[News] Middle East conflict

[Wardy's twin]

Actually it also leaves the question ‘will the Netanyahu Government’ and the answer is clearly not - the one state solution is not just the monopoly of Palestinian Islamic extremists but also the Religious Zionists holding power over Natanyhau’s government and has been since the 1990s -

Trump’s Peace Plan with Bibi didn’t even include a 2 state solution, in fact in negotiations the Netanyahu Government (along with our now current Israeli Ambassador) Netanyahu made 30% annexation of the West Bank a condition of accepting the plan.


… And Netanyahu’s extreme Right Wing Religious extremists want Palestinian hopes of an independent State destroyed and for there to be a Greater Israel that annexes the rest of the OPT.

So there you have it - neither will achieve their aims and both are a stumbling block to peace.

The Western world is too committed in its reliance on ME oil to risk alienating all the Gulf States - at some point Israel will be pulled back by a resolution in the UN Security Council imo. Iran, Syria and Lebanon on the other hand, have shown no inclination of wanting to get into a full blown war with Israel/US/Britain - Syria is battle torn from a civil war and massive earthquake, Lebanon is broke and Iran doesnt want direct confrontation with the US. We are more likely therefore I think, rather than a war between states, we could see continued ‘contained’ clashes between Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen and Israeli/ US forces in the region which could drag on for months.

I am making the assumption that Netanyahu will be gone and Israel will turn its back on him and the Zionists , maybe I am being too optimistic. Biden will need to put pressure on Israel as they need to regain the moral ground but first they will want to get enough damage done to Hamas. totally agree that the religious fanatics in Israel are a major part of the problem.

I said it in a much earlier post, this is the time for an Israeli politician (with a big kick from Biden) to say enough is enough and try to go towards peace but not sure if there is anyone strong enough or brave enough given they risk assassination if they do that. Certainly they won't do that at the moment when the call for war is strong even among the moderates.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I think you can be pretty sure that a doctor in a bomb damaged hospital with a stethoscope round his neck trying to save the life of a 5 year old child who is bleeding to death isn’t going to be shooting at anyone soon - and Hamas are not going to be fighting rockets and bombs that are killing literally 1000s of civilians with suicide vests. Having said that urban warfare is the most dangerous there is, especially in bombed out cities which also has a miles subterranean tunnels.

Well put - but we need to remember that stereotyping applies to Palestinians too - not all or even most Palestinians are involved in paramilitary resistance - and for many reasons I’ve stated before, not every Palestinian is ‘associated’ with Hamas through choice.

That’s the Golden Buzzer question and one nobody knows the answer to - much will depend on what’s left of Gaza and whether there are still Palestinians living in Gaza (or they have been moved to refugee camps around the ME) - in the interim - we are probably looking at a UN/Arab League administration partnership for the OPT - Israel can not continue to remain in military occupation after the war is over-she will have to pull out very quickly - the Arab world would have a conniption otherwise as that would look suspiciously like ethnic cleansing followed by illegal annexation.

Surely not - Israel had every right to go after Hamas - she was attacked on her own soil - the issues is to what degree is the response proportionate and to what degree are civilian casualties being avoided - I’d say a big big fail on both those points.

Surely not - Israel had every right to go after Hamas - she was attacked on her own soil - the issues is to what degree is the response proportionate and to what degree are civilian casualties being avoided - I’d say a big big fail on both those points.

They had every right to attack but on the world's political stage restraint was a better option and might of helped getting the hostages back alive. When you attack how do you separate out those who don't want to be there as opposed to those civilians who are prepared to fight i.e. in such a structure fighters are just men aged 18-40. Once you attack on land you cannot be hands off without taking unnecessary casualties. It should have been kept as an option.

One counter argument is that the scale of Israel's military attacks has deterred Hezbollah but of course that can be proved , but even if it is true it does not help solve the problem it is putting off the inevitable.

 

[borat]

I am making the assumption that Netanyahu will be gone and Israel will turn its back on him and the Zionists , maybe I am being too optimistic. Biden will need to put pressure on Israel as they need to regain the moral ground but first they will want to get enough damage done to Hamas. totally agree that the religious fanatics in Israel are a major part of the problem.

