Exploding Pagers Injure Hundreds in Lebanon

[MigL]

The fact that Netanyahu is stupid doesn't change the fact that Hamas is evil.

I have stated several times in this thread that I think Netanyahu is an idiot.
Instead of courting Hamas he should have worked more closely with the Palestinian Authority, which seems much more reasonable and interested in a sustainable peace.

And you must realize that a lot of the 'propping up' Hamas received was foreign aid, which they then syphoned off to buy weapons, while Israel simply allowed it to happen.

So again I ask, who are the actual bad guys, and who are simply stupid ?

 

Edited September 24 by MigL

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

The fact that Netanyahu is stupid doesn't change the fact that Hamas is evil.

I have stated several times in this thread that I think Netanyahu is an idiot.
Instead of courting Hamas he should have worked more closely with the Palestinian Authority, which seems much more reasonable and interested in a sustainable peace.

And you must realize that a lot of the 'propping up' Hamas received was foreign aid, which they then syphoned off to buy weapons, while Israel simply allowed it to happen.

So again I ask, who are the actual bad guys, and who are simply stupid ?

 

Bullies are always stupid, they think that force and threats will get what they want; they're just children really, they just want to be safe.

Even Hitler wasn't born evil and it doesn't take a genius to extrapolate that to all humans even the one's labelled Hamas, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"...

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And you must realize that a lot of the 'propping up' Hamas received was foreign aid, which they then syphoned off to buy weapons, while Israel simply allowed it to happen.

So again I ask, who are the actual bad guys, and who are simply stupid ?

It seems you are claiming that the only mistake was being stupid and that the support for Hamas was just incidental. Thus, you seem to deliberately ignore the fact that Netanyahu himself said that it was important to keep Hamas strong as a counterpoint to the PLO, in order to torpedo  a two-state solution. You have criticized the Palestinians for supporting Hamas and implicitly justify collateral damage because of their choice. Conversely, a deliberate strategy to torpedo a peace process is considered to be merely "stupidity". Obviously, people have their biases (including myself), and this basically shows that apparently no one is above that.

While the current architect of the conflict is Netanyahu, it is not his "stupidity" alone.

A short article discussing aspects of the NYtimes article (shared above)  here: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/

Quote

According to the Times, Israeli intelligence agents traveled into Gaza with a Qatari official carrying suitcases filled with cash to disperse money. Retired Israeli general Shlomo Brom described the logic of Netanyahu’s position: “One effective way to prevent a two-state solution is to divide between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.” If the extremist Hamas ruled Gaza, then the Palestinian Authority—a compromised comprador government with a tenuous hold on the West Bank—would be further weakened. This, according to Brom, would allow Netanyahu to say, “I have no partner.”

In 2015, Bezalel Smotrich, currently the finance minister in Netanyahu’s government, summed up the strategy by stating, “The Palestinian Authority is a burden. Hamas is an asset.”

[...]

A 2006 article from United Press International reporter Richard Sale noted, “Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.” The article quoted a former CIA official as saying Israel financed Hamas, as “a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.”

From the cited article (https://www.upi.com/Archives/2001/02/24/Israel-gave-major-to-aid-to-Hamas/6023982990800/):

Quote

According to ICT papers, Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movements spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma Al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers by religious propaganda and social work.

Funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

[...]

But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One US intelligence source who asked not to be named, said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had a more devious purpose: "to help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists."

In addition, by infiltrating Hamas, Israeli informers could listen to debates on policy and identify Hamas members who "were dangerous hardliners," the official said.

In the end, as Hamas set up a very comprehensive counterintelligence system, many collaborators with Israel were weeded out and shot. Violent acts of terrorism became the central tenet, and Hamas, unlike the PLO, was unwilling to compromise in any way with Israel, refusing to acknowledge its very existence.

Even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the other groups, if they gained control, would refuse to have anything to do with the pace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said. All of which is viewed with disapproval by some former U.S. intelligence officials.

"The thing wrong with so many Israeli operations is that they try to be too sexy," said former CIA official Vincent Cannestraro. Former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson told UPI: "The Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism. They are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer.They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it."

Aid to Hamas may have looked clever, "but it was hardly designed to help smooth the waters," he said. "It gives weight to President George W Bush's remark about there being a crisis in education."

In other words, while it is fair to say it is stupid to assume that they could control Hamas, one would need stronger words to describe a strategy that revolves around supporting extremists in the hopes that they would do more harm to others than to oneself (but still knowing that they are enemies). It reminds me of the support for the NSDAP from the right factions in the Weimar Republic in an effort to control workers.

