Israel/Palestine thread
05-09-2024
, 10:16 AM
05-09-2024
, 10:50 AM
05-09-2024
, 11:12 AM
05-09-2024
, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Mets the Jewish vote is 70-73% democrat (last 4 elections average, and historical average since 1916).
even if it shifts dramatically for the right (like with Reagan who plausibly got like 55% of Jewish votes), can you please tell me which states in this map where Jews are a meaningful % of voters would switch from Biden to Trump?
a very significant shift of the Jewish vote would be insignificant given where they are concentrated.
does that mean Biden isn't going to pay a price for this? ofc not.
why? because of money and influence. Jews will be able to move the needle in purple areas and purple states if they so choose against Biden, and antisemite candidates for Congress.
But please remind that the biggest Jewish democrat donors are anti-Israel Jews (like Soros)
even if it shifts dramatically for the right (like with Reagan who plausibly got like 55% of Jewish votes), can you please tell me which states in this map where Jews are a meaningful % of voters would switch from Biden to Trump?
a very significant shift of the Jewish vote would be insignificant given where they are concentrated.
does that mean Biden isn't going to pay a price for this? ofc not.
why? because of money and influence. Jews will be able to move the needle in purple areas and purple states if they so choose against Biden, and antisemite candidates for Congress.
But please remind that the biggest Jewish democrat donors are anti-Israel Jews (like Soros)
This is the biggest failure of the global community. 10/7 was an opportunity to reject the legitimacy of Hamas as a political entity which could've had existential effects.
Quote:
Listened to a real interesting Sam Harris podcast on the topic of urban warfare. And he brought in an expert of urban warfare, a gentleman who spent 25 years in the military including 2 tours in Iraq; and then transitioned into a civilian career teaching urban warfare at West Point. And as part of his research he has intensively studied every urban battle that has happened in the modern era and gone to pretty much every hotspot to study the craft, including multiple trips to Ukraine and Israel. Anyways, some interesting tidbits from the podcast.
First off, he wanted to stress that it is completely impossible to have any reasonable estimates on Palestinian casualties in real time. The Health Ministry numbers are just taken from thin air. He said after the Battle of Mosul, which featured similar types and number of casualties, a year later the Iraqi authorities still didn't have very reliable estimates. There is just no way to know, or even have any idea, in real time. That is not to say Hamas are purposefully over-exaggerating. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe they are grossly under exagerating. But every time they give us a number it should be stressed it is just an imaginary number.
Second, he wanted to dispel the notion that if Israel just bombs less, or uses smaller bombs, it will mean less Palestinian casualties. FWIW, this podcast was taped before the current issue with the US not providing bombs, so his statement wasn't in direct response to this, but just dispelling a general notion. As a counter example, he said the Battle of Manilla the US didn't drop any bombs because MacArthur didn't want to destroy the city or kill any American POWs, and the civilian death toll was still tremendously high.
In urban warfare the only way to minimize civilian casualties is to get the civilians away from the fighting. That is it. There is no other tactic you can employ that will move the needle much. And he says Israel is actually taking unprecedented steps in this regard. Between dropping leaflets, sending texts, emails, providing directions, etc. And he says it is actually working. Even if you take the most extreme guesstimates from Hamas of civilian casualties, it is still an extremely small number given the population density, the amount of urban land captured, and Hamas's own tactics.
The point is war is brutal, and urban combat in densely populated cities is especially brutal; and the only way to keep civilian casualties low is to not fight wars at all. But the notion Israel could bomb less, or use smaller bombs, and capture the same land with less civilian casualties, there is nothing to suggest this is true. If you want to argue Israel shouldn't invade and capture Gaza at all, then fine. But they idea they could more humanely meet their current military objectives is not realistic.
Third, he wanted to point out that what a lot of people dont realize is that this is the first time in modern warfare, where the short term goal of the enemy combatant, in this case Hamas, is to get their own civilian population killed. Other than their own survival, Hamas has no other objectives. They are not trying to hold land, they aren't trying to capture land, they aren't really even trying to sabotage Israel forces (eg through suicide bombing or cutting supply lines); they are just trying to get as much of their own population killed as possible to win the PR war.
