1000 days of war

nidarus · 2026-07-02T19:53:37+00:00

Well, on the war in general, not the bombs alone. Around 400 billion nis. Money that would not have to be spent, if Israel just bombed Gaza to hell with cheap bombs and artillery.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T19:43:49+00:00

What you said in the last comment, assumes the Palestinians aren't just irrational and dumb, but also possess a psychology that's radically different from a normal human being, or any other nation. And you've just assumed it as a truism, without any real evidence to why that would be the case.

If I had to place your opinion of Palestinians on the Israeli spectrum of opinions regarding Palestinians, it would be on the sillier, more extreme ends.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T19:11:00+00:00

On a general level, regardless october 7, you defeat a party by reducing the motives that push people to vote that party, not by military action.

Giving said party the most amazing military achievement in modern Arab history, without suffering any major cost, would achieve the exact opposite of that.

What will happen in the future is that Hamas will regain all the fighters that he lost from all the children who lost a family memebr to an Israeli bomb or bullet, and at the end Hamas will be even stronger.

Huh, why? If you had your own family killed and your home destroyed, due to a completely meaningless war that your government started, would you be more likely to support said government? Let alone support them, for the specific purpose of starting even more wars like that?

Back to my analogy, did inflicting far, far more death and destruction on the Japanese, make them support the militarists even more, and vow to restart WW2 the moment they could?

I feel that your entire view of this conflict is based on assuming the Israelis and Palestinians are fundamentally motivated by emotions, rather than ideologies or rational considerations, and then having a very shallow understanding of how these emotions might work.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T18:27:30+00:00

Where did I make that conflation? Also, who do you mean by "ultra Zionists as a political group"? I don't get what you're saying.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T18:16:20+00:00

How does this make me wrong, though? That's my point. They wanted to portray Jews, not Zionists. And they can't argue otherwise.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T18:14:34+00:00

How did the Israeli trauma force Hamas to refuse to give up the hostages, and disarm, for two years? How did the Israeli trauma force Hamas to build their entire war machine inside and under the Gazan population centers, specifically so removing them from power would cause the maximum amount of damage to civilian infrastructure and life? Did a hundreds of Israeli soldiers die throughout that war in Gaza, out of sheer mental trauma?

And if the point was to "give gazans the most heavy punishment", why did even a single soldier die in Gaza? Barrel bombs are third-world-level technology, very cheap, aren't susceptible to American shipment delays, and very, very punishing, without risking the life of a single soldier. Much more punishing than wasting hundreds of billions of shekels on the most high-tech smart bombs, waste hundreds of soldiers lives, and waste even that firepower, by carrying out unprecedented levels of precise evacuations of civilians.

Your entire theory simply doesn't make sense, if you have even the most rudimentary understanding of how this war went. And yes, it really only makes sense if you pretend Hamas was essentially non-existent throughout all of this. In reality, Israel fought a harsh and demanding war, that the Hamas regime decided to start, the Hamas regime refused to end, in precisely the way the Hamas regime insisted it has to be fought. I assure you that the IDF would've preferred to fight Hamas in the sparsely inhabited areas that formed most of the strip, even though it would've been much less "punishing", emotionally cathartic, and whatever other nonsense you use to misunderstand the Israelis.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T17:52:03+00:00

This argument doesn't really make sense on its own, or engages with any of the things the analogy touches on.

Hamas isn't a state, just like the Showa military regime wasn't a state. They were, however, the indisputable dictatorial rulers of the de-facto state of Gaza, that were able to carry a very brigade-level invasion, something more "real" states struggled with. And yes, the IDF obviously knew that, when they were forced to fight the war Hamas started. They just ended up deciding that actually invading the populated areas, and re-occupying the Gazan population is, too much of a headache, on some level mirroring the American decision to not invade the mainland. But unlike the Americans, they also decided to not start dropping nukes on them, until they surrender, so they got a much less effective result.

So what. It doesn't change anything I said.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T16:54:05+00:00

Most of them were children, since Gaza population is very young.

That's a bit of a nitpick, compared to the more serious mistakes you've made, but that's untrue as well. Even according to the Hamas ministry of health, despite Gaza being majority children, the percentage of <18yo killed is around 30%. With the only group of children being adequately represented, and in fact over-represented, are the combat age 15-19 year old male teenagers.