I said it in a much earlier post, this is the time for an Israeli politician (with a big kick from Biden) to say enough is enough and try to go towards peace but not sure if there is anyone strong enough or brave enough given they risk assassination if they do that. Certainly they won't do that at the moment when the call for war is strong even among the moderates.

Theres that claim again about reclaiming the "moral ground" Israel never had the moral high ground unless Apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing are considered moral.

Another phrase or theme that is highly disputed yet is often regurgitated is the use of human shields by Hamas. There is little evidence that this is occuring and is used to dehumanise Palestinians and justify the ongoing occupation and war crimes

Myth: Palestinians use human shields | Decolonize Palestine

Claiming Palestinians use their own people as human shields aims to dehumanize them and justify Israeli killings. While there is no evidence that Palestinians practice this, there are mountains of evidence of the IDF doing so.

decolonizepalestine.com

The fallacy of Israel’s human shields claims in Gaza

Desperately trying to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, Israel once again uses its ‘human shields’ mantra.

www.google.com

The Israelis have used Palestinians for human shields for decades (originally an official policy) yet I would bet that not a single person reading this would realise that as it's not mentioned on the BBC/CNN etc.

https://www.btselem.org/human_shields

Israel is once again using Palestinians as human shields

Once a standard Israeli military tactic, the practice was made illegal under international law in 2005. But growing evidence shows Israel is using human shields again with impunity

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[spence]

I am making the assumption that Netanyahu will be gone and Israel will turn its back on him and the Zionists , maybe I am being too optimistic. Biden will need to put pressure on Israel as they need to regain the moral ground but first they will want to get enough damage done to Hamas. totally agree that the religious fanatics in Israel are a major part of the problem.

I said it in a much earlier post, this is the time for an Israeli politician (with a big kick from Biden) to say enough is enough and try to go towards peace but not sure if there is anyone strong enough or brave enough given they risk assassination if they do that. Certainly they won't do that at the moment when the call for war is strong even among the moderates.

You clearly don't know Israeli history.

 

[Zeberdi]

They had every right to attack but on the world's political stage restraint was a better option and might of helped getting the hostages back alive. When you attack how do you separate out those who don't want to be there as opposed to those civilians who are prepared to fight i.e. in such a structure fighters are just men aged 18-40. Once you attack on land you cannot be hands off without taking unnecessary casualties. It should have been kept as an option.

I was replying to your assertion that you didn’t think Israel should have taken military action now you are just repeating back at me what I said - when world leaders call for ‘restraint’ it means act proportionally and calmly not in a kneejerk frenzy of revenge - it doesn’t mean ‘don’t attack back at all’.

I’m not sure what you mean ‘kept what as an option?’

One counter argument is that the scale of Israel's military attacks has deterred Hezbollah but of course that can be proved , but even if it is true it does not help solve the problem it is putting off the inevitable.

I suspect actually it has more to do with the Americans having deployed two carrier strike groups, including aircraft carrier, planes, and escort warships, 1000s of marines in the Med and Red Sea - plus having airforce bases all over the ME - plus numerous other assets in the Region

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/american-troops-middle-east-israel-palestine

 

[Wardy's twin]

Theres that claim again about reclaiming the "moral ground" Israel never had the moral high ground unless Apartheid, occupation and ethnic cleansing are considered moral.

Another phrase or theme that is highly disputed yet is often regurgitated is the use of human shields by Hamas. There is little evidence that this is occuring and is used to dehumanise Palestinians and justify the ongoing occupation and war crimes

Myth: Palestinians use human shields | Decolonize Palestine

Claiming Palestinians use their own people as human shields aims to dehumanize them and justify Israeli killings. While there is no evidence that Palestinians practice this, there are mountains of evidence of the IDF doing so.

decolonizepalestine.com

The fallacy of Israel’s human shields claims in Gaza

Desperately trying to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, Israel once again uses its ‘human shields’ mantra.

www.google.com

The Israelis have used Palestinians for human shields for decades (originally an official policy) yet I would bet that not a single person reading this would realise that as it's not mentioned on the BBC/CNN etc.

https://www.btselem.org/human_shields

Israel is once again using Palestinians as human shields

Once a standard Israeli military tactic, the practice was made illegal under international law in 2005. But growing evidence shows Israel is using human shields again with impunity

www.middleeasteye.net

Moral high ground might mean different things to different people but on the world's stage , the savage massacre of 1400 people many of them children often involving torture gave Israel the moral high ground at that point and that could have been cemented in place if they had not attacked.

