[tptacek]

Weeks out, with more facts settled, it does appear that this was one of the most (if not the most) precisely targeted attacks in the history of modern warfare, measured either by ratio of combatants to noncombatants injured, or by the measures used to target it (which included creating a fake pager distributor that sold legitimate pagers to legitimate sources and selectively delivered compromised pagers specifically to Hezbollah, which used them on a private military network it fought a civil war in Lebanon to maintain).

What isn't captured in these threads but should be obvious to anyone looking 150 miles south is that conventional warfare, as conducted by every military power in the world, kills children and noncombatants in vastly higher numbers.

Use this attack to disqualify Israel's reckless and militarily pointless continued campaign in Gaza. Clearly, they had the capability not to conduct warfare the way they are there. Or, if you like, to condemn all warfare worldwide. But the attempt to single out the pager/radio attack as distinctively amoral is unpersuasive.

[edanm]

FYI I disagree that this necessarily means that in Gaza.

Israel has spent 18 years fairly convinced that Hamas isn't a major threat and that Hezbollah is, so most resources were spent on preparing for war with Hezbollah. This is maybe even mostly correct.

That means Israel was far more prepared to attack Hezbollah, and it shows.

If the US were ever attacked by Russia, it has battle plans in place. If it were attacked by Argentina, I don't think it has nearly as many plans/assets/intelligence/etc. So a counterattack on Argentina would have to look very different.

(Though of course this mostly explains the initial response, and as you say, is far less convincing one year in!)

[tptacek]

Israel spent 18 years willfully not addressing Hamas the way it did Hezbollah, as a mechanism to prevent a 2-state solution. Israel is responsible for the fact that it did not have the level of seriousness and preparation for Hamas that it did for Hezbollah, knowing full well that it would ultimately end up fighting Hezbollah in the sparsely populated hills of southern Lebanon, and Hamas in dense urban areas. It is culpable for the civilian toll in Gaza that resulted.

What Israel's leadership did here goes beyond not caring about civilian lives in Gaza. They cynically abetted Hamas's strategy to sacrifice those lives in a bid to start a world war that would bring on the end times, knowing that Hamas was absolutely batshit crazy and would thus keep Palestinians permanently destabilized.

Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.

[edanm]

> Please do not mistake me for someone who has any sympathy for the plight Israeli leadership finds itself in today. They belong in the Hague.

That's fair enough, many Israelis feel likewise. You shouldn't mistake me for liking the Israeli leadership either.

That said - Hamas played a game of pretending to be appeased, and it worked. I agree that Israel has been absolutely immoral over the last 18 years, though I think the bigger problem was closing off avenues for peace and not (as Israel should've done as the stronger party) aggressively pushing for peace.

That said - I do wonder what you think Israel should've done differently. Because to address Hamas earlier would've meant invading Gaza years ago. Certainly Israelis can and are upset that its leaders let Hamas build up so much strength, but do you think anyone in the world would've had any sympathy for Israel had it done a ground invasion to root out Hamas fifteen years ago? Even after October 7th there was barely sympathy to root out Hamas.

[tptacek]

This is like, imagine David Koresh's Branch Davidian cult took over Waco, and then the entirely of Texas CD17, and the Republican governor of Texas deliberately made space for the cult for electoral reasons. Later, Koresh starts a march towards Austin, making it as far as Temple, which he sacks before being turned back; the ensuing effort to apprehend him in Waco kills 5% of the its entire civilian population.

Who do I blame for this situation? There's a lot to go around. Certainly, I do not come out thinking Koresh's Branch Davidians were the victims. I am also not so much interested in the percentage of blame allocated to each culpable party; they're all awful.

[edanm]

Well, I agree, the current government of Israel is awful, as is Hamas.

But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.

In your scenario, if the governor of Texas had decided not to make space for the cult, and had instead rooted them out, I don't think anyone would've been upset. But do you honestly think that if, after Hamas won the elections in Gaza and kicked out the PA, that Israel had decided to invade Gaza and fought with Hamas - without direct provocation - do you think in that scenario people wouldn't be just as upset at Israel?

I say this as a Netanyahu-hating leftist "peace-advocate" (mostly). I think most of us would've been upset at the "war-mongering" Netanyahu in that situation. That's why I hard on this - it's a self-criticism as much as it is a criticsm of others. The truth is, pre-emptive war might've been the correct move against Hezbollah and against Hamas, but I honestly don't think anyone would've been ok with Israel doing it. Do you think otherwise?

[dragonwriter]

> But I'm still not sure what you think Israel should've and could've done differently specifically on the point of Hamas.

They could have not actively worked to foster the networks in Gaza that became Hamas in order to both split Palestinian opposition and have a less sympathetic, more extremist, more Islamic opposition to deflect international pressure to make peace with the Palestinians.

[jjfoooo4]

That they are capable of this level of precision but choose not to use it in Gaza seems to imply that destroying and depopulating Gaza is the military goal there.