New Palestine and Old Palestine

Are we at the point of deciding we can't wait for Palestinian leaders to be serious about lasting peace that doesn't rest on the graves of the last Israelis? Can Israel build a New Palestine that wants peace? Maybe my thoughts are impossible. Or a seed of something that can work. But the path the region is on could lead to even larger slaughters as hate burrows more deeply into the region over this conflict.

Israel's war to eradicate Hamas as an organization continues. It will be ugly as war is even without Hamas levels of depravity. Given the scale of the Hamas crimes on October 7th, the Israeli response will leave death and destruction in its wake from the sheer scale of the operation. Lawful conduct of war does that. And that is no reason to deny Israel the right to prevent future October 7th murder sprees.

I'd like to think that something good can come from all the dead Israelis murdered by Hamas on October 7th and the costly (for both sides) but very necessary war that Israel is compelled to wage in defense of its own people to stop that Hamas conveyor belt of hate and murder.

The first job is to destroy Hamas as an organization. Kill its leaders and armed members. Destroy everything they built to kill Jews since they controlled the land in 2005. One day a deal has to address the West Bank. But with the current Palestinian leadership that isn't possible because peace is not their real goal. Wiping out the Jews is the real goal. The amount of hate inside the Palestinian world is too great to negotiate with them in any meaningful way. Any deal in these circumstances would not be peace but a chance for the Islamist fanatics to reload. 

Maybe the only thing that will happen is that Israel crushes Hamas and gets 10-20 years of relative peace reduced to low-level threats and simmering hate. And at the end of the period the need to crush Hamas will be greater. But let's hope Iran's mullah regime doesn't still exist and have nuclear missiles.

Maybe instead Israel has to build a worthy partner that wants land for real peace with Israel--not seeking all the land and all the Jews dead, as Hamas and too many Palestinians want.

It is sad that when it comes to Israel, the Je Suis Charlie moment is much shorter than it was in France. Westerners of a certain ilk save their real anger for the backlash rather than the original lash. Let's not forget so soon how Hamas wages war:

The Hamas attack on Israel used tactics that made atrocities into a powerful weapon that made it more difficult to identify Hamas fighters unless they were carrying a weapon. Hamas also hides among civilians and likes to use civilians as human shields when attacking Israeli. If the Israelis shoot back anyway, Hamas considers the dead civilians as involuntary martyrs for the cause. For Hamas there is no bad publicity. While Israelis and Western nations deplore the ruthless tactics Hamas uses, they have a difficult time coping with Hamas unless they adopt some the atrocious Hamas methods. This aids Hamas as well because Hamas did not encourage or sometimes did not allow civilians to leave Gaza city as the Israeli attack force is preparing to attack the city. The civilians have nowhere to go because Egypt has closed its borders to Palestinians.

In the best of circumstances an Israeli offensive into Gaza would involve a lot of unintentional civilian deaths. But the way Hamas fights means we are far from the "best" circumstances.

Israel warned Gaza residents in the northeast of Wadi Gaza--basically Gaza City--to evacuate to the southwest before Israel's army enters the northeast. 

Is Israel planning to occupy a depopulated northeastern Gaza? That would be a buffer to add some protection for Israeli population centers that can be bombarded from the Gaza City region. And then when Israel ends offensive operations, Israel could let Hamas deal with a more densely populated rump Gaza in the southwest even as Israel continues to kill Hamas leaders in a more low-key war. Holding that buffer would also give Israel plenty of time to unearth evidence of what Hamas and its allies, including Iran, have done in the territory Israel holds.

Israel would need to fortify the new border around rump Gaza with the purpose of holding the line against large assaults and not against mere infiltration of small numbers of terrorists.

Controlling an empty northeast Gaza has a couple practical benefits for Israel: A rocket buffer and securing the crime scene. And in addition, Hamas would be pretty damned busy for a long time trying to cope with an influx of over a million people into an already populated area and all the internal tensions that movement would unleash. 

But this could also be an opportunity for real peace. In time.

By holding the "evacuation area" after the large-scale ground operation ends, Israel could create an option to create a new Gaza in that evacuation area centered on Gaza City--New Palestine--that can be created by Israel, built with Saudi and other Gulf Arab money, and inhabited by Palestinians recruited from rump Gaza in the southwest, the West Bank, and the Arab world.