There is a lot wrong in the state of Israel and I don't think people are denying that as we measure them with our western values but they standout as being much better than most of the states around them a lot of whom treat the Palestinians within their borders as second class citizens although that I don't see people classing that as apartheid. In addition they kill gays, they treat women as second class citizens , they bomb the opposition (have you forgotten what happened/happens in Syria etc) .

As for ethnic cleansing , like the expression apartheid it is geared to bring about an emotional response but factually is wrongly applied. Israel has a diverse population 2.5 million are not jews ( I use the term in its widest sense) and they prosper. As I said earlier one of the Kibbutz was defend by arab soldiers. There is mal-treatment of the palestinians and the who issue Israeli settlers is wrong IMO but you also seem to forget that there is a de facto state of war between them.

You mention occupation, are you questioning the whole existence of Israel as in some eyes the very state of Israel within the 1967 borders is occupation or are you talking about the West bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights . I can't see Israel given the latter back ever but certainly the two other areas could form a Palestinian entity of some sorts.

Regards human shields , there is certainly plenty of evidence that attacks came from areas in Gaza where there were 'civilians' so tell me what that is if it is not human shields.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I was replying to your assertion that you didn’t think Israel should have taken military action now you are just repeating back at me what I said - when world leaders call for ‘restraint’ it means act proportionally and calmly not in a kneejerk frenzy of revenge - it doesn’t mean ‘don’t attack back at all’.

I’m not sure what you mean ‘kept what as an option?’

Yes, I think partly but I suspect actually it has more to do with the Americans having deployed two carrier strike groups, including aircraft carrier, planes, and escort warships, 1000s of marines in the Med and Red Sea - plus having airforce bases all over the ME - plus numerous other assets in the Region

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/american-troops-middle-east-israel-palestine

I was replying to your assertion that you didn’t think Israel should have taken military action now you are just repeating back at me what I said - when world leaders call for ‘restraint’ it means act proportionally and calmly not in a kneejerk frenzy of revenge - it doesn’t mean ‘don’t attack back at all’.

I am basically saying its not as easy as people think to separate civilians from combatants if they are closely intermingled which they are so civilian casualties were inevitable and at that point as soon as Israel killed civilians they lost sympathy and support and their opponents have gone full social media on how bad they are. Totally predictable and so should have been avoided IMO.

What does proportionally mean, it is ambiguous so that one side could say its too much and the other will say its too little.

If they had not been bombing then

a) hopefully the world would have been appalled by the 7th October and would strive to get the hostages back
b) look to remove backing from HAMAS from places like QATAR
c) would not have derailed Israel and Saudi getting closer together

The timing of the attack probably indicates that sabotaging Israel/Saudi relations was the target not bettering the cause of Palestinians. The ferocity and cruel nature of the attack was designed to force Israeli to respond in a manner which could be used against them.

I’m not sure what you mean ‘kept what as an option?’

They could have of waited for the worlds response regards hostages and maybe funding of HAMAS. If neither happened they then could attack or introduce other restrictions.

War is only one of the tools in a political toolbox and should be the last used.

 

[Albion my Albion]

In was stated by a US government official that the Jewish religion accounts for about 8% of the population and about 60% of the religious hate crime in America. Wouldn't you be somewhat paranoid of all the other religions in the world?

 

[Albion my Albion]

Let's face it. Many of you don't like Biden's policy of supporting the Israeli defense against Hamas but you want him to defeat Trump in the next election because Trump would be worse in supporting Israel, Russia, North Korea, etc.

 

[Bakero]

In was stated by a US government official that the Jewish religion accounts for about 8% of the population and about 60% of the religious hate crime in America. Wouldn't you be somewhat paranoid of all the other religions in the world?

