Major attack on Israel by Hamas

[Bootstrap]

Have civilians been targeted?

Absolutely. That's what the siege is. Do you think the siege targets Hamas militants? And bombing has been at least recklessly indiscriminate.

Also, Israel has yet to link any of this mass destruction to clear military objectives. What do they even mean by "eliminate Hamas"? How is that different from "starve the people, bomb out a huge proportion of the buildings in northern Gaza, and terrify the population"? Why all this talk of retaliation and calling Palestinians "human animals"?

[HondurasKeiser]

Have civilians been targeted?

Absolutely. That's what the siege is. Do you think the siege targets Hamas militants? And bombing has been at least recklessly indiscriminate.

Also, Israel has yet to link any of this mass destruction to clear military objectives. What do they even mean by "eliminate Hamas"?

Again, the siege is meant to deny the ability of Hamas to use materiel against Israel. That's not targeting of civilians it's common sense.

Is bombing indiscriminate? I suppose it depends on who you read. Al-Jazeera seems to think so but The Economist is more circumspect. I do know that civilians were encouraged to flee south and prevented from doing so by Hamas.

Why do you suppose Hamas did that.

The military objective is the destruction of Hamas such that they can never rule Gaza again. That seems pretty clear. Much like what Colin Powell said with respect to the Iraqi Army in 1991.

[HondurasKeiser]

It bears repeating that this could all end today if Hamas surrendered, and turned over the hostages.

[Soloist]

I haven’t seen this precise bombing without civilian casualties.

[Ken]

And that was ... (checks notes) ... 9 months after Pearl Harbor. It has been less than one month since the Hamas invasion. If Israel hasn't started planning for post-war peace by next summer, then perhaps a bit of outrage can be entertained.

Has Ukraine done any post-war peace planning? Has Russia?

The point is that the US did not launch offensive operations against Japan until they actually had a clear plan for victory and what that victory was going to to look like. One of the reasons it took the US and its allies 9 months after Pearl Harbor to actually launch ground operations against Japanese forces is because they were meticulous in their planning. And they had an overall strategy for both the course of the war and the peace afterwards.

Talk about being incorrect....
or maybe I should just say that the progress and direction of the war did not follow the plan.

Did this plan include the killing over 100,000 Japanese civilians in a single night? Did the overall strategy for the course of the war include just simply firebombing Japanese cities with no military objective other than to terrorize the population and break their will to resist?

Of course the war plans evolved as the war dragged on. The last year of the war was the bloodiest in both the European and Pacific theaters.

I am referencing not the war planning, but the peace planning for the post-war occupation and administration of Japan. Which was something that was embarked on from nearly the very beginning of the war. It is simply a historical fact that the US and its allies did more comprehensive planning for the occupation and post-war peace during WW2 than has happened for any other war before or since.

And that is something that Israel, by their own admission, seems not to be doing.

[Bootstrap]

Did the U.S. have a "Path to Peace" before it declared war on Japan? Israel needs to take care of the existential threat that is Hamas. There will be plenty of time for a path to peace afterwards.

And therefore ... they should starve and bomb innocent civilians because it's too hard to actually figure out what else to do? And hope that nobody gets outraged as a result?

What exactly do you mean by "take care of the existential threat that is Hamas"? How should they do that?

[Bootstrap]

Have civilians been targeted?

Absolutely. That's what the siege is. Do you think the siege targets Hamas militants? And bombing has been at least recklessly indiscriminate.

Also, Israel has yet to link any of this mass destruction to clear military objectives. What do they even mean by "eliminate Hamas"?

Again, the siege is meant to deny the ability of Hamas to use materiel against Israel. That's not targeting of civilians it's common sense.

How's that working? There are a LOT fewer militants than citizens, and they take the supplies first. So you have 30,000 well-fed militants and 2,000,000+ civilians in dire shape. There isn't enough for 2,000,000+ civilians, but there is enough for the militants.

And that's what always happens. After all, the militants have the guns. And that's why it is a war crime. You can't blame the civilians for this, but they are the ones who starve.

Siege Warfare and the Starvation of Civilians as a Weapon of War and War Crime

Israel could certainly screen trucks and make sure that nobody is bringing in weapons. Or even ask the United Nations to do that.

Is bombing indiscriminate? I suppose it depends on who you read. Al-Jazeera seems to think so but The Economist is more circumspect.

