War in Gaza

[Ken]

The USA and other allies could easily unload aid at any one of Israel's 6 ports and it could be delivered to one or more of the closed border crossings in Gaza. I'm wondering why Netanyahu and company (the powers that be) don't open up these crossings?

Just because Hamas won't agree to the terms for hostage release
doesn't mean that those not supporting Hamas should go without water, food, and healthcare.

you seem confident aid could+would reach intended populations.
this is a worldwide problem, even outside hot wars. i have to believe, if it were possible, it would be done.

Honduras Keiser has described how bad it is, even in Honduras.

I'm not remotely optimistic about anything when it comes to Gaza.

Ernie's question was about border crossings not internal distribution of aid inside Gaza. Which is a completely different problem.

But I would say one thing about that. The only reason why distribution of goods within Gaza is so problematic and subject to hijackings and black markets is because it is so scarce. And also, of course, because there is still a war happening. Staples like wheat, corn, and powdered milk are not scarce commodities in normal times. And people don't hoard bags of flour or sell them on the black market. So if aid organizations managed to flood Gaza with a surplus of staples like flour, rice, corn, and milk it will quickly make any black market a moot point. if there is a truck on every street corner it is no longer a scarce commodity that will command high prices. in a normal economy, no one is hoarding 10 lb. bags of rice and selling them on the black market like it is cocaine or gold.

[Robert]

Just because Hamas won't agree to the terms for hostage release doesn't mean that those not supporting Hamas should go without water, food, and healthcare.

Last I heard, about 80% of Gaza supports Hamas. I suspect Israel sees themselves at war with Gaza. Why supply your enemy with supplies to use against you? Israel are not Anabaptists. They are putting a lot of pressure on Gaza to release the hostages.

Hamas is not a big organization. If the rest of Gaza did not support them, this would have been over quite quickly.

[Szdfan]

Just because Hamas won't agree to the terms for hostage release doesn't mean that those not supporting Hamas should go without water, food, and healthcare.

Last I heard, about 80% of Gaza supports Hamas. I suspect Israel sees themselves at war with Gaza. Why supply your enemy with supplies to use against you? Israel are not Anabaptists. They are putting a lot of pressure on Gaza to release the hostages.

Hamas is not a big organization. If the rest of Gaza did not support them, this would have been over quite quickly.

I think this is one of the most cynical things I've read on MN -- it's the kind of thinking that justifies war atrocities. At least 30,000 Gazans have died so far and the IDF has destroyed or damaged between 35% and 50% of structures in Gaza. It's beyond "pressure."

[Bootstrap]

Just because Hamas won't agree to the terms for hostage release doesn't mean that those not supporting Hamas should go without water, food, and healthcare.

Last I heard, about 80% of Gaza supports Hamas. I suspect Israel sees themselves at war with Gaza. Why supply your enemy with supplies to use against you? Israel are not Anabaptists. They are putting a lot of pressure on Gaza to release the hostages.

Hamas is not a big organization. If the rest of Gaza did not support them, this would have been over quite quickly.

Before Israel invaded, Gazan support for Hamas was a LOT lower.

Beyond that, polls aren't normally a way of determining who is a civilian and who is a combatant. If an Israeli supports Netanyahu's invasion, does that make them legitimate military targets? When Israel bombs, starves, and denies medical care to civilian victims of war, is it surprising that their support for Hamas grows?

Here's what polls said before October 9:

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pol ... -hezbollah

While the majority of Gazans (65%) did think it likely that there would be “a large military conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza” this year, a similar percentage (62%) supported Hamas maintaining a ceasefire with Israel. Moreover, half (50%) agreed with the following proposal: “Hamas should stop calling for Israel’s destruction, and instead accept a permanent two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.” Moreover, across the region, Hamas has lost popularity over time among many Arab publics. This decline in popularity may have been one of the motivating factors behind the group’s decision to attack.

