this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
136 points (93.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35312 readers
1248 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

It just seems crazy to me given the power imbalance. A cynical part of me suspects that things are playing out exactly as some evil strategists hoped they would, which, given all the children dying, is super-depressing.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world 78 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

This video by a political science professor explains it best: https://youtu.be/zMxHU34IgyY?si=N5oHElN4Xlbiqznh

In short, the only people who truly know are Hamas, and the best the rest of us can do is speculate.

Some possibilities are that Hamas wanted to sabotage normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Muslim world, that Hamas wanted to bait Israel into a wildly disproportionate response that would garner themselves sympathy and recruits, that Hamas was bluffing and feigning strength and counting on Israel to think the attack was bait, that Hamas was just acting on bloodlust and wanted to attack regardless of the consequences, or many other possibilities.

Further, we focus a lot on the substative issues, i.e., the grievances and disagreements at hand, but we don't talk about the bargaining frictions nearly enough. There are countless border disputes around the world, and yet they rarely result in war. Why? Because war is costly and most wish to avoid it. War typically happens when there are both substantive issues and bargaining frictions, i.e., things preventing the two sides from negotiating a solution. But us onlookers can't even know for sure what these frictions are, only speculate.

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn't actually know with any degree of certainty. Nobody but Hamas actually knows.

I do recommend watching the full video above, as the professor is very engaging, rather amusing, and covers this topic quite thoroughly.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 34 points 10 months ago

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever. Anyone who tries to tell you with certainty why they did what they did at this stage doesn't actually know with any degree of certainty

That's one of the most reasonable responses to this madness I've seen recently.

Far too many people are out there demanding instant information with 100% accuracy and crying conspiracy when they can't get their impossible wish.

[–] zzzz@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Thank you for the video and the thoughtful response!

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago

All this is simply the nature of the fog of war, that the true strategies/goals won't be known for a while, if ever.

This is what we've all been thinking about Russia/Putin's government too. With tons of friends and family in Russia and Ukraine we are still at a loss what exactly the idea/projected outcome/strategy/expectation was to start that war. I hear a lot of armchair experts and amateur war psychologists trying to explain it away like it is obvious but it just isn't. It feels like there are a bunch of clues and pieces of a puzzle mixed in with random puzzle pieces that don't belong to what you are trying to assemble, and it is unclear whether we will ever truly understand it sometime in the future.

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Interesting watch, got a new subscriber from that one. Much appreciated.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Great video and summary! Love that channel.

[–] dynamojoe@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hostages are variables that Hamas controls and Israel must respect. They can be used as chips to barter with, shields to hide behind, and tools to shame the Israelis in the court of public opinion.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 14 points 10 months ago

All fair points. They hardly needed to shame Israel in the court of public opinion, though. The hard-right faction who control their government have proven quite adept at shaming themselves with no outside help.

NB: I said Israel the country. Not Israelis the people.

[–] leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is just my opinion but, given terrorist organisations are militarily usually much poorer/smaller/weaker than the group they stand against, they need help from outside.

One way to possibly achieve that is to do something awful to provoke your opposition into a retaliation so indiscriminate and horrifying that your ideological (if not literal) allies in the surrounding area step in to attack your enemy.

[–] OwlYaYeet@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Which is exactly what's happening. Hezbollah and Iran are threatening to get involved if Israel goes through with the ground invasion

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Their objective was to provoke this response from Israel. Hostages really force Israel to act immediately.

[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be the other way around ? Hostage means that you nced to open some negociation for their release. And that a military intervention would put them at risk.

Israel used to do prisonner exchanges,

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

That's not what's happening though.

Regardless, hostages require at least negotiation. They could execute a few hostages to provoke israel further.

[–] sadcoconut@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've heard it suggested that they didn't expect to get as far as they did into Israel and they barely expected to get past the border wall. If that's the case they may not have planned what to do when they did and so there may be no grand strategy behind some or all of it.

I guess we'll never know.

[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

That would make a lot of sense. Since Israel has blocked numerous other attacks in the past, Hamas likely expected a similar response, not a complete lack of one from their very apparent and out in the open preparations for the attack.

[–] SHITPOSTING_ACCOUNT@feddit.de 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Last time it worked, they got over a thousand prisoners for one soldier.