Stupid? Sure. But also complicit.

[MigL]

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In other words, while it is fair to say it is stupid to assume that they could control Hamas, one would need stronger words to describe a strategy that revolves around supporting extremists in the hopes that they would do more harm to others than to oneself (but still knowing that they are enemies).

Exactly, as bolded.
The idiot thought he could control them; and was wrong again.
 

Oh, and 

32 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You have criticized the Palestinians for supporting Hamas and implicitly justify collateral damage because of their choice.

please show me where I have justified collateral damage, or the bloodshed of innocents, in this thread.
My first post in this thread was an angry response to another member's post where the targeting of Hezbollah members via their pagers, to avoid collateral damage, was labelled a 'cowardly and cruel' terrorist act.
I, myself, considered it a brilliant method of mitigating collateral damage, and wish the IDF would do the same in Gaza.

Edited September 24 by MigL

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

please show me where I have justified collateral damage, or the bloodshed of innocents, in this thread.

I would agree that all things being equal, I am also more for targeted rather than indiscriminate attack, but as to your questions:

It goes beyond this thread, but a couple of things are related to that notion in this thread.

On 9/18/2024 at 7:44 PM, MigL said:

No, I don't support Zionism; I support the right of people to live without the fear of being attacked, and, if they are, the right to retaliate such that those attacks are no longer possible.
Not a 'proportional response' ( whatever that means ), but the actual removal of the capability to attack in the first place.

  

Here you are saying that you are for retaliation at any level. Why not explicitly stating that you endorse collateral damage, the notion of not using proportionality at least suggests that there is not hard cap on the level of destruction.

This here is a condemnation of, ehm, condemning collateral damage.

  

On 9/18/2024 at 3:40 PM, MigL said:

I hear plenty of condemnations from you guys.
Either they are overreacting, being too over-reaching in their retaliatory attacks and killing too many civilians, or they are cowardly terrorists who strike with surgical attacks to kill actual terrorists using outdated  20 year old technology.

This at least suggest that you  think the criticisms regarding collateral killing are not justified. Conversely, that would indicate that some collateral damage has to be justified, likely as a means to remove the threat. In our previous discussions you have made a point that deterrence is more important than restraining collaterals. 

 

On 9/20/2024 at 2:04 PM, MigL said:

 

And a simple Google search would have revealed 1.8 million Palestinians live comfortably in Israel; Either never having left, or returned there after the many wars since the late 40s.
The situation looks very similar to me.

So why such a penchant for firing rockets, and trying to kill, inhabitants of their former lands ?

Maybe they are being used as cannon fodder for other parties out to destroy Israel, and some in the West make it easy by constantly trying to deny Israel's right to protect itself.

This was part of the notion that Palestinians are basically choosing violence (and through various threads, it is implicitly a justification for collateral deaths. The important context added in this thread is that Israel helped creating a situation where Hamas could thrive, in order to squash a two-state solution. Now, we cannot turn back time and figure out whether strengthening the PLO would have resulted in peace eventually. But it remains a fact that Hamas was able to reach and cling to power with Israeli support. I am fairly confident that you would condemn any group knowingly providing funds to a terrorist organization and not dismiss it as mere stupidity.

In our earlier discussions you have made the point that Gazans could have a thriving community if they only had gotten rid of Hamas. Yet, the the various articles suggest that Israel had a hand in providing Hamas the means to take over the government and keep them in power. This also does add another dimension of Israel's strategy of containment (including economic isolation, which we discussed in another thread). 

Just to avoid any confusion, this does in no way justify Hamas' actions, but it does show that Israel was a contributing architect in the role of Hamas. While one can state that Palestinians should have gotten rid of Hamas for their own good, we see that someone else certainly stacked the deck against that possibility.

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I, myself, considered it a brilliant method of mitigating collateral damage, and wish the IDF would do the same in Gaza.

With this "brilliant method", that appears to be geopolitically illegal in terms of booby trapping ordinary devices, which is why it hasn't been done en masse before, does it not now change the rules of war? 

[MigL]

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This at least suggest that you  think the criticisms regarding collateral killing are not justified. Conversely, that would indicate that some collateral damage has to be justified, likely as a means to remove the threat. 

If you fire a gun at me and miss, I'm allowed to shoot back at you, and even kill you, in order to remove the threat of you shooting me again.
You missed, but I killed you, so definitely not proportional.
But I definitely am not allowed to shoot the person beside you, or even your dog, so not advocating for collateral damage.

