naraburns nihil supernum
2yr ago
(text post)
31582 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
While I can imagine how Hamas was able to get multiple vehicles across the border to Israel, it baffles me that they could take hostages and somehow just drive back. When a sensitive border like that is penetrated, shouldn't there be a 3 alarm fire type of response?
Like, if I was a Hamas gunman, I wouldn't expect to be returning home. Perhaps there is a special strategy for the hostage takers? How are we characterizing the border breach, and for how long did it remain unsecured?
Some theories that I have read but cannot vouch for and might well be false:
Early on in the offensive, Hamas attacked some of the very Israeli units that would have been responsible for containing them, catching them by surprise and doing enough damage to render those units incapable of interfering.
Israeli units in the area were understaffed because of people being on leave for religious celebrations and possibly also recent domestic Israeli political disputes that were causing tensions between the army and the Netanyahu administration.
Some units that had previously been in southern Israel had been redeployed to the West Bank to support Jewish settlers there.
Put together, all this suggests that there simply weren't enough Israeli military forces around Gaza at the time and they were not prepared enough to be able to stop Hamas. And for some reason the Israelis did not manage to redeploy units from elsewhere as fast as many would have expected them to. As for why that would be the case, I don't know, but military affairs are full of clusterfucks. The Israelis have a very competent and professional military, but it is not the superhuman force that some people imagine them to be. The 2006 war in south Lebanon already showed as much.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
While I can imagine how Hamas was able to get multiple vehicles across the border to Israel, it baffles me that they could take hostages and somehow just drive back. When a sensitive border like that is penetrated, shouldn't there be a 3 alarm fire type of response?
Like, if I was a Hamas gunman, I wouldn't expect to be returning home. Perhaps there is a special strategy for the hostage takers? How are we characterizing the border breach, and for how long did it remain unsecured?
Some theories that I have read but cannot vouch for and might well be false:
Early on in the offensive, Hamas attacked some of the very Israeli units that would have been responsible for containing them, catching them by surprise and doing enough damage to render those units incapable of interfering.
Israeli units in the area were understaffed because of people being on leave for religious celebrations and possibly also recent domestic Israeli political disputes that were causing tensions between the army and the Netanyahu administration.
Some units that had previously been in southern Israel had been redeployed to the West Bank to support Jewish settlers there.
Put together, all this suggests that there simply weren't enough Israeli military forces around Gaza at the time and they were not prepared enough to be able to stop Hamas. And for some reason the Israelis did not manage to redeploy units from elsewhere as fast as many would have expected them to. As for why that would be the case, I don't know, but military affairs are full of clusterfucks. The Israelis have a very competent and professional military, but it is not the superhuman force that some people imagine them to be. The 2006 war in south Lebanon already showed as much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link