Taking hostages was the one thing about the entire attack that made some logical sense.

The murdering, on the other hand... that guaranteed a violent response, and doing it in the most brutal way possible and then filming it and bragging about it ensured that Palestine lost most sympanties, and Israel basically got a free pass to do whatever they wanted.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t say that Israel is getting a free pass, but they sure as hell have a casus belli now, and they’re getting as much mileage out of it as they possibly can.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They've killed dozens of journalists and even the family of a journalist. That family was staying in a building that was marked safe by the IDF for exactly these kinds of people. The US didnt let Saudi Arabia live down the bonesaw incident for years, have you heard any ranking politician in the US speak about the press slaughter? To me it seems a lot like a free pass.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's an hypothesis only.

But I think the important matter were the foreign ostages, especially from Europe and USA, because those countries do a lot to recover them, including paying big money.

I wondered why Israel didn't attack the weekend they said they would attack. They gave an ultimatum, but didn't act on it. One possibility is that the USA and Europe wanted to try to recover their ostages first.

[–] PutangInaMo@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

When did the US pay big money to a terrorist organization to release hostages?

[–] unwellsnail@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 months ago

I think they expected to swap the hostages for Palestinian prisoners, since they've done it before.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As always, motives vary heavily. I think many people have raised great points, and no doubt many of them are accurate enough.

It's the same for Israel, too, right? I would imagine a two state solution is the only reasonable exit strategy, and Israel could make that happen overnight, but they haven't. Why? Again, motives vary heavily.

[–] corgi@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Israel proposed/accepted/was in favor of two state solution multiple times throughout history. It was Palestinians who rejected it.

[–] BrerChicken@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry but this is simply not correct. Some people in the Israeli government in the past have agreed to a 2-state solution, but extremist Israelis kept revolting. Yitzhak Rabim was literally assassinated by an extremist Israeli for signing and supporting the Oslo accords.

Most Israelis and Arabs recognize the need for a 2 state solution, but the Israeli government is not on board right now. And whoever makes any kind of moves in that direction gets pushed out pretty quickly.

[–] corgi@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It's not right now, that's true. Both sides are moving more extreme and away from a peaceful solution. But historically Arabs were far less open to the idea of two state solution. Starting with the partition plan of 1947.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] corgi@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Wikipedia has pretty detailed account of Israel Palestine conflict including all the sources

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago

I don't think Hamas had a long term goal here. I think Iran had the long term goal and shared intel with them and goaded the on to the attack. That's not to excuse anything or one, but in terms of startegy and blowback, I think Irans the one whos counting on that, and Israel is providing it. So all in all I'd say Iran got what they wanted and we're gonna see what they choose to do next.

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Israel is killing us slowly and quietly and the world is ignoring it. Maybe if they're provoked into revealing themselves to the world we'll be seen.

[–] Hereforpron2@lemmynsfw.com 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That's sorta classic supervillain logic. Doing terrible things just so someone else will have to do them too and in doing so "reveal" that they are "equally" monstrous. Israel has had some super fucked up policy for a long time, and I'm not defending that, but the approach of provoking them by committing your own war crimes knowing that it will lead to this much civilian suffering on all sides is even more fucked up.

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

I think it's more desperation than logic

[–] 520@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hamas already knows how they're considered elsewhere. They know they're a terrorist group. A government that acts like terrorists is what they want the world to see

[–] zzzz@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

That's something I hadn't thought of.

[–] small44@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Most death are civilians while Hamas getting stronger every year.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago

Well if you target Hamas but bomb an innocent family of five killing three, you probably just made two new Hamas members. Especially if the parents didn't survive, they know exactly whos gonna 'take care' of those orphaned kids.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 10 months ago

Since Iran is standing in the background, we have no idea how many Shahed drones are standing by when they come in.

[–] blazera@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Whats your plan to get them to stop exterminating palestinians?

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 0 points 10 months ago

Hamas simply wants as many civilian casualties as possible. Then they'll blame Israel and unfortunately a lot of people will buy into that, see the latest idiocy by Fridays for Future.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I'm guessing they though they could use hostages to prevent Israel from just bombing everything and everyone in Gaza as revenge and possibly also trade for something. Too bad Israel gave no shit about hostages and are just bombing everyone anyways, hostages or not.