These Palestinians allowed to enter New Palestine would be screened to keep out terrorists or those with known terrorist sympathies by the Israelis and Arab peace partners who have no love for pro-Iran Hamas and who sign on to the Abraham Accords. And numbers of residents could be kept down until the economy and infrastructure can support more immigrants in more than poverty. Israel and its Arab allies would oversee both the building of New Palestine and the containment of rump Gaza.

Israel would turn the power and water back on for New Palestine indefinitely and for rump Palestine for a period of 10 years. So build water and power plants before then. Otherwise, let Iran and Russia pay to sustain rump Gaza.

The very existence of New Palestine might free Arab states to make peace with Israel, by pointing to a new hope for progress, the core of a Palestinian state, and real peace. 

Israel and Arab allies can define this New Palestine as the first step for a larger Palestinian state without defining its ultimate form. But in practice, the unstated assumption can be the 2000 peace plan, assuming Palestinians are cured of their maximalist, genocidal goals. Israel and its Arab allies would have built a stunning contrast to the hate and poverty that rump Gaza will no doubt continue to display.

It may take half a century as it did on the Korean peninsula to achieve this contrasting examples for real peace. Hamas and its supporters (horrifyingly in Western colleges, too) are drunk on blood lust. It certainly took a long occupation and reeducation since 1945 to end the German urge to rampage across Europe--boy did it work. Perhaps Israel should have started after the 1973 war. Perhaps Israel shouldn't wait a second longer. It could be an important front in defeating the evil side in the Islamic Civil War that mullah-run Iran exploits to sacrifice Arabs for Iran's objectives.

The discussions of the need for a Palestinian state are already trying to preempt Israel's attack. But first there must a terrible but necessary war inside Gaza to stop the ability of Hamas to carry out massive murder, rape, and kidnapping raids into Israel. 

UPDATE: The Pentagon announced the extension of Ford's deployment to keep it in the eastern Mediterranean Sea; and the alert of 2,000 troops. These will focus on "support roles, with those working in medical, explosive ordnance, and security capacities prioritized[.]" It is unclear where they will deploy, although it could include inside Israel. Marines are also moving to the Med. after leaving Kuwait. I assume these are for embassy protection as a rapid reaction force. I believe we still have an infantry battalion in Djibouti which can act as a rapid reaction force in place of the departing Marines.

UPDATE: Interesting:

The status of the Gaza Strip after Israel's planned assault will be a "global issue" up for international discussion, an Israeli military spokesman said on Tuesday, according to Reuters.

UPDATE: Hard to say how much of this is real and how much is chest-beating and flinging poo to bolster allies and deter Israeli action and Western support for Israel:

Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian warned on October 15 and 16 that a multi-front war against Israel is becoming more likely and that Iranian-backed militias may take preemptive actions against Israel in the “coming hours.”

Hezbollah bled a lot for Assad in Syria until a few years ago. It may not be eager to fight now, especially when American air power is peering at Iran. Other Iranian proxies might not be eager to fight an obviously enraged Israel right now, preferring to let Hamas enjoy the jihad. 

Iran might not want to risk the assets it has built up over a long time by using them when enemies are clearly poised to fight.

And Russia might not want Iran to encourage a wider war that would limit Iranian support for Russia's war on Ukraine; and convince Israel to arm Ukraine. 

But who knows? Hate is deep and I don't know their calculations.

Also, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel.

UPDATE: I don't have any use for Stephen Walt. Big loss for him, I know. But he got the Auden poem he cites wrong in his effort to claim Israel's response to the Hamas terror raid will be evil, too. The poem was about Germany returning the evil of the Treaty of Versailles. But that itself was wrong, too, by prematurely excusing Germany of its massive crimes that were in the future the day Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Auden eventually regretted his poem. (Tip to Instapundit.)

I also believe we have the lesson of the Treaty of Versailles exactly backwards. The Germans were the first unjustly crowned winners of the Victim Olympics. 

Don't make the mistake of bestowing the title on the brutal Hamas-led Gazans.

UPDATE: Ah, I finally found an old post that quoted a good description of the basics of the rules of war:

The fundamental aim of LOAC [NOTE: Laws of Armed Conflict] is to prevent unnecessary casualties and destruction within the context of military conflict. In pursuit of that goal, three principles govern: necessity, distinction, and proportionality. In general, “necessity” requires that combatants only attack targets necessary to accomplish military objectives. “Distinction” requires that combatants not only distinguish between civilians and combatants, but they also distinguish themselves from civilians (through the wearing of uniforms, use of clearly identified military vehicles, etc.). Finally, “proportionality” requires a combatant to use only that force necessary to accomplish the military objective. It does not require you to use the same force as your enemy (you can bring a JDAM to a gun fight).