More like 2% of the US population and 50% of religious hate crime.

Spare a thought for the Sikhs. They're just 0.08% of the US population and account for 11.6% of religious hate crimes.

 

[Zeberdi]

… as Israel killed civilians they lost sympathy and support and their opponents have gone full social media on how bad they are. Totally predictable and so should have been avoided IMO.

Sorry but your assertion that Israel should have avoided a military response altogether is quixotic - you can not expect a nation state not to respond or defend itself at all if it has been attacked on it’s own soil - that is the sovereign and inalienable right of all nations and recognised as so by the Charter of Nations BUT collective punishment and disproportionate civilian casualties are prohibited under international law - we are going round in circles here …please do some reading - some primary and secondary source material linked to below …

What does proportionally mean, it is ambiguous so that one side could say its too much and the other will say its too little.

The principles are laid down in international treaties - ’proportionality’ is a recognised principle in international law on war crimes and in the Geneva Convention - I suggest, if you are interested, to read the salient parts (Part lV) - (see link at the end of this post)


“The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.” (Art 52)


There are pages and pages on this thread why Israel’s response can in law be regarded as disproportionate - I would suggest some back reading.

If they had not been bombing then

a) hopefully the world would have been appalled by the 7th October and would strive to get the hostages back
b) look to remove backing from HAMAS from places like QATAR
c) would not have derailed Israel and Saudi getting closer together

a) The world was appalled and negotiations for the hostages have been going on since the day of the attack and many States, including Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, the US, Israel and the UK have all been involved behind the scenes.

b) How do you ‘remove backing for Hamas?’ - Qatar is an independent Gulf State - are you proposing the US invades Qatar (and Turkey) to find the funding and admin offices of the Hamas leadership ? - Hamas is funded by and through the Global Muslim Brotherhood - how do you suppose destroying an ‘enemy’ that has no State, has individual sleeper cells all over the world and can not be easily be distinguished from the host population? (rhetorical Q)

c). Hamas derailed normalisation talks by attacking Israel in such a massive way that it made it impossible for Israel not to respond - it is not the fact that Israel responded that has derailed talks but that she responded excessively and by collective punishment of the whole population of Gaza.

War is only one of the tools in a political toolbox and should be the last used.

War is not in a political tool box - war is when politics have failed and I think perhaps you would think again about dismissing the complex history with a neatly worded trope if you were to familiarise yourself a little more with the history of this long running territorial conflict and the utter failure of diplomacy and political ‘tools’ to secure a lasting peace in the region.


Reference sources:

Geneva Convention- text

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

Doctors without borders | The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law

 

[BadFish]

It would be really interesting to know if the UN have a roadmap for peace in this conflict. Obviously any such plan is moot while the US, UK, Australia etc keep exercising their veto to halt any progress.

But one does need to wonder if someone in that organisation has an idea to firstly get back to the original 2 state solution, and then to find a more permanent solution from there (This is probably not even worth thinking about at this point).

My thoughts here are that Hamas are murdering f*** heads who cannot be negotiated with while their goal of the destruction of Israel remains.

The question for me is: Is Netanyahu also a murdering fuckhead intent on the destruction of Palestine, or can he be negotiated with to take steps back to a working 2 state solution?

My belief is that the only way this crisis is going to be fixed is if Israel and Netanyahu are prepared to work with the UN to first repair some of the damage done in Palestine over the last 30? 40? years and then work with them to eradicate Hamas from the Palestinian people and broker some proper peace talks and arrangements of how things are going to go in the future.

None of this works until the US, UK, etc, stop enabling Israel's murderous behaviour and let them show the world and the UN that they are intent on finding a workable solution.

To me this is why people are focused on Israel, because Israel are the solution to this problem, not Hamas.

 

[Albion my Albion]

How many sleeps to go til the crimbo hollibobs?!

More like 2% of the US population and 50% of religious hate crime.

Spare a thought for the Sikhs. They're just 0.08% of the US population and account for 11.6% of religious hate crimes.

