Israel, Hamas, etc

[Sojourner]

Joe Biden turning out to be a real piece of work.

He's offering Israel information on the location on Hamas leadership in Gaza, on the condition that Israeli troops leave Rafah.

This means that he has information on terrorist leadership that he's withholding from Israel, a US ally.

Imagine if in early 2002, the Mossad had information on the location of Osama Bin Laden. And they withheld that information from the US government, pending political considerations. The public would be aghast, and rightly so. But because it's Joe Biden, nobody cares.

Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.

[RabbiKnife]

Two responses.

From the (P)resident:  can I get some more ice cream? 

From the vice (P)resident:  how can I use this to get more Hamas supporter anti Israel votes?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.

I don't know that your assertion is true, or if it will or has continued to be true throughout the evolution of this war...but regardless I have some ideas. Perhaps many American Jews consider themselves American and feel about Israel the same way that I feel about Cuba or some non specific location in Africa; that is to say I wish them all the best, but I am an American not a Cuban or African.

On a more sinister note, the Republican party, and conservative population more generally are perceived by some to have an antisemitism problem. To some folks it can appear that there is a population within the party that is zealously pro Israel for reasons that are perhaps...eschatological in nature. Some people find that disturbing and it sort of rings hollow to some people. Finally, to some folks it may appear that while on the one hand some segment of the republican population is very pro Israel, they are bedfellows with other republicans that are vociferously anti-Semitic. It can, to some folks, give the appearance that when it comes down to it that matters of politics supersede the prerogative to eliminate the antisemitism within their own party; And they therefore are implicitly supporting antisemitism while explicitly condemning it. I mean that could be how some people see it.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".

Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.

[tango]

It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".

Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.

Supporting an ally in a fight against a terrorist opponent is a different proposition to giving lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist you're allegedly opposed to.

But then after the stunning achievement of spending 20 years and trillions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban it's hardly surprising we seem unable to get it right elsewhere.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It is curious to see what response the US offers to a terror group executing US citizens. One might hope for a response more forceful than "oh dear, never mind, here's a few billion dollars worth of free stuff".

Do you mean that the admin might offer money to Hamas or to Israel or just generally throw money at both? I'm curious to see how this shakes out too.

Supporting an ally in a fight against a terrorist opponent is a different proposition to giving lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist you're allegedly opposed to.

But then after the stunning achievement of spending 20 years and trillions of dollars to replace the Taliban with the Taliban it's hardly surprising we seem unable to get it right elsewhere.

I mean, yeah those things are quite different...that is why I asked for clarification. Thought I also think that there are also meaningful distinctions between directly handing Hamas money in the  "oh here is some free stuff" kind of way, and providing humanitarian aid that also ends up inadvertently providing them with material resources or benefit. It is imo one of the most vexing things about effectively combating terrorism.

At the risk of doing a thing that people dislike, I'm going to use a pop culture analogy. There was a cartoon when I was a kid called Gargoyles. Anyway the main villain was called Xanatos, and he was like a super genius. His plans were often set up as such that he had multiple ways to come out with an advantage or benefit, so even if you 'beat" him, he still benefitted in some way. All of that to say, if aid is provided, there aren't that many realistic ways to completely eliminate aid inadvertently providing the terrorists with some benefit. That isn't to say we should throw our hands up and not take any reasonable steps to prevent it, I'm just pointing out that its a problem that is easy to criticize, but much less easy to actually address.

I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos. Its sort of like limiting a kid's screen time or something similar, while you have an actual job and responsibilities, their whole summer revolves around figuring out how to circumvent whatever solution you put in place to keep them off the iPad while you are at work.

On the other hand, not providing aid, or not providing 'enough' aid works in their favor as a recruitment/radicalization tool; as if to say "look at the suffering they cause with their bombs and armaments and they spit in your face by offering nothing or practically nothing to feed your children" or whatever. that is an oversimplification, but I hope you get my point. It is the asymmetrical advantage that 'they' have as a counter to the overwhelming advantages that 'we' have.

So all of that previous stuff was just me trying to express my opinion that its a hard problem, and you are free to think differently on the matter of course. More directly though, I want to push back on the idea that we are or plan to "[give] lots of humanitarian aid with no checks and balances to make sure it isn't funding the terrorist". While you are free to assert that the checks and balances are insufficient to prevent any and all aid from benefitting Hamas (they are), it is simply not true that there are no mitigation measures employed (there are). I am fully open to you providing some specific examples of aid that was provided with no mitigation strategies whatsoever put in place so that we can discuss the in detail. The best example that I can think of were the food airdrops, which were widely criticized by aid organizations, not so because they helped the terrorists, but because they didn't really help anyone in any significant way. Either way that is what I see as the best fit for your criticism and it doesn't remotely meet the criteria of a "few billion dollars worth of free stuff".