 

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This at least suggest that you  think the criticisms regarding collateral killing are not justified. Conversely, that would indicate that some collateral damage has to be justified, likely as a means to remove the threat. 

No. I suggested that criticism of both, collateral killing AND targeted killing of foes, leaves no other response.
So if there is to be a response, other than 'shut up and take it', you tell me which is preferable.
( also applies to String Junky's post directly above )

 

28 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Just to avoid any confusion, this does in no way justify Hamas' actions, but it does show that Israel was a contributing architect in the role of Hamas. While one can state that Palestinians should have gotten rid of Hamas for their own good, we see that someone else certainly stacked the deck against that possibility.

IOW, they, the Paalestinians, 'cut off their noses to spite their face', which makes them just as stupid as Netanyahu.
And still doesn't absolve Hamas' evil acts, against Israel, and the Palestinians they're supposed to govern.

 

Let's try to keep the discussion honest, by reading what I write, not what you think I wrote.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Bullies are always stupid, they think that force and threats will get what they want

How sure are you about that and would you like to discuss how it applies to the recent presidents of Russia, the USA and China?

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

With this "brilliant method", that appears to be geopolitically illegal in terms of booby trapping ordinary devices, which is why it hasn't been done en masse before, does it not now change the rules of war? 

This continuance of the shift in warfare to remotely delivered blows, at push of a button, was behind my pages-ago comment on the cowardly and cruel nature of such attacks.  I wasn't exonerating either side, or even being ideological, just trying to balance all the awed responses - wow, that's so clever and sophisticated, and ever so much tidier than airstrikes! - with an awareness that a button was pushed without regard for where pager users might be or who standing next to.  Hence, at least a dozen deaths, two dead children, and thousands of maimed and blinded.  Many, apparently, not actual warriors.  So, again, I don't see it offering some moral high road for Israel, and I'm glad to hear you also question the "brilliant method."

 

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

This continuance of the shift in warfare to remotely delivered blows, at push of a button, was behind my pages-ago comment on the cowardly and cruel nature of such attacks.  I wasn't exonerating either side, or even being ideological, just trying to balance all the awed responses - wow, that's so clever and sophisticated, and ever so much tidier than airstrikes! - with an awareness that a button was pushed without regard for where pager users might be or who standing next to.  Hence, at least a dozen deaths, two dead children, and thousands of maimed and blinded.  Many, apparently, not actual warriors.  So, again, I don't see it offering some moral high road for Israel, and I'm glad to hear you also question the "brilliant method."

 

Israel is dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter, and it wants to sit at the table with civilised society? 

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

If you fire a gun at me and miss, I'm allowed to shoot back at you, and even kill you, in order to remove the threat of you shooting me again.
You missed, but I killed you, so definitely not proportional.
But I definitely am not allowed to shoot the person beside you, or even your dog, so not advocating for collateral damage.

 

No. I suggested that criticism of both, collateral killing AND targeted killing of foes, leaves no other response.
So if there is to be a response, other than 'shut up and take it', you tell me which is preferable.
( also applies to String Junky's post directly above )

 

 

So just that I understand your position accurately, you are against collateral damage, and presumably would be open to criticism for Israel high-collateral damage approach, provided the argument allows for targeted attacks?

I am then wondering, what is your view of the Israel's action response resulting ca. 10k dead children? Would this be unacceptable? Or does the need for defending themselves justify these collaterals (especially if we throw out proportionality out of the window)? I am also wondering whether deterrents really work on those guys, if they are happy that their own are getting killed, I am not sure that doing just that actually has a net detriment to except for the terrorists (at least I have not yet seen any evidence for that).

The issue is that you demand being understood literally and maybe it is a language issue but in many cases your arguments are not as clear to me. The quote helps, where you for example distinguish between disproportionate responses and collateral damage. But if you say that you are just providing counter-balance, the context of your statements are unclear (again, to me, it may be clearer for others) as I tend to understand the full argument of folks I am having a virtual discussion with. Fora can lead to misunderstandings and clarifications are appreciated (which Is why my posts are often verbose as I tend to overexplain things- comes with the job, I suspect).

 

10 hours ago, MigL said:

IOW, they, the Paalestinians, 'cut off their noses to spite their face', which makes them just as stupid as Netanyahu.
And still doesn't absolve Hamas' evil acts, against Israel, and the Palestinians they're supposed to govern.