In fact, Gazan frustration with Hamas governance is clear; most Gazans expressed a preference for PA administration and security officials over Hamas—the majority of Gazans (70%) supported a proposal of the PA sending “officials and security officers to Gaza to take over the administration there, with Hamas giving up separate armed units,” including 47% who strongly agreed. Nor is this a new view—this proposal has had majority support in Gaza since first polled by The Washington Institute in 2014.

But they have not been allowed to vote on that. And that's changing now.

[Szdfan]

Just because Hamas won't agree to the terms for hostage release doesn't mean that those not supporting Hamas should go without water, food, and healthcare.

Last I heard, about 80% of Gaza supports Hamas. I suspect Israel sees themselves at war with Gaza. Why supply your enemy with supplies to use against you? Israel are not Anabaptists. They are putting a lot of pressure on Gaza to release the hostages.

Hamas is not a big organization. If the rest of Gaza did not support them, this would have been over quite quickly.

Before Israel invaded, Gazan support for Hamas was a LOT lower.

Beyond that, polls aren't normally a way of determining who is a civilian and who is a combatant. If an Israeli supports Netanyahu's invasion, does that make them legitimate military targets? When Israel bombs, starves, and denies medical care to civilian victims of war, is it surprising that their support for Hamas grows?

Considering that civilian Gazans are dying from IDF military strikes and that the humanitarian crisis is growing because of Israel, it's not surprising that support for Hamas would increase.

[Ken]

It honestly doesn't really matter who supports what. Whether Gazans support Hamas, or whether Israelis support Netanyahu.

The fact of the matter is that Hamas invaded Israel and committed egregious war crimes in the process. In fact, they seemed to have no legitimate military objective, only terror.

In response, Israel invaded Gaza with the stated objective of wiping out Hamas. Which to some extent is a legitimate war aim. At least the destruction of Hamas' military capacity is a legitimate military objective. Executing or imprisoning everyone associated with Hamas is not a legitimate military objective. When the US fought Germany we didn't summarily execute every Nazi we came across. The leaders were subject to war crimes trials and the rest more or less went back to civilian life.

But in both cases there are actual rules of war. Hamas broke them by attacking civilians and taking hostages. And today Israel is breaking them by failing to protect civilians in its path. When Israel chose to occupy Gaza they assumed responsibility for the civilian population under their occupation. And they have egregiously failed to fulfil that responsibility. It makes no difference whether the civilian population is sympathetic to Hamas or not. That is an irrelevant question. Collective punishment is not a legitimate war objective.

Both sides want to have their cake and eat it too. Hamas wants to simultaneously be a government and a terrorist organization. They can't be both. If they choose to govern then they are bound by norms and rules. Likewise, Israel wants to wage indiscriminate war and not be responsible for the civilian population in its way. That isn't the way war works anymore. We no longer live in the days of Genghis Kahn. And the rest of the world is justifiably outraged at what Israel is doing.

[RZehr]

Has there ever been a war, where “the rules of war” were adhered to? I doubt it, and I doubt there ever will be.

I reject the premise that war can be civilized - which, coming from a non-resistant Christian shouldn’t be a surprising take. Rules of war are a cousin to Just War. Essentially something that only exists in theory, never works in reality, and is something to make people feel better about doing wicked things because war is “necessary”.

Sure, go ahead and have war rules. But don’t expect them to be followed. Hamas didn’t follow them on 10/7, seems no one in Africa follows them. Rules of war are only followed when they are beneficial to the war cause, and ignored otherwise. In the case of WW3, does anyone really believe the US will adhere to rules of war if the enemy does not, and the US starts to lose? Ridiculously Pollyanna.

Rules of war are a luxury reserved for only the most powerful armies.

[Szdfan]

Has there ever been a war, where “the rules of war” were adhered to? I doubt it, and I doubt there ever will be.