Let's try the Associated Press:

‘A curse to be a parent in Gaza’: More than 3,600 Palestinian children killed in just 3 weeks of war

As Israeli warplanes pound Gaza, Palestinian children huddle with large families in apartments or U.N.-run shelters. Although Israel has urged Palestinians to leave northern Gaza for the strip’s south, nowhere in the territory has proven safe from its airstrikes.

“People are running from death only to find death,” said Yasmine Jouda, who lost 68 family members in Oct. 22 airstrikes that razed two four-story buildings in Deir al-Balah, where they had sought refuge from northern Gaza.

How many Hamas military leaders are killed for each of these strikes? Yesterday, I heard they got one. Destroyed a whole neighborhood to get him. Lots of civilian deaths and injuries. No running hospitals to care for them.

[RZehr]

Any “peace plan” at the beginning of a war is bound to drastically change. No one can predict with any accuracy how long a war lasts and no one can predict the twist and turns of war. (Right, Putin?)

So I don’t see any urgency or point or value in very detailed peace plan, particularly with a terrorist group. It’s just too chaotic. How well did Americas peace plan work out with Afghanistan? Not well, and not according to plan.

I would think that after the war is getting to be won, and the shape of the future is a bit more clear, there would be time enough.

Just seems like a strange thing to insist on, this idea that a country that is a victim of a surprise attack, should immediately come up with a peace plan, and publish it. Preferably before counter attacking.
Maybe if Hezbollah gives Israel sufficient warning of their next attack, Israel can come up with a peace plan? Maybe Israel could even come up with one and run it by Hezbollah for their approval before the scuffle begins, sort of like professional wrestling?

[Bootstrap]

The military objective is the destruction of Hamas such that they can never rule Gaza again. That seems pretty clear. Much like what Colin Powell said with respect to the Iraqi Army in 1991.

Spin this out for me. You are the Israeli army. Gaza is like New York City and part of Long Island. You want to use your military to destroy Hamas so they can never rule there again.

How do you use your military to accomplish that goal?

I would think special forces raids, drones, and such to take out militant leaders and perhaps extremist political leaders would be much more effective than bombing a bunch of residential buildings, hospitals, and schools.

But I think you also have to start by defining what you mean by Hamas, what you think "the destruction of Hamas" looks like. Is it different from the destruction of Gaza? If Hamas said they wanted to destroy Likud, would they be allowed to do this kind of thing to Israeli civilians?

[HondurasKeiser]

Absolutely. That's what the siege is. Do you think the siege targets Hamas militants? And bombing has been at least recklessly indiscriminate.

Also, Israel has yet to link any of this mass destruction to clear military objectives. What do they even mean by "eliminate Hamas"?

Again, the siege is meant to deny the ability of Hamas to use materiel against Israel. That's not targeting of civilians it's common sense.

How's that working? There are a LOT fewer militants than citizens, and they take the supplies first. So you have 30,000 well-fed militants and 2,000,000+ civilians in dire shape. There isn't enough for 2,000,000+ civilians, but there is enough for the militants.

And that's what always happens. After all, the militants have the guns. And that's why it is a war crime. You can't blame the civilians for this, but they are the ones who starve.

Siege Warfare and the Starvation of Civilians as a Weapon of War and War Crime

Israel could certainly screen trucks and make sure that nobody is bringing in weapons. Or even ask the United Nations to do that.

Is bombing indiscriminate? I suppose it depends on who you read. Al-Jazeera seems to think so but The Economist is more circumspect.

Let's try the Associated Press:

‘A curse to be a parent in Gaza’: More than 3,600 Palestinian children killed in just 3 weeks of war

As Israeli warplanes pound Gaza, Palestinian children huddle with large families in apartments or U.N.-run shelters. Although Israel has urged Palestinians to leave northern Gaza for the strip’s south, nowhere in the territory has proven safe from its airstrikes.

“People are running from death only to find death,” said Yasmine Jouda, who lost 68 family members in Oct. 22 airstrikes that razed two four-story buildings in Deir al-Balah, where they had sought refuge from northern Gaza.

How many Hamas military leaders are killed for each of these strikes? Yesterday, I heard they got one. Destroyed a whole neighborhood to get him. Lots of civilian deaths and injuries. No running hospitals to care for them.

Boot to your 3rd option that you think is the most viable, that of

demand[ing] that Palestinians appoint a negotiating partner that is committed to peaceful negotiations, not Hamas, and is willing to offer Palestinians either a viable state of their own or full citizenship in Israel.

What should Israel do if the Palestinians don't rise up and give Hamas the boot? It may be too late for that any way, but imagine Israel had demanded this October 8th and then nothing happened. What should Israel do then?