War in Gaza

[Soloist]

In general, I think you are correct.

But in this case, Israel's capabilities are 1000 times more powerful than Gaza's. Gaza does not have Hi Tech weapons. Israel could have been doing constant "live exercises" all around Gaza. And the exercises could have been random so that Hamas would not have known what to expect at any given time.
Yes, IDF forces weren't trained for paragliders, but any fighting vehicle or gun could have made a paraglider inoperable, had there been IDF forces in the area.

You would be surprised with tech disparity. Perhaps you can read up on the second invasion of Iraq. We took out their military very quickly.
That being said, we constantly take casualties due to the enemy ability to creatively apply non-traditional weapons.
Our regulars aka the army was armed with M16, machine guns, the rare rocket launcher or grenade launcher. The heavy artillery generally wasn’t needed and if greater support then Humvees was needed, it generally was air support.
These fancy weapons such as indirect rifles or precision weapons that can take out 1 person in a car were just not available to our troops. Wasn’t that long back that a car with a missionary and children was taken out thinking it was a target. Or the infamous wedding bombing. Just because the tech exists, doesn’t mean the military actually has access to use it.

You think a paraglider is easy to take out, you can fly them out of conventional weapon (light weapons or rocket launchers) range. Flack is by far the most affordable way to take down small aircraft like this. Otherwise you basically have to fire land to air missiles. Hand held launchers are not meant for engaging something like a glider.

[Soloist]

Any modern fighting vehicle can stop a payloader. The problem wasn't that Israel's front line was caught sleeping. There wasn't any frontline.

I don’t know what that picture is actually showing, none of the men appear armed.
This is what Israel uses… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Caterpillar_D9 that can stand up to anything outside of anti-tank rounds, tank shells, artillery or air strikes.
It does seem like the attack was allowed to happen. There might be a number of reasons why. None of this actually changes my point.

[Soloist]

So in addition to securing the border, Israel did air raids in Gaza for a number of weeks and basically lost no soldiers. Why the need for a ground campaign? Wouldn't continual airstrikes have brought about negotiations?

Airstrikes are meant to be supportive. Boots on the ground is required to actually control.

It seems to me that the ground invasion is all about image - not that the ground invasion is needed to bring Hamas to the negotiating table. Do you think the ground invasion was necessary to bring about negotiations?

I don’t think negotiations actually will result in anything substantial. You’re dealing with a group of people that very happily took hostages and have killed them. Any negotiations would be used as delaying tactics to kill more

So to ask again...
Hi tech militaries like those in the US and Israel can hit the rear passenger side of a car with a weapon, without ever setting foot in the country. Why the need for a ground invasion?

Go ahead and produce some of these weapons you are describing. Show me one time they’ve been used in combat.

[Bootstrap]

I don’t think negotiations actually will result in anything substantial. You’re dealing with a group of people that very happily took hostages and have killed them. Any negotiations would be used as delaying tactics to kill more.

You are assuming that the negotiations would be with Hamas.

I doubt that they would. Finding or developing a negotiating partner is hard. But I'm not sure the alternative is any easier - or exactly what it is.

[Soloist]

And according to a podcast I heard, there was no real response to the breach, it wasn't even detected very quickly, and this gap in the fence was still there 14 hours later. I may have my facts wrong - this is based on my memory of a podcast I listened to a month ago.

I don’t know the specifics of Israel’s response, it definitely seems like they were hampered severely and I would suspect there was politics behind that. Normally I would expect them to have easily withstood this attack with the exception of the missile barrage.

Beyond that, I think the general rule of thumb is that an offensive force needs a 3:1 advantage over a defensive force. So if Israel is defending, Hamas would need to be more powerful than Israel's defenses. I realize there are exceptions to that rule, but it seems easier to defend this walled area than to invade and "destroy Hamas", whatever that means.

Did you read the section on defense that I told you to read?
Offensive forces do not need a 3 to 1. It depends on location, tactics, weapons, moral and leadership. There have been situations where defensive positions have been overrun with less troops than even a one to one parity.
Likewise just a handful of men with stood attack of 10 to 1 odds. That was not that long ago. Hardly any of them survived and it required air support to finally completely repel the attack, but they held out for quite some time.
There are a number of examples throat military history for a smaller force has successfully defeated a larger forced because they were defending.There are a number of examples through military history for a smaller force has successfully defeated a larger force because the larger force was defending a stationary spot and couldn’t react.

[Soloist]

You are assuming that the negotiations would be with Hamas.

I doubt that they would. Finding or developing a negotiating partner is hard. But I'm not sure the alternative is any easier - or exactly what it is.

I don’t know who it would be with. Hamas has the hostages. Either Israel invades to attempt to save them or recover the bodies or they negotiate with Hamas. No one else has the strength of arm in Gaza to take out Hamas

A traditional siege will result with great suffering to civilians and hostages. The line is obviously porous, so I don’t see that even working.

[Ernie]

A traditional siege will result with great suffering to civilians and hostages.

So is a ground invasion as we are seeing.

The line is obviously porous, so I don’t see that even working.

What "line" are you referring to?

[ken_sylvania]

Israel attacks with bombs, and people say "Why do they need to use bombs? They should just go in and take out the Hamas fighters one-by-one." (somehow Ernie, I thought this was you saying this a couple weeks ago)

Israel sends in the infantry to "clean up" and people say "Why do they need to send in the infantry, why not use bombs?"

US says "We have smart weapons" and then uses their "precision bomb" to blow up a car containing a suspected militant only to find out that he works for a non-profit aid organization and that his "weapons" consisted of water jugs.

[Soloist]

A traditional siege will result with great suffering to civilians and hostages.

So is a ground invasion as we are seeing.

The line is obviously porous, so I don’t see that even working.

What "line" are you referring to?

I am making a reference to the fact that they’re attempting to blockade, yet humanitarian supplies are still going in. The US has numerous times used humanitarian supplies to smuggle weapons in. Clearest example is the ship that was sunk by the Germans during world war one or 2… I don’t remember.
Not condemning or supporting what Israel is doing. They are in military power attempting to deal with a problem.
I will wait for the next war the US gets involved in to see how many people here suddenly are favorable on what the US is doing.

[Bootstrap]

Israel attacks with bombs, and people say "Why do they need to use bombs? They should just go in and take out the Hamas fighters one-by-one." (somehow Ernie, I thought this was you saying this a couple weeks ago)

Israel sends in the infantry to "clean up" and people say "Why do they need to send in the infantry, why not use bombs?"

US says "We have smart weapons" and then uses their "precision bomb" to blow up a car containing a suspected militant only to find out that he works for a non-profit aid organization and that his "weapons" consisted of water jugs.

I'm not convinced you are accurately summarizing what anyone here is saying.

Speaking for myself, I am mostly focused on these questions:

1. What is the military objective? Is there one? Is there a plan to achieve it?
2. What is the cost to civilians?
3. Is this creating new conditions that will make it even harder to achieve peace?

I don't think I'm offering simple, glib, sure-fire solutions based on nothing at all. But I don't understand how 2,000 pound bombs in residential neighborhoods is a reasonable way to (1) take out Hamas or (2) avoid such blatant disregard for the lives of innocents.

I don't understand the complete confidence some people seem to have in the effectiveness of that as a military solution. Or maybe I'm misreading what others are saying. But I think there are real limits to what you can accomplish this way. I don't think we won our wars or achieved any clear military objectives in Afghanistan or Iraq. There may well be something that I'm missing, but I don't yet understand how Israel expects to do that here.