I don't think I have seen anyone absolving Hamas of anything, but are we then in agreement that blame on the situation is shared between certain Palestinians and parts of the Israeli government? Perhaps not equally but forces are moving things on both sides into the wrong direction?

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How sure are you about that and would you like to discuss how it applies to the recent presidents of Russia, the USA and China?

There's a lot of nuance involved, but I feel sure I'm happier than they are; I'm reminded of a story I heard about Stalin, who litterally hid in his stateroom convinced his failure would be found out.

A bully has no choice but to double down, on what they know to be false...

[MigL]

Working; don't have much time for responses ...but

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't think I have seen anyone absolving Hamas of anything

and

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Israel is dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter, and it wants to sit at the table with civilised society? 

I guess String Junky thinks Hamas is 'civilized society'.

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I guess String Junky thinks Hamas is 'civilized society'.

My interpretation was that it included Israel its partners (i.e. excluding Hamas as they do not sit at the same table), but I may be wrong.  

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

 

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Israel is dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter, and it wants to sit at the table with civilised society? 

I guess String Junky thinks Hamas is 'civilized society'.

Israel is deliberately blinding people- but not using lasers- so it's allowed under the conventions of war; on a technicality.
It used booby traps but not on food, animals, toys or munitions, so, again, on a technicality, it didn't break the conventions on warfare.

As such, to say  it is "dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter" is a reasonable assessment.

And " it wants to sit at the table with civilised society".

And those statements are at odds with one another (or they should be).
And they are both true, even if Hamas suddenly turn into pine trees. It doesn't matter if Hamas are civilised or not, in this context.

Hamas being "bad", or even "worse", does not stop us commenting adversely on what Israel is doing.
 

[StringJunky]

37 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Israel is deliberately blinding people- but not using lasers- so it's allowed under the conventions of war; on a technicality.
It used booby traps but not on food, animals, toys or munitions, so, again, on a technicality, it didn't break the conventions on warfare.

As such, to say  it is "dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter" is a reasonable assessment.

And " it wants to sit at the table with civilised society".

And those statements are at odds with one another (or they should be).
And they are both true, even if Hamas suddenly turn into pine trees. It doesn't matter if Hamas are civilised or not, in this context.

Hamas being "bad", or even "worse", does not stop us commenting adversely on what Israel is doing.
 

I agree, the blame game is not binary.

[geordief]

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Israel is deliberately blinding people- but not using lasers- so it's allowed under the conventions of war; on a technicality.
It used booby traps but not on food, animals, toys or munitions, so, again, on a technicality, it didn't break the conventions on warfare.

As such, to say  it is "dragging the notion of military conflict into the gutter" is a reasonable assessment.

And " it wants to sit at the table with civilised society".

And those statements are at odds with one another (or they should be).
And they are both true, even if Hamas suddenly turn into pine trees. It doesn't matter if Hamas are civilised or not, in this context.

Hamas being "bad", or even "worse", does not stop us commenting adversely on what Israel is doing.
 

If your enemy is using particular weapons it makes no sense to restrict yourself  to approved weaponry  if the alternative is that  they prevail and you are destroyed or scattered to the 4 winds into countries that  have historically despised you.

There is an expression about bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

Some of the rest of the world seems to want to view Israel as just another country that wishes to "be like them" 

Without  much personal experience of the country (although I was evacuated  from Egypt in 56)  I cannot say if the Israelis view themselves that way or whether they (all,some,most?) consider themselves  to represent the generations of Jews who were shunned worldwide and finally escaped in scattered bands the dustbin of history that was to be their lot some 2  generations ago.

That is not to say that I approve of the Israeli actions but I will be one of the last to judge them (errors,strategic  and tactical are par for the course in any walk of life  and I do not begin to envy theirs)

[MigL]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Hamas being "bad", or even "worse", does not stop us commenting adversely on what Israel is doing.

So why are there no comments in this thread about the fact that, even during negotiations for a cease fire, Hamas is still killing kidnapped hostages from last October?

Oh Yeah ... we got one comment about how unjust it was for Israel to kill one of Hamas' leaders, who happened to also be their negotiator.

Would these negotiations be taking place at the 'civilized table' ?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

If your enemy is using particular weapons it makes no sense to restrict yourself  to approved weaponry  if the alternative is that  they prevail and you are destroyed or scattered to the 4 winds into countries that  have historically despised you.

 

Based on the rest of your post I think you are suggesting that Israel shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry lest it risk annihilation. But taken alone I don't see how this paragraph could mean anything other than the Palestinians shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry given the overwhelming superiority of Israel's conventional, approved weapons.