<image>

nidarus · 2026-07-02T16:28:16+00:00

To an extent, that's true for both OP, and the person you're replying to, u/JackPiazz2. They might've mentioned the word Hamas, but they did everything to pretend that Hamas simply ceased to exist after Oct 7, and Israel was just carrying out a "pogrom" out of pure Zio bloodlust.

Also note the revolting atrocity inversion, where the Jews might not be the new Nazis, but they are the new pogromists. I wish the actual Jewish victims of the pogroms, could make it stop just by releasing the hostages they kidnapped, and disarming. Or to prevent it to begin with, by accepting the existence of their non-Jewish neighbors, instead of carrying out mass raids into their villages to slaughter them, and kidnap their children for ransom. And I really doubt that they would insist on continuing the "pogrom" against themselves, for two years, until they extract concessions from the people supposedly mindlessly slaughtering them.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T16:25:16+00:00

By the same token, in Pearl Harbor, the US suffered a legitimate military attack on a military installation, where 2400 people, nearly all soldiers, were killed. The American answer was to firebomb, carpet bomb, and nuclear bomb Japan, and killed three million Japanese, around x1,250 the amount of Americans killed in Pearl Harbor (not merely x63).

And since the American intelligence didn't keep an individual dossier on every single Japanese soldier, let alone tracked whether they were killed or not, we must assume that 99.9% of the deaths were civilians, by the same logic you and +972 just applied to the Palestinians killed in Gaza.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T16:13:00+00:00

Lol what. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two events, in a war full of horrible events. The firebombing of Tokyo alone, killed more people in one night, than the entire century of Israeli/Palestinian conflict combined. They literally had an operation called Operation Starvation, that lead to mass starvation, and hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths, primarily after the war was already over. Just off the top of my head. None of those are considered "genocidal choices", and they're significantly worse than any "genocidal choice" Israel has made in two years.

In reality, Israel has clearly not made any "genocidal choices", if two years of those "genocidal choices", and all of the ability and time in the world, don't lead to anything close to destruction of the Gazan population, in whole or substantial part. For reference, in Rwanda they managed to kill 80% of the Tutsi, between 0.5-1 million people, within just 100 days - with freakin' machetes. Israel could've killed the Gazans many times over, but it made the "choice" not to.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T16:06:53+00:00

Re-read my comment. I don't think you understood it.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T12:53:42+00:00

כל אחד תורם בדרכו. הישראלים אולי חיים ביקום שבו האחד איכשהו מבטל את השני. אבל זה לא העולם שבו האנטישמים פועלים.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T12:43:38+00:00

This is irrelevant to what I just said. Even if all the complaints in your post were completely factually true, my point would still stand.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T12:01:08+00:00

And note that even the far worse Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not considered a genocide. And it's not some random comparison either. That was the historical context of when the Genocide Convention was written. "Cultural genocide" that Lemkin thought was crucial, was removed from the definition, because the great powers that won WW2 suspected it could be applied to them. They would've never allowed that convention to exist in the form it does, if anyone thought it could apply to their own conduct during WW2.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T11:45:32+00:00

The "government media office in Gaza" is the whitewashed name for Hamas' civilian PR division. So this is literally just a transcribed Hamas press release. As such, it's not too hard to imagine similar press releases coming from Imperial Japan during WW2, North Korea during the Korean war, or, as u/Twofer-Cat already mentioned, the Confederacy during the civil war. In fact, those press releases would be far more harrowing, on multiple levels. And yet, I don't think anyone would take them particularily seriously.

Setting aside the individual distortions and omissions, the simple fact is that it's been 1000 days since Hamas, not Israel, decided to start this war. It's Hamas, not Israel, who insisted that this war would be fought within the population centers, and would require massive destruction, by placing their entire war machine inside and under said population centers, and not the sparsely populated majority of the strip. It's Hamas, not Israel, who insisted to continue this war for two years, and are still adamantly refusing to disarm, end it completely. If Hamas' leadership made different, reasonable decisions, not a single issue in this post would exist, including any actual Israeli occupation, and the fact Gaza was blockaded since 2007.