[tango]

You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.

It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.

If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.

Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.

[Oscar_Kipling]

You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.

It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.

I do not know how bad things were in the 80's or how pervasive the issues were, but I think that what is more important is whether or not it would be accurate to use the failures that occurred in the 80's as a critique of current implementations. It only works if the same conditions for those failures exist in current scenarios and if the same mitigation strategies, tactics and mechanisms are currently being employed (or not employed). I cannot say that is the case, but perhaps you believe that this is the case. If that is your position I would only ask that you provide your reasoning, or ideally some sort of mechanism for me to asses your statements more thoroughly.

If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.

I mean, of course that is the question, but it seemed to me that you were asserting that billions of $$$ in aid were being supplied to Hamas more or less directly because there were no checks and balances in place. What is the basis of that assertion?

I do think it is interesting to consider whether or not Hamas feels any responsibility for basic needs of their human shields, and if they expend any resources on supplying those needs, and if they are even remotely equipped to meet them. I do not have a lot of solid personal research to found my opinion on, but i'd speculate that the answer is more or less 'no' to all of those things.

I can't say that I agree that the humanitarian aid in the scenario you've described is akin to shipping guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas. It is like sending or at least maintaining bodies, bodies, bodies. I can give you that some of those bodies will use guns and bombs and such. Alot of them will just be there muddying the political and literal battlefield for the side that at least makes some token and some real attempts to avoid massacring non-combatants.

I think that there lies the rub, Of course providing no aid whatsoever has its set of advantages, but in any realistic evaluation you then must admit that it also has its disadvantages. Personally, I tend to think that if humanitarian aid during an armed conflict was easy to choose and easy to do then everyone would do it. It is in every way above and beyond, and it has its costs, not just the 'I had to get up early' kind, but real difficult existential costs. I thought that at the heart of it, this is why we hold ourselves as exceptional for choosing to do so.

Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.

I mean, I'm not mad at anybody who is pissed that an airdrop crushed their cow or god forbit their wife. Air drops have their place, but like anything else, it's not always the right tool for the job. I think they are oft overused because the public likes that image of a bunch of sad dusty people dancing like dervishes upon seeing those boxes drop down from the sky. They are also one of the easier things to pull off, especially with modern logistics and tech. all I'm saying is that complaining that you can't win with it is a bit like complaining that people are mad at you because the only cutting tool you ever use is a jigsaw....its great for plywood, but it was a hell of a way to ruin the cake at my 6th birthday party.

[Fenris]

Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.

Most American Jews are secular (although that is changing via demographics). Secular Jews tend to me more socially liberal and also, lacking a religious mission, seem to pick up the political one of liberalism.

Religious Jews are much more Republican in value and voting.

[Fenris]

On a more sinister note, the Republican party, and conservative population more generally are perceived by some to have an antisemitism problem.

So, a few things.

Firstly, religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable via clothing and looks are far more likely to be the targets of antisemitic behavior. Yet they vote Republican. So they don't see this antisemitism problem on the right.

Secondly, in America today it's the left that has unashamed blatant antisemitism. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, the "Pro Palestinian" (anti-Israel) contingent on college campuses, etc. The White House has been far harder on our Israel than on the terrorist group Hamas and their Iranian sponsors.

I think the secular, liberal Jews, who can't get over their preoccupation with antisemitism on the right are going to be in for a rude awakening.

[Fenris]

I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos.

This assumes that it's America's problem to fix. Why not let the IDF just have at it?

The only real, permanent fix, is regime change in Iran.

[Sojourner]

Given the general lack of support for Israel and pro-Palestinian sentiment demonstrated by the Democrats, why is it most American Jews favor that party over the Republicans? I don't get it.

Most American Jews are secular (although that is changing via demographics). Secular Jews tend to me more socially liberal and also, lacking a religious mission, seem to pick up the political one of liberalism.

Religious Jews are much more Republican in value and voting.

That makes sense. It's just too bad so many don't realize their on the wrong side.

[Oscar_Kipling]

So, a few things.

Firstly, religiously observant Jews who are easily identifiable via clothing and looks are far more likely to be the targets of antisemitic behavior. Yet they vote Republican. So they don't see this antisemitism problem on the right.