Suggesting Israel is the one with the knife and the Palestinians are the ones with the gun is not something I can get my head around.

Can you please clarify for me what you meant?

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

I cannot say if the Israelis view themselves that way or whether they (all,some,most?) consider themselves  to represent the generations of Jews who were shunned worldwide

My understanding is that "Israel" sees itself (among other ways) as the final guarantor that Jews will never again have to risk what happened in WWII. And of course they cannot be that guarantor if they cannot remain whole and strong.

My fear is that they risk with their tactics becoming that which they are so opposed to; an entity that tramples on the lives of those that it views not worthy.

[geordief]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Based on the rest of your post I think you are suggesting that Israel shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry lest it risk annihilation. But taken alone I don't see how this paragraph could mean anything other than the Palestinians shouldn't restrict itself to approved weaponry given the overwhelming superiority of Israel's conventional, approved weapons.

Suggesting Israel is the one with the knife and the Palestinians are the ones with the gun is not something I can get my head around.

Can you please clarify for me what you meant?

 

I think it is pie in the sky to assume that either side will fight with what they see as one hand behind their back.

True ,there is the overarching aim of a peaceful cooperation  but that  is a long term process.

 

You seem to be  taking the "knife to a gunfight " analogy too literally.It applies to all parties to all conflicts.

 

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

My understanding is that "Israel" sees itself (among other ways) as the final guarantor that Jews will never again have to risk what happened in WWII. And of course they cannot be that guarantor if they cannot remain whole and strong.

My fear is that they risk with their tactics becoming that which they are so opposed to; an entity that tramples on the lives of those that it views not worthy.

Indeed.I think that was Golda Meir's regret -that the Palestinians had forced Israel to abandon its ideal for the sake of its own survival (I forget the language she used)

Trampling on others is what happens when paic spreads through a crowd.Maybe Israel is goung through the same process in a slower way

If it fears for its very survival it is more difficult to expect what we would see as "civilized" behaviour

Of course it needs "our"  material and moral support but perhaps wishes it didn't.

 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

I think it is pie in the sky to assume that either side will fight with what they see as one hand behind their back.

 

I recently read a book that discussed Israel's history of how they dealt with conflict. Over the long term their goal was to avoid 'war' as long as they can as the country is not large or rich enough for sustained warfare when surrounded by countries who could throw a lot of hardware and soldiers at them.

Instead they utilized targeted killings of anyone who was furthering the goals of their adversaries, whether they were leaders, scientists from European countries helping Iraq develop nuclear weapons, or terrorists. The idea being they wanted to slow their opponents down before war began, and strengthen ties with less hostile opponents.

For much of their history Israel did indeed fight with one hand tied behind their back by taking extreme measures to avoid collateral damage, and to avoid conflict with the West. The result has included improved relations with many of its traditional enemies. It is usually when some Israeli leaders who think the best strategy is to bomb their enemies back to the stone age that they stray into such despised actions as dropping 2000 pound bombs near (or on top of) civilians. In recent history Western countries try to avoid such actions. Countries like Russia, Syria and sometimes Israel still do so.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So why are there no comments in this thread about the fact that, even during negotiations for a cease fire, Hamas is still killing kidnapped hostages from last October?

Possibly because this thread is called "Exploding Pagers Injure Hundreds in Lebanon".

My personal view is " a plague on both their houses, but that's beside the point.
As far as I'm aware, that "technique" is novel and that's why there's a thread about it.

Feel free to stat a "even during negotiations for a cease fire, Hamas is still killing kidnapped hostages from last October" thread.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Feel free to stat a "even during negotiations for a cease fire, Hamas is still killing kidnapped hostages from last October" thread.

Six killed about a month ago, including one American, who were going to be released as part of the cease-fire negotiations.

What we know about the six hostages killed in Gaza | CNN

Some will probably claim they were actually found alive, but Netanyahu had them killed so he would have an excuse to keep dropping 2000 lb bombs on civilians and kids.
( I wonder how much 5000  )rockets with at least a couple of pound warhead weigh combined )

Edited September 26 by MigL

[TheVat]

Hamas soldiers behave badly?  I learn so much here.  I had been led to understand that soldiers were the cream of society who attended picnics with their foes, played badminton and sipped tea as they discussed whose turn it was to fling themselves onto a bayonet.  

 

[MigL]

John asked for stats and I provided such.
If he had asked for sarcasm, I would have provided what you did.