I happen to do business with about 10 Sikh people. There is a Sikh temple 10 miles from my hometown where they worship. Have you ever been treated to a meal in a Sikh temple on a holiday when most other religious organizations are shut up?

 

[Bakero]

I happen to do business with about 10 Sikh people. There is a Sikh temple 10 miles from my hometown where they worship. Have you ever been treated to a meal in a Sikh temple on a holiday when most other religious organizations are shut up?

I haven't but I imagine it'd be a great experience.

 

[Zeberdi]

My belief is that the only way this crisis is going to be fixed is if Israel and Netanyahu are prepared to work with the UN to first repair some of the damage done in Palestine over the last 30? 40? years and then work with them to eradicate Hamas from the Palestinian people and broker some proper peace talks and arrangements of how things are going to go in the future.

Yes, that‘s what most rational people believe and it in theory it is an obvious scenario! That would however, seem to be the antithesis of what Netanyahu wants - there is no indication in any of his policies over the past 10 years that he has anything other than a commitment to an expansionist policy of Greater Israel. Any peace talks will have to involve the Palestinians (that was the problem with the Trump/Netanyahu Peace Plan - it excluded Palestinian involvement and they got sold down the river. I can’t see any Palestinian/or possibly even Arab representative wanting to sit at a table with Netanyahu after this - The first step in a peace process probably needs to be a ‘vote of no confidence’ election in Israel - as for the UN - it is a toothless tiger (Israel been violating international laws for years with their treatment of Palestinians) as much of the international law regime is. Statements are powerful but do they work?

Yesterday, “The heads of all major UN agencies issued a rare joint statement on Sunday expressing outrage at the civilian death toll in Gaza and calling for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in the war.”

UN agency chiefs urge Gaza ceasefire in rare joint statement

The heads of all major UN agencies called for an 'immediate humanitarian ceasefire', adding: 'It's been 30 days. Enough is enough. This must end now.'

www.newarab.com

I don’t believe Hamas can be eradicated (or any other radical Islamic Jihadist ) from the Palestine communities or refugee camps either - even as this war is being perpetuated- it is pretty likely that just as many Palestinians are being newly radicalised as Hamas paramilitary members are being killed.

The closest we have ever come to peace is when the Labour government of Israel negotiated with the PLO - if the Israelis vote out Netanyahu’s far right government and the international community is prepared to include Hamas in any peace talks, peace might again have a chance but that’s just an opinion of course and we are far away from that at the moment - Today’s reality is, I think, that you would have to go right back to 1967 for a comparable time in history when the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people was at such a critical low.

Having said that, this war by virtue of it’s horrific impact on the Palestinian people could ironically be the very thing needed to kick start a new round of peace talks that have been stultified for years - so we could paradoxically be both the furthest away from a peaceful resolution and the nearest at the same time.

 

[BadFish]

Yes, that‘s what most rational people believe and it in theory it is an obvious scenario! That would however, seem to be the antithesis of what Netanyahu wants - there is no indication in any of his policies over the past 10 years that he has anything other than a commitment to an expansionist policy of Greater Israel. Any peace talks will have to involve the Palestinians (that was the problem with the Trump/Netanyahu Peace Plan - it excluded Palestinian involvement and they got sold down the river. I can’t see any Palestinian/or possibly even Arab representative wanting to sit at a table with Netanyahu after this - The first step in a peace process probably needs to be a ‘vote of no confidence’ election in Israel - as for the UN - it is a toothless tiger (Israel been violating international laws for years with their treatment of Palestinians) as much of the international law regime is. I don’t believe Hamas can be eradicated (or any other radical Islamic Jihadist ) from the Palestine communities or refugee camps either - even as this war is being perpetuated- it is pretty likely that just as many Palestinians are being newly radicalised as Hamas paramilitary members are being killed.

The closest we have ever come to peace is when the Labour government of Israel negotiated with the PLO - if the Israelis vote out Netanyahu’s far right government and the international community is prepared to include Hamas in any peace talks, peace might again have a chance but that’s just an opinion of course and we are far away from that at the moment - Today’s reality is, I think, that you would have to go right back to 1967 for a comparable time in history when the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people was at such a critical low.