O, I don't really know any religiously observant Jews, or really non observant Jews...or really any other kinds of people either. I don't doubt that you are correct that religiously observant Jews tend to be Republican, religiously observant Christians tend that way as well in my expirience. Anyway, I don't know that them not seeing the antisemitism or at least reacting as if they do not see it is a particularly good metric for concluding that there isn't any (or isn't much, or whatever threshold we're talking about). It's sort of like how lots f conservatives will argue that the democratic party is racist toward black folks, but arguably a majority of black people would disagree...well to some degree, if they are anything like me they think that America is chock-a-block with all manner of racisms that don't confine themselves to donkeys or elephants. Anyway, I don't think it would make sense to say that the democratic party, or the left doesn't have a racism problem because all the blacks are over there being black and stuff...you know? Likewise, I don't think its a good argument for the Jews either. Its also pretty gross when either or any side hold up their tokens like "Hey look we have some too, except ours are actually the good ones". I'm not accusing you of tokenizing your own people of course, I'm just saying it's the kind of racist sleight of hand that I've found myself buying into; and I probably will again in the future if I'm honest, because it is so very ingrained in me, because it is ingrained in American culture...maybe even humanity....idk

Secondly, in America today it's the left that has unashamed blatant antisemitism. AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashid Tlaib, the "Pro Palestinian" (anti-Israel) contingent on college campuses, etc. The White House has been far harder on our Israel than on the terrorist group Hamas and their Iranian sponsors.

I might not disagree with you on every point here if we were to get specific, but past discussions have me reticent to accept that we would assess every case in the same way. For instance I'm harder on Israel than I am on Hamas in the sense that I have actual expectations of Israel, where I do not expect to find enough compatible values with Hamas for such expectations to be particularly meaningful to discuss usually. I have found that you don't take too kindly to that attitude.

I think the secular, liberal Jews, who can't get over their preoccupation with antisemitism on the right are going to be in for a rude awakening.

Ha, yeah again we probably agree on this conclusion, but the walk we take to get there is quite different. There are lots of people lying to themselves about racism or if I'm being generous they are deluding themselves or if I'm being overly generous they have been convinced of a definition of racism that allows them to think themselves precluded. I have no expectation of a reckoning of self reflection though, because at the end of the day racism is too attractive and useful of short circuit to the kinds of conclusions that people want to draw for one reason or another. Sadly the Jews are like the duct tape of racism, who's at the heart of this weird far-right conspiracy? But also Who's pulling the strings of this far left conspiracy? Like how is it possible that diametrically opposed ideologies could all lead back to the Jews? Well, I mean I guess you guys could actually be behind everything...or there are supernatural forces at play...or like other racisms, Jews are a way to not address the real problem, the thing that is the hardest...being a better person.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I'm also not saying that Hamas is full of super geniuses either, its just that figuring out how to exploit or create these opportunities in these areas is kind of the whole terrorist /guerilla ethos.

This assumes that it's America's problem to fix. Why not let the IDF just have at it?

The only real, permanent fix, is regime change in Iran.

You know, its funny, a few days before the hostages were murdered, I came back to this site to read back over some of our threads (and others). I was searching for something that I had been thinking about for the last month or 2, but I had been avoiding it as it didn't seem like putting in a bunch of time re-reading  threads would net me anything beneficial.


Okay, I say that to say, I think that this is a much more honest assertion about what would be a 'permanent fix' than wiping Hamas from Israel ever was. Of course I do think that even this fails to acknowledge that the problems are actually broader even than Iran, but at least it acknowledges that anything short of this is just mowing the lawn at best.

But, okay regime change in Iran, how does that happen, what is the character of the regime they're changing to, and what effect do you expect that to have permanently? I'm not asking you for a detailed analysis or anything, neither of us are experts here, I'm speaking very broad strokes here, I just want an idea of what you think would broadly go down in the best case scenario...what does that all look like.

[tango]

You make some interesting, and arguably valid points here.

It is tricky to help the civilians without helping the terrorists. Historically it seems when western nations offer help intended for civilians it ends up in the hands of people for whom it was not intended - whether it be Hamas taking the humanitarian aid now or the African governments in the 1980s demanding import duties on humanitarian aid for their people. It suggests that western governments aren't very good at targeting aid at all, which maybe might be an early point to be addressed before sending ever-more of it out there.

I do not know how bad things were in the 80's or how pervasive the issues were, but I think that what is more important is whether or not it would be accurate to use the failures that occurred in the 80's as a critique of current implementations. It only works if the same conditions for those failures exist in current scenarios and if the same mitigation strategies, tactics and mechanisms are currently being employed (or not employed). I cannot say that is the case, but perhaps you believe that this is the case. If that is your position I would only ask that you provide your reasoning, or ideally some sort of mechanism for me to asses your statements more thoroughly.

Having worked with a couple of government departments over the years the levels of waste are terrifying. During my school days my school did very well out of a government laboratory that had a tendency to throw away scientific equipment that was apparently perfectly serviceable but they bought too much. It was a matter of fortune that one of the staff in the lab had connections to the school or it would have literally gone in the trash. One might wonder why they bought so much more than they needed, or why they couldn't keep things that were expendable (glassware etc) but apparently that's not how it worked. It had to be thrown away.