I reject the premise that war can be civilized - which, coming from a non-resistant Christian shouldn’t be a surprising take. Rules of war are a cousin to Just War. Essentially something that only exists in theory, never works in reality, and is something to make people feel better about doing wicked things because war is “necessary”.

Sure, go ahead and have war rules. But don’t expect them to be followed. Hamas didn’t follow them on 10/7, seems no one in Africa follows them. Rules of war are only followed when they are beneficial to the war cause, and ignored otherwise. In the case of WW3, does anyone really believe the US will adhere to rules of war if the enemy does not, and the US starts to lose? Ridiculously Pollyanna.

Rules of war are a luxury reserved for only the most powerful armies.

I think there is truth to this. What I don’t understand is the accompanying callousness that seems to come with it — what to me feels like a shrug about the suffering of the victims of war.

To me this feels deeply cynical.

[RZehr]

Has there ever been a war, where “the rules of war” were adhered to? I doubt it, and I doubt there ever will be.

I reject the premise that war can be civilized - which, coming from a non-resistant Christian shouldn’t be a surprising take. Rules of war are a cousin to Just War. Essentially something that only exists in theory, never works in reality, and is something to make people feel better about doing wicked things because war is “necessary”.

Sure, go ahead and have war rules. But don’t expect them to be followed. Hamas didn’t follow them on 10/7, seems no one in Africa follows them. Rules of war are only followed when they are beneficial to the war cause, and ignored otherwise. In the case of WW3, does anyone really believe the US will adhere to rules of war if the enemy does not, and the US starts to lose? Ridiculously Pollyanna.

Rules of war are a luxury reserved for only the most powerful armies.

I think there is truth to this. What I don’t understand is the accompanying callousness that seems to come with it — what to me feels like a shrug about the suffering of the victims of war.

To me this feels deeply cynical.

I don’t know if it is cynicism or callousness. Maybe hopeless. Maybe acceptance.

Maybe our doctrine that earthly government will fight forever fight wars, and that as long as the earth stands there will be wars and rumors of wars, removes any lavender glasses from our eyes. These glasses being the notion that war can be fair or clean or just, and that war can be legislated and negotiated into extinction with global treaties and the U.N.
And we sort of expect both war to be a constant on earth, and within this constant, it will be ugly and brutal and innocents will always suffer.

[Ken]

Has there ever been a war, where “the rules of war” were adhered to? I doubt it, and I doubt there ever will be.

I reject the premise that war can be civilized - which, coming from a non-resistant Christian shouldn’t be a surprising take. Rules of war are a cousin to Just War. Essentially something that only exists in theory, never works in reality, and is something to make people feel better about doing wicked things because war is “necessary”.

Sure, go ahead and have war rules. But don’t expect them to be followed. Hamas didn’t follow them on 10/7, seems no one in Africa follows them. Rules of war are only followed when they are beneficial to the war cause, and ignored otherwise. In the case of WW3, does anyone really believe the US will adhere to rules of war if the enemy does not, and the US starts to lose? Ridiculously Pollyanna.

Rules of war are a luxury reserved for only the most powerful armies.

Wars do not happen in a vacuum. Rules of war is what gives your cause and your conduct legitimacy. Hamas never had any legitimacy to begin with. Israel is tearing up what legitimacy it had by its current conduct in Gaza.

They are tearing up decades of efforts of diplomacy with the Arab world that culminated in the Abraham Accords by what they are doing in Gaza. And alienating themselves from allies in Europe and North America. Will it be worth it for them? Who knows. I expect that this point what we are seeing in Gaza is motivated more by Netanyahu's political survival than any legitimate war aims. A permanent state of war benefits Netanyahu because it postpones a reckoning for his failures on 10/7. Just like a permanent state of war in Ukraine benefits Putin.

Personally I think both the Ukraine war and the war in Gaza represent failure. And both are dead ends that could very well destroy or severely damage both Russia and Israel in the long run. But I also don't see either war reaching any sort of end, anytime soon.