflict. What will the next one look like, in a decade or (I hope not) in a month or so? In either case, Israel is now at the point where the threat of an existential crisis has risen at least into the single digits, and maybe higher.

Hezbollah has 150K missiles and rockets by public estimates, and up to 100K trained fighters including reserves. Syria probably would not commit directly but would provide comfort, aid and material and logistic support, as would Iran. If Iron Dome were to falter and an explosive rain falls hard on Tel Aviv, that would shake Israel to its roots. But if it does not happen this time, how much more bad will it be next time?

This is perhaps why the two paths - diplomacy and force majeur - are diverging so completely. Israel has always been about protecting itself by showing no weakness, ever. But now they have shown it. It's hard to accept and not lash out, and Netanyahu and his cronies are just the people to double down on the strong hand in this situation, rather than say "You know, we want to get off this train, we are on the wrong track". So I agree. No one is likely to try to roll back to optimistic diplomacy.

But as the horrors grow on both sides, more Americans at least will be screaming to make it stop, because at long last what we have been complicit in since '82 has been laid out on the operating table for all to see.