An Israeli soldier takes up a position in front of a battery of an Iron Dome air defence system near Jerusalem on April 15, 2024. Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images
In the shorter term this analysis provides sensible coverage of the depressing options. In the longer term, however, it is surely a mistake to consider only Iran's underlying position as propelling the violence? What Israel does is part of any calculation.
Iran, and its allies, clients, friends (and Arab opponents) are also reacting to Israeli governments who have no interest in compromise or negotiations, who are determined to grab as much land as possible and to react to any challenge with violence and threats of violence . There is no reason to think the Israeli population will stop electing such governments. That is, until such time as it becomes apparent that they are no longer able to rely in blank check support from European governments and more particularly from the US government.
Very little good has come out of the last year's conflict, but the one positive aspect is that Israel has thrown away any claim it had to moral superiority and much of the residual goodwill the country basked in. No European government will be likely in the future to offer Israel uncondiitional support; and in the US even so obstinate and dyed in the wool supporter as Joe Biden is having to reconsider.
There is an interesting detail on Japan’s war preparations in Daniel Yergin’s The Prize.
Apparently, Japan was wholly dependent upon US imports for high octane fuel for its fighters.
The US imposed an export embargo on the relevant grades in 1939 or early 1940, which led to shortages for Japan's armed forces in Manchuria.
In order to secure supplies, Japan knew it would have to occupy the Dutch East Indies' refineries. Which would inevitably lead to war with Great Britain, and probably the US.
Yergin seemed to think the US was fully aware of Japan's likely thinking back in '38 or '39. IIRC.
Great point. The US wAS certainly hedging for the likelihood of war with Japan, although clearly they couldn’t have conceived of how they'd eventually enter into the war that they did.
There is a modern parallel with the US embargo on the most highly advanced semiconductor chips being denied to the PRC, with an eye on the possibility of a future war.
“Having concluded that Hamas cannot be either appeased or deterred, from the Israeli perspective the only option left was its elimination. But it also can’t be eliminated.” Spot on.
The trouble is that 80% of the Gazans support Hamas, and Hamas' goal, in its charter, is to eliminate Israel - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn-L3J_j00M. And Hamas is a Wahhabi Muslim organization, which means that "peace negotiations" and "treaties" are just another weapon of war, in the service of reaching their final goal. So this means that Gaza must be depopulated, its current population driven out, and any structure remaining which could serve as cover, destroyed and levelled - just as in Biblical times. The only peace possible is "Hamas/Gaza delenda est". And Israel has possessed nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them since the 1960s - https://www.nti.org/countries/israel/. Naturally, the UN, which arms Hamas, has called repeatedly for Israel to get rid of its nukes, but the UN is hardly a neutral player in this, and hasn't been for 50 years.
No proof. As the UN is a major employer in Gaza and support for Hamas is widespread in Gaza, it is likely that UN staff participated in the attack on Israel in October — but accusations by Israeli intelligence against members of UN staff for participating in Hamas attacks are no proof of guilt on the part of the UN as an organization, and no proof that the UN or UN personnel have supplied weapons to Hamas.
You wouldn't believe any sort of proof, even if stuck in your face. I've never seen people on the internet look at any sort of proof - it's like the "conservatives" who say that Ukraine is losing catastrophically but refuse to look at a map even if I literally shove it in their faces...
The Reuters article contains a single mention of the word "weapons": “.. an UNRWA social worker, is accused of .. weapons supplies.” Is that sentence your basis for accusing the entire UN organization?
An interesting, if very depressing analysis. Given the positions of all the protagonists, it seems inevitable that this will turn into a forever war, with brief pauses while they regroup for the next round.
In the shorter term this analysis provides sensible coverage of the depressing options. In the longer term, however, it is surely a mistake to consider only Iran's underlying position as propelling the violence? What Israel does is part of any calculation.
Iran, and its allies, clients, friends (and Arab opponents) are also reacting to Israeli governments who have no interest in compromise or negotiations, who are determined to grab as much land as possible and to react to any challenge with violence and threats of violence . There is no reason to think the Israeli population will stop electing such governments. That is, until such time as it becomes apparent that they are no longer able to rely in blank check support from European governments and more particularly from the US government.
Very little good has come out of the last year's conflict, but the one positive aspect is that Israel has thrown away any claim it had to moral superiority and much of the residual goodwill the country basked in. No European government will be likely in the future to offer Israel uncondiitional support; and in the US even so obstinate and dyed in the wool supporter as Joe Biden is having to reconsider.
There is an interesting detail on Japan’s war preparations in Daniel Yergin’s The Prize.
Apparently, Japan was wholly dependent upon US imports for high octane fuel for its fighters.
The US imposed an export embargo on the relevant grades in 1939 or early 1940, which led to shortages for Japan's armed forces in Manchuria.
In order to secure supplies, Japan knew it would have to occupy the Dutch East Indies' refineries. Which would inevitably lead to war with Great Britain, and probably the US.
Yergin seemed to think the US was fully aware of Japan's likely thinking back in '38 or '39. IIRC.
Great point. The US wAS certainly hedging for the likelihood of war with Japan, although clearly they couldn’t have conceived of how they'd eventually enter into the war that they did.
There is a modern parallel with the US embargo on the most highly advanced semiconductor chips being denied to the PRC, with an eye on the possibility of a future war.
“Having concluded that Hamas cannot be either appeased or deterred, from the Israeli perspective the only option left was its elimination. But it also can’t be eliminated.” Spot on.
NB: Typo “the role of the role of the”
The trouble is that 80% of the Gazans support Hamas, and Hamas' goal, in its charter, is to eliminate Israel - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn-L3J_j00M. And Hamas is a Wahhabi Muslim organization, which means that "peace negotiations" and "treaties" are just another weapon of war, in the service of reaching their final goal. So this means that Gaza must be depopulated, its current population driven out, and any structure remaining which could serve as cover, destroyed and levelled - just as in Biblical times. The only peace possible is "Hamas/Gaza delenda est". And Israel has possessed nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them since the 1960s - https://www.nti.org/countries/israel/. Naturally, the UN, which arms Hamas, has called repeatedly for Israel to get rid of its nukes, but the UN is hardly a neutral player in this, and hasn't been for 50 years.
“the UN, which arms Hamas” — any proof of that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-intelligence-accuses-190-gaza-un-staff-hamas-islamic-jihad-roles-2024-01-29/
No proof. As the UN is a major employer in Gaza and support for Hamas is widespread in Gaza, it is likely that UN staff participated in the attack on Israel in October — but accusations by Israeli intelligence against members of UN staff for participating in Hamas attacks are no proof of guilt on the part of the UN as an organization, and no proof that the UN or UN personnel have supplied weapons to Hamas.
You wouldn't believe any sort of proof, even if stuck in your face. I've never seen people on the internet look at any sort of proof - it's like the "conservatives" who say that Ukraine is losing catastrophically but refuse to look at a map even if I literally shove it in their faces...
The Reuters article contains a single mention of the word "weapons": “.. an UNRWA social worker, is accused of .. weapons supplies.” Is that sentence your basis for accusing the entire UN organization?
An interesting, if very depressing analysis. Given the positions of all the protagonists, it seems inevitable that this will turn into a forever war, with brief pauses while they regroup for the next round.
Keep your hair on Ronald