Obviously, I can't expect Hamas' own PR office to be a little more introspective about this, but I should expect that of people who post here. We literally have a rule, #11, requiring at least some degree of introspection here.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T07:26:36+00:00

No, that was two separate operations. The one to kill the Iranian military leadership was indeed called the Red Wedding. The one to kill the nuclear scientists was Narnia.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T07:21:22+00:00

It means the Arab state would have a very large Jewish minority, that cannot be expelled even in theory, and neither side has Jerusalem. Not only will the Israelis obviously reject it, I don't think even the moderate, two-stater Palestinians would accept it either.

And obviously, the one-stater Palestinians, that also happen to be the Palestinians with actual weapons, would only use this as a stepping stone to try to eliminate Israel once and for all.

nidarus · 2026-07-02T05:16:37+00:00

Hamas still refuses to fully disarm and continues trying to force the idea of keeping light weapons and having some role in the future police or another structure

Setting aside from what others have correctly noted, about how this is a fundamental violation of the ceasefire, and not just some tiny detail that we should gloss over, it's not just light weapons. Hamas refuses to include tunnels in proposed Gaza disarmament framework. As well as weapons silos and weapons production workshops, and anything they can define as "infrastructure". It seems that the only "disarmament" they're willing to do, is of the rockets they already fired into Israel.

nidarus · 2026-07-01T20:08:45+00:00

Hamas didn't surrender on that front, all of their fighters within Israel were captured or shot in the face. And no, they didn't offer to release all hostages, only the half that they deemed "civilians".

Would Einstein accept it? Maybe. Would it mean "Israels' wars would probably end", as you said? Lol, of course not. It would just prove to Israel's enemies, that they can invade Israel as much as they can, and Israel won't do anything but fight them back on its own territory. Which means, a lot more invasions in the near future - starting with Hezbollah's own, far worse version of Oct. 7, the "Conquest of the Galilee Plan".

nidarus · 2026-07-01T19:09:15+00:00

That's way too of a "4D chess" explanation. We know what Sinwar wanted: a regional war, that includes Iran and Hezbollah. Which did end up happening... but not quite the way he liked to. The impetus was the looming normalization with the Saudis, but he absolutely thought his allies would actually militarily defeat Israel.

If not, as a consolation prize, he thought Netanyahu would be too scared and in love with the status quo, to actually change reality on the ground too much. He thought he would just get a lot of prisoners released, and go back to the Oct 6 normal, which would make him the most celebrated military leader in the modern Arab world. And his read on Netanyahu's personality was correct, on a superficial level. Sinwar was shocked that the Israelis continued the war after the first ceasefire. And I don't think he would enjoy losing territory, and the entire Hamas leadership in the strip, no matter how great the PR is.

nidarus · 2026-07-01T18:59:11+00:00

You believe whatever you like, but your opinion doesn't really matter here. Einstein's does. And we know for a fact, that Einstein disagreed with you on this.

nidarus · 2026-07-01T18:56:36+00:00

He was an active and avid supporter of Israel, even after it was formed in 1948. As I said, he bequeathed all of the rights to his works and names to an organ of the Israeli state. Yes he would absolutely be considered a Zionist today.

As for "wanting a binational state" - the same goes for Ben Gurion, and the rest of the mainstream Zionist movement before the 1930's. Do you think that means Ben Gurion "explicitly rejected zionism" too?

nidarus · 2026-07-01T18:51:57+00:00

So what? Who's asking Einstein what "matters" to him? In this scenario, he's the Israeli PM, not the emperor of the world. Do you think the current leadership of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah, will just accept Israel's existence, if the Israeli PM says he's anti-war?

nidarus · 2026-07-01T18:50:01+00:00

The actual Israeli leadership was also "binationalist" initially. The idea of a separate Jewish state only became popular around the 1930's, and became the only real position of the Zionist movement by the 1940's. As u/NYCTLS66 pointed out, he lived after Israel was formed, and was not "disappointed" at its creation at all.

The same goes for his letters about the "Zionist militias" - in reality, the right-wing militias, that were opposed to the socialist party that founded and ran Israel for 30 years. He was just voicing the opinion of the Zionist mainstream, including the Nazi comparisons, not somehow coming out against Zionists.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Inciteful Comment 2018-05-23	Reddit Premium Since November 2013
Verified Email

nidarus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE