Israel, Palestine & the Levant rolling events: Oct 23 on

Gets worse.

Walid Daqqa’s body will be held captive until March 2025, “to complete his sentence.” Even in death, his family is denied a last embrace. https://t.co/3eVLbcAATX

— علياء (@wabialiasabi) April 8, 2024

Hamas has held bodies of Israelis as bargaining chips numerous times over the years (notwithstanding their current holding of both live and dead hostages).

I also think it's worth noting that Daqqa was serving a life sentence for his involvement in an abduction and killing, and that he died of terminal cancer. I still don't see a purpose in holding his body, and fwiw Haaretz argued he should have been released when he was terminal. But those tweets make it sound like he was purely a political prisoner and was tortured to death. https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/2023-05-30/ty-article-opinion/israel-must-free-walid-daqqa/00000188-6e35-de23-ad8d-ffbd93b40000

this follow on tweet on the twitter thread about Walid Daqqa -

No world where we should be asked to “forgive” Israelis for what they’ve done and continue to do. Go away with that infuriating crap. I can barely contain the rage I feel every day, let alone the tremendous grief. Cruel, genocidal, narcissistic shits deserve nothing but contempt.

Daqqah was not convicted of carrying out the murder himself, but of commanding the group, an accusation he always rejected, and his conviction was based on British emergency regulations dating back to 1945, which require a much lower standard of proof for conviction than Israeli criminal law.

The idea that we should just "trust" the Israeli courts, or the state of Israel, about anything, is out the window. It's all lies, all the time.

yeah, it's easier to take North Korean statements at face value at this point

What does the term "security prisoner" mean?

It sounds like he wasn’t even tried but may have been charged and just held in remand forever.

yeah that's more to the point. is "security prisoner" what people in administrative detention are called?

ah I see table was quoting Amnesty International there. He was tried, but by a military court, which is indefensible imo:

https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/death-in-custody-of-walid-daqqah-is-cruel-reminder-of-israels-disregard-for-palestinians-right-to-life/

The murders of Ismail Haniyeh's children and grandchildren in targeted strikes in Gaza is part of a pattern of the IDF sabotaging negotiations.

In the last Gaza war, Israel struck apartment buildings housing 3 PIJ commanders who were to go to ceasefire talks *that morning*. pic.twitter.com/HmB94aPtEZ

— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) April 10, 2024

I definitely have frequent disturbing thoughts about the thought of some of those settlers being in the army and probably being the ones most likely to commit atrocities in Gaza. However those are typically what you call religious nationalists, which is different from the Haredi.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Thursday, April 4, 2024 2:46 PM (one week ago) bookmarkflaglink

Welp:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/top-idf-commander-in-aid-strike-wanted-to-block-humanitarian-supplies-into-gaza/ar-BB1lt1ub?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=cefa68152f5748078061f850c6eb4cf9&ei=13
"he most senior IDF commander dismissed for his role in the drone strike which killed seven aid workers in Gaza is a settler who signed an open letter in January calling for the territory to be deprived of aid, The Telegraph can reveal."

"In the letter, Col. Mandel, a religious nationalist who lives in a settlement in the occupied West Bank, called with more than 130 other reserve officers and commanders for the flow of aid into Gaza to be restricted."

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/11/opinion/israel-hamas-rafah-gaza.html

NY Times finds Professor who believes Israel can "take Rafah and smash Hamas’s last organized military formations and its governing structures"

Benny Morris devotes zero sentences to what will happen in Gaza after the smashing of the remaining governing structures

That has always been the problem. I never doubted that Israel could "smash Hamas's organized military formations and its governing structures," it's the destruction of so much else along with that and the lack of a viable plan for after that that's the problem.

So...

World War III here we come.

T-7 hours?

https://i.imgur.com/GBBLxkG.png

^^^~3x typical volume at Domino's adjacent to Pentagon

As long as it doesn’t have rocket on it

Ah well nice knowing all of you

:(

I’m sure it’s okay

This, but unironically.

I mean, whatever, I don't know any more than any of you, but Iran has zero interest in being in a real war and sending drones they know are going to be close to 100% shot down is a way of being seen to have retaliated without creating an escalation nobody can stop and that would fuck everyone.

I think that’s probably right but controlled burns can get out of control

Given the fact that Iran can't not respond, I think this is exactly the kind of response you would want. Not just abiding by the principle of proportionality but arguable coming in below that suggests an unwillingness to escalate. Not to say it can't spin out of control from here but in and of itself this seems pretty cautious and measured as a response

Obviously we don't know the back channel stuff, how much and what countries signal to each other but no one is launching any attack without expecting and factoring in a response. This is probably less than Israel was expecting (which is possibly even a problem in the opposite direction)

Oh well that's fine then. Given that Netanyahu has been itching to have a war with Iran for years I think the main worry is what Israel is going to do next.

So...what was actually said in the phone call between Biden and Netanyahu, and will the US keep backing them through a wider conflict? Because Israel would need their help.

It's Iran, so the US will back them 100%.

Forget all those conversations about stopping selling arms to Israel.

Russia - Ukraine had terrible knock on effects on oil prices and the world economy. If Iran could be destroyed easily the US would've already done it.

Let's not forget Biden got the US out of Afghanistan, and it is an election year.

We'll see.

Biden has been an execrable idiot for 5+ decades, and most of that was when he had his half-wits about him. I think this attack will not escalate tbh but the people who are calling FP shots in his administration are the kind of dolts who would trigger ww3 "accidentally"

It's strange to be Israel: You violate a mountain of UN resolutions, condemn the UN at every turn, bomb UN schools & shelters, murder UN employees, & then you demand a UN meeting over another country responding to your bombing of their consulate 🤯 https://t.co/AwMof4bWj8

— Omar Baddar عمر بدّار (@OmarBaddar) April 14, 2024

Oh well that's fine then. Given that Netanyahu has been itching to have a war with Iran for years I think the main worry is what Israel is going to do next.

I agree here that it depends more on Israel than Iran, especially after Iran notably selected a proportionate-or-less response over an escalatory one, and in doing so revealing their hand. And Israel hasn't been acting in its best interests of late either (though arguably in Netanyahu's best interests). I'm not that sure what Israel's options are here though

People keep saying Iran didn't really go full tilt on this but is that actually true? Forget the drones, you may as well send over pigeons with bombs strapped to them, but they also launched ballistic missiles. Also the attacks came from Syria and Yemen as well as Iran, so I think they did put quite a lot of resources and planning into this. The fact that the Israelis swatted them away like a troublesome fly might well embolden Netanyahu and his crazies to think they can handle what Iran throws at them.

I don't know. If that is them at full tilt thats not a great look for them at all, and yes, would undoubtedly embolden Netanyahu if so - but didn't they choreograph what they were sending? (may have this wrong not caught up yet). If they did, they presumably also signalled what larger responses might have been. It is kind of a worry in the other direction though, if a response isn't strong enough that doesn't send a good message and as in effect also escalatory, proportionality exists for a reason

An attack was expected from Iran for days. They told everybody they would be doing something.

We will see over the coming days and weeks. An interesting post.

On Iran’s strike:

At Stanford, I attended a masterclass on military strategy led by a person with decades of experience, including serving at the highest levels in the military and government.

One lesson he thought that I always remember was this:

He asked us:

“Say the US…

— Fadi Quran (@fadiquran) April 14, 2024

Getting a bit pedantic I realize, but proportionality refers to the principle that civilian harm should be limited to what is necessary to a legit military objective. It doesn’t have anything to do with military responses being proportional to the attack they are responding to.

I have some extremely armchair and hence potentially wrong thoughts on the Iran attack but here they are:

1) the fact that the missiles were largely aimed at the airbase housing the F-35s suggests to me that Iran was either trying to achieve some degree of military goal or else was trying to project that they could have if they made the attack even larger scale. Iron dome isn’t perfect and I would think it could be overwhelmed. I don’t know how many missiles Iran and its allies have the capacity to fire at once but presumably more than they did. So I lean toward warning vs intent but it’s pretty dangerous to assume your missiles will all get shot down.

2) there’s always a certain amount of economic incentive warfare when iron dome is engaged. Iron dome is extraordinarily expensive to operate. This is probably a stronger motive in the case of Hamas rocket attacks since the rockets are extremely cheap to produce vs Iran’s missiles, but it might still be a partial motivation. The attack could have cost Israel and its allies a collective hundreds of millions of dollars.

3) I do think Iran was probably trying to calculate this to not escalate. Anything like this comes dangerously close to the line though and events are unpredictable. I still think 10/7 was probably more “successful” than Hamas expected for example.

4) If I had to bet, I think Israel will “respond” with some kind of targeted assassination or cyber strike rather than any kind of direct attack on Iran.

5) it’s kind of notable that Jordan participated in intercepting the drones (which flew over its airspace). .

*iron dome and arrow - I think both may have been involved

Getting a bit pedantic I realize, but proportionality refers to the principle that civilian harm should be limited to what is necessary to a legit military objective. It doesn’t have anything to do with military responses being proportional to the attack they are responding to.

I think thats something different? Or maybe it isn't. I do get there are two definitions here that have some overlap but aren't the same thing

Idk, I’m probably out of my depth. Seems like there are a lot of different answers on what it is. But I would imagine for example that no one would have suggested the US could only destroy a Japanese naval base in response to Pearl Harbor. I guess the intention is part of it? If Iran had launched this attack but also declared full scale war while doing it, I don’t think the response would have to be proportional. But I’m also not sure if 100+’drones and 100+ missiles launched at a country is proportional to a strike on military leaders in a third country. And does the fact that Israel had the capacity to repel the attack somehow make it more proportional? The idea is murky to me.

Also Israel would claim the strike in Syria was a response to Irans involvement in proxy attacks on Israel.

As I understand it, if A attacks B, B has to respond (not just for security reasons from further attacks from A but for internal regime security reasons as well). Responding with a similar sized attack sets an equilibrium of sorts and keeps a balance . How the equivalence of attacks comes into it and who decides what that is is obviously open to interpretation. Civilians might come into it as a factor, but I think the measurement is against the original strike

Of course everyone will claim everything but thats more for the publics consumption

I would imagine for example that no one would have suggested the US could only destroy a Japanese naval base in response to Pearl Harbor.

I don't think its so much about what a country 'could' do, its not a moral consideration but a strategic one and about what a country wants to do. If it wants to escalate, then escalate, if it wants to put things back in a box, just strike the one base and try call it quits

If either Iran's or Israel's explicit intention is a larger war, they can just go ahead and do that but once you go you're kind of committed and its difficult to get out of. Proportionality keeps options open to move up or down where necessary

So...what was actually said in the phone call between Biden and Netanyahu, and will the US keep backing them through a wider conflict? Because Israel would need their help.

― xyzzzz__, Sunday, April 14, 2024 1:38 AM (six hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

CNN: Biden told Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran. https://t.co/MB4k5W36iQ

— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) April 14, 2024

well the US hasn’t “participated” in any of israel’s offensive actions so far at all… so this means nothing?