Later on I worked for a company providing contract services to a government department and the amount of money we soaked up from them because they had to spend it on something, anything, was remarkable. For good measure we'd soak up a load of money they apparently had to spend in a hurry to do a pilot study, then once the pilot was done we had a basis for doing further work that cost them more.

It's entirely possible that there are checks and balances now that didn't exist then. But given the common theme is government I highly doubt it, and given how much extra the government spends now compared to then I find it hard to believe that they suddenly learned to do things efficiently. It's easy to spend someone else's money.

If humanitarian aid helped the civilians and provided a very modest side benefit to a few of the terrorists that might be considered acceptable. I guess it would be the reverse of collateral damage in a way. The question is how much of it goes to civilians, and how much of what goes to civilians ends up offering as much benefit to Hamas as it does to the civilians. If the people need provisions and ordinarily Hamas would be responsible to supply them, us supplying them saves Hamas from doing so, freeing up more money for them to spend on weapons. So the humanitarian aid we send in might as well be a bunch of guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas.

I mean, of course that is the question, but it seemed to me that you were asserting that billions of $$$ in aid were being supplied to Hamas more or less directly because there were no checks and balances in place. What is the basis of that assertion?

I do think it is interesting to consider whether or not Hamas feels any responsibility for basic needs of their human shields, and if they expend any resources on supplying those needs, and if they are even remotely equipped to meet them. I do not have a lot of solid personal research to found my opinion on, but i'd speculate that the answer is more or less 'no' to all of those things.

Not so much an assertion that money was handed directly to Hamas although given the general lack of checks and balances I've experienced from what I've seen of government spending it wouldn't surprise me at all if our end of the arrangement is little more complex than "give lots of money" and the other end of the arrangement was that a non-trivial portion of that money ended up misused. Which leads on to....

I can't say that I agree that the humanitarian aid in the scenario you've described is akin to shipping guns and rockets shipped directly to Hamas. It is like sending or at least maintaining bodies, bodies, bodies. I can give you that some of those bodies will use guns and bombs and such. Alot of them will just be there muddying the political and literal battlefield for the side that at least makes some token and some real attempts to avoid massacring non-combatants.

If you have a notional government that has the usual governmental responsibilities for looking after the people, any money given to them to help look after the people frees up other money to buy guns. It's a somewhat crude analogy but if you think of the rather stereotyped welfare leech (the kind who can't afford food for their kids but can afford cigarettes and alcohol), giving them money so they can feed their kids is great in theory - nobody wants to see innocent children starve - but it doesn't help much if that money ends up being spent on more cigarettes and more alcohol. You can mix-and-match any financially irresponsible person - I've known people who couldn't afford to fix their roof but could afford to buy a brand new car, people who couldn't afford $100 to learn a new skill but could go through a $50 case of beer literally every week, people who couldn't afford to settle their outstanding bills but could afford endless junk food and so on.

I think that there lies the rub, Of course providing no aid whatsoever has its set of advantages, but in any realistic evaluation you then must admit that it also has its disadvantages. Personally, I tend to think that if humanitarian aid during an armed conflict was easy to choose and easy to do then everyone would do it. It is in every way above and beyond, and it has its costs, not just the 'I had to get up early' kind, but real difficult existential costs. I thought that at the heart of it, this is why we hold ourselves as exceptional for choosing to do so.

There are advantages and disadvantages to most situations. It's just that some disadvantages involve making it easier for enemies to shoot at allies.

Air drops are the kind of thing that create all sorts of problems. I forget which African nation it was that received airdropped aid during my teenage years, but it seemed whatever was done caused complaints. If it was dropped in populated areas the people complained that it was landing on stuff and damaging it. If it was dropped away from populated areas they complained they couldn't get to it before other people took it all. Sometimes you can't win even when you are handing out free stuff.

I mean, I'm not mad at anybody who is pissed that an airdrop crushed their cow or god forbit their wife. Air drops have their place, but like anything else, it's not always the right tool for the job. I think they are oft overused because the public likes that image of a bunch of sad dusty people dancing like dervishes upon seeing those boxes drop down from the sky. They are also one of the easier things to pull off, especially with modern logistics and tech. all I'm saying is that complaining that you can't win with it is a bit like complaining that people are mad at you because the only cutting tool you ever use is a jigsaw....its great for plywood, but it was a hell of a way to ruin the cake at my 6th birthday party.

[/quote]

... which leads into another issue, when trying to get aid into politically unstable areas. If you airdrop it you can drop it more or less where it's needed, but then people complain that either it lands too near and causes harm, or lands too far and they can't get to it. If you take it in some other way (trucks, trains etc) it's vulnerable to being raided by local warlords or even the national armed forces if they are short on supplies. Which goes right back to the issue of whether there's any point sending food for the people if it's going to end up feeding the warring factions so the battle can go on longer and cause more humanitarian suffering.