He pointed out that even ISIS, which did little to keep their population out of harms way, had actual military objectives. They were actually trying to capture and hold land. Hamas has no objective to capture or hold any land. Their goals are purely political. For example, he pointed out that during the lull in the fighting during the earlier hostage exchanges, Hamas purposefully told refugees to go to areas where they anticipated Israel would attack next. Which is consistent with their actions the entire war, including their choice to not allow any civilians in any of their 400 miles of underground tunnels under any circumstance.
There is more, but that is enough for now. I have to go do something. Anyways, take of this what you will.
First off, he wanted to stress that it is completely impossible to have any reasonable estimates on Palestinian casualties in real time. The Health Ministry numbers are just taken from thin air. He said after the Battle of Mosul, which featured similar types and number of casualties, a year later the Iraqi authorities still didn't have very reliable estimates. There is just no way to know, or even have any idea, in real time. That is not to say Hamas are purposefully over-exaggerating. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Maybe they are grossly under exagerating. But every time they give us a number it should be stressed it is just an imaginary number.
Second, he wanted to dispel the notion that if Israel just bombs less, or uses smaller bombs, it will mean less Palestinian casualties. FWIW, this podcast was taped before the current issue with the US not providing bombs, so his statement wasn't in direct response to this, but just dispelling a general notion. As a counter example, he said the Battle of Manilla the US didn't drop any bombs because MacArthur didn't want to destroy the city or kill any American POWs, and the civilian death toll was still tremendously high.
In urban warfare the only way to minimize civilian casualties is to get the civilians away from the fighting. That is it. There is no other tactic you can employ that will move the needle much. And he says Israel is actually taking unprecedented steps in this regard. Between dropping leaflets, sending texts, emails, providing directions, etc. And he says it is actually working. Even if you take the most extreme guesstimates from Hamas of civilian casualties, it is still an extremely small number given the population density, the amount of urban land captured, and Hamas's own tactics.
The point is war is brutal, and urban combat in densely populated cities is especially brutal; and the only way to keep civilian casualties low is to not fight wars at all. But the notion Israel could bomb less, or use smaller bombs, and capture the same land with less civilian casualties, there is nothing to suggest this is true. If you want to argue Israel shouldn't invade and capture Gaza at all, then fine. But they idea they could more humanely meet their current military objectives is not realistic.
Third, he wanted to point out that what a lot of people dont realize is that this is the first time in modern warfare, where the short term goal of the enemy combatant, in this case Hamas, is to get their own civilian population killed. Other than their own survival, Hamas has no other objectives. They are not trying to hold land, they aren't trying to capture land, they aren't really even trying to sabotage Israel forces (eg through suicide bombing or cutting supply lines); they are just trying to get as much of their own population killed as possible to win the PR war.
He pointed out that even ISIS, which did little to keep their population out of harms way, had actual military objectives. They were actually trying to capture and hold land. Hamas has no objective to capture or hold any land. Their goals are purely political. For example, he pointed out that during the lull in the fighting during the earlier hostage exchanges, Hamas purposefully told refugees to go to areas where they anticipated Israel would attack next. Which is consistent with their actions the entire war, including their choice to not allow any civilians in any of their 400 miles of underground tunnels under any circumstance.
There is more, but that is enough for now. I have to go do something. Anyways, take of this what you will.
Quote:
If we want to talk about things not being accepted, here is the deal Hamas hasn't accepted that would INSTANTLY end the war and save their civilians. And the deal is out there.
1) Return the hostages (what's left of them)
2) Hamas leadership leaves Gaza. They go live their lives out in South Africa or Qatar etc.
3) Hamas can no longer rule Gaza
That's it. That's the end. The war is over.
So when we talk about whose responsibility it is to save lives right now, I ask YOU all that. Usually the side losing in the war surrenders. Where is the surrender? Those 3 points above is how everyone else surrenders in war, granted #2 is actually a better deal than most get after pulling off an Oct 7th. 5
1) Return the hostages (what's left of them)
2) Hamas leadership leaves Gaza. They go live their lives out in South Africa or Qatar etc.
3) Hamas can no longer rule Gaza
That's it. That's the end. The war is over.
So when we talk about whose responsibility it is to save lives right now, I ask YOU all that. Usually the side losing in the war surrenders. Where is the surrender? Those 3 points above is how everyone else surrenders in war, granted #2 is actually a better deal than most get after pulling off an Oct 7th. 5
05-09-2024
, 01:02 PM
05-09-2024
, 01:03 PM
05-09-2024
, 01:46 PM