Having said that, this war by virtue of it’s horrific impact on the Palestinian people could ironically be the very thing needed to kick start a new round of peace talks that have been stultified for years - so we could paradoxically be both the furthest away from a peaceful resolution and the nearest at the same time.

I was hoping that without support and with some encouragement from his allies Netanyahu might come to the party. At present he is emboldened by support.

 

[Zeberdi]

I was hoping that without support and with some encouragement from his allies Netanyahu might come to the party. At present he is emboldened by support.

Yes, you make a really good point - perhaps because Netanyhau‘s domestic support is so weak, he will look to Israel’s allies, particularly the US to bolster support for him at home and the price of that could indeed be a cessation of hostilities and Netanyahu rolling back his expansionist policies - it wouldn’t be the first time a beleaguered World leader has looked outside their own country to other political allies to rescue them from an angry electorate and otherwise insurmountable opposition at home.

France is trying to organise with Egypt a field hospital on the ground in the Sinai, the UK has called back embassy staff in Lebanon as violence escalates in the Northern border with Lebanon and Hezbollah groups - and another attack on a refugee camp killing 47 people including at least 5 more children and an infant:

Israel launches major strikes on Gaza as violence flares up on Lebanon boundary

Huge explosions reported in Gaza Strip, and communities in northern Israel come under mortar and rocket fire from Hezbollah

www.theguardian.com

Surely, nobody here is still thinking this is ‘proportional’ response to 10/7.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I haven't seen anyone who "supports" Hamas or their actions, if you have constructed this interpretation based upon what you have read then you are mistaken.
The reasons why there may be no viable solution is because this is a complex issue but that does not mean what Israel is doing is acceptable.
I don't know what Israel will do next, like you said it will be hard to distinguish a bomber from an innocent bystander in Gaza, but as I reiterate that does not mean what Israel is doing is acceptable, it is breaking international law, and I hope you have understood this by now.

Have you not seen the demonstrations and where people are denying or ignoring what Hamas did and go straight to discussing the bombing? South American countries breaking off diplomatic ties. Implicit support via the 'river to the sea' comments.

I know the issue is complex i have been studying ff and on for 50 years and part of the issue is the constant cycle of attack and retaliation. Now was the time to show restraint on the political stage and not go into a military campaign where it stands to loose soldiers, the hostages, the deal with Saudi etc.

Going in with a military campaign will satisfy many Israelis who were shocked and angered (understatements) by the attack but it wold only lead to the mess , the political backlash and does nothing to move the situation on. As I have said a number of times it needs someone to step forward and other an alternative view.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Have you not seen the demonstrations and where people are denying or ignoring what Hamas did and go straight to discussing the bombing? South American countries breaking off diplomatic ties. Implicit support via the 'river to the sea' comments.

I know the issue is complex i have been studying ff and on for 50 years and part of the issue is the constant cycle of attack and retaliation. Now was the time to show restraint on the political stage and not go into a military campaign where it stands to loose soldiers, the hostages, the deal with Saudi etc.

Going in with a military campaign will satisfy many Israelis who were shocked and angered (understatements) by the attack but it wold only lead to the mess , the political backlash and does nothing to move the situation on. As I have said a number of times it needs someone to step forward and other an alternative view.

Then you'll understand why having Netanyahu as part of the solution is always going to be problematic.

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces​

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group. The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

I believe that the only way to move forward is to get both sides of the divide represented by people who want a two state solution, which I would hope is what the majority of innocents from both sides currently being murdered want. However, history show us that is not what Hamas or Netanyhu want

 

[Wardy's twin]

You clearly don't know Israeli history.

I know my history of the conflicts pretty well and that Israel has always sought a strong response to any attacks be it terrorist or from another country. But that has done nothing to solve problem which to be fair might be unsolvable. This was the time to show restraint , the terrorists are stronger than they ever were especially Hezbollah which has 50k+ fighters and lots of modern equipment. Any fight with them will cause many more deaths in Israel. Right wing Israelis might argue dealing with Hamas this way has held off Hezbollah. Who knows.