I added a clarification of the last  "proportionality"point to address one quibble:

I'd want a better description of the "proportional" principle. After all, Eisenhower noted “Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.” Was Eisenhower advocating a war crime? Obviously not.

One thing has not changed in the decade since I wrote that post:

Too many people who write about American or Israeli "violations" of the laws of war are simply attempting to make us less effective in fighting our enemies. All is not fair in war, to be sure. But all is fair in love of our enemies, it seems.

UPDATE: Oh, and note that I was taught this when I was a new soldier:

Let me quote the relevant part of my Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks (Skill Level 1):

Attack only combat targets. Use the firepower necessary to accomplish your mission but avoid needless destruction.

This is skill level 1, people. Not the Jedi Knights' School of Advanced Military Studies curriculum.

That's what entry-level soldiers were (are?) taught. Yet it escapes so many of the highly educated class lecturing us on what war should be. 

UPDATE: A hospital in Gaza was struck by an apparent faulty Hamas rocket aimed at Israel. Hamas claims massive casualties (but don't take their claim at face value) and of course claims Israel struck it. Israel denies being active in the area and points to evidence of a Hamas accident. 

UPDATE (via Instapundit): What did the Biden administration know about the Hamas invasion and massacre plan and when did it know it? Why would Biden say nothing? Well, a successful Hamas attack might rid Biden of that troublesome Israeli leader, Netanyahu. Also:

The Biden administration has no plans to confront a regime that it is keen to arm with a nuclear bomb. Since the Obama administration first began negotiations with the Iranians over their nuclear program, the United States has given Iran tens of billions of dollars and made available to the clerical regime additional hundreds of billions. Iran, in the eyes of the Biden team, is not a potential belligerent but a prospective partner.

Well, yeah. Are the consequences bigger than the body count Hamas has piled up already?

I can't help but think that our jihadi enemies see our appeasement of Iran--on top of our skedaddle debacle out of Afghanistan--and conclude that we are the "weak horse" that they can safely attack. 

UPDATE: Did you wonder why early in this war I said our Marines would likely be intended to reinforce our embassies in the region?

Tear gas was deployed near the embassy. A source told Fox News Digital that around 1,000 people, including supporters of Hezbollah, went to the U.S. Embassy in Beirut after a rocket hit the Gaza hospital.

UPDATE: It is besides the point to argue whether 0% or 100% of Gazans back Hamas (and as a rule, this is a general term that includes the smaller jihadi groups in Gaza) terrorism. Knowing that is not important for rules of engagement in fighting the war. Civilians will die in war. No rules of war can stop that. But following the rules of war protects the soldiers waging the war. Note that armed civilians may not be considered civilians. They may be unlawful combatants that don't get what little protection the rules of war provide civilians during combat operations. There are exceptions for militias rising up spontaneously to defend against invasion. They can be lawful combatants. They can commit war crimes, of course. That's a separate issue.

UPDATE: I do wonder if the Gazan terrorists will try to stand and fight when Israeli troops move in. That would help Israel kill Hamas and other jihadis quickly, making the Israeli decision to end the war sooner possible. If the Gazan terrorists go underground (literally and figuratively) and blend with the civilians, it will require a much longer campaign to identify and dig out the jihadis. If that fight stretches before the Israelis, depopulating the northeast as a buffer will be more attractive. 

Will Israel take the next step and try to build a better negotiating partner there? Or just settle for the buffer? And then unleash the smart weapons and intelligence agents to wage a low-level quasi-war against Hamas terrorists--even as humanitarian aid flows into the southwest from the Egyptian crossing--in what is effectively a subliminal free-fire zone?

UPDATE: The Easily Excitable won't stop rioting at American embassies because the truth comes out (tip to Instapundit):

The U.S. has collected “high confidence” signals intelligence showing that the explosion at a Gaza hospital compound on Tuesday was caused by the militant group Palestinian Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said, buttressing Israel’s contention that it wasn’t responsible for the blast.

And also: "Hosam Naoum, the Anglican archbishop in Jerusalem, declined to assign blame during a news conference. Naoum said the hospital’s parking lot, and not the hospital building itself, was directly hit." 

UPDATE: This summary of the Gaza "hospital strike" initially blamed on Israel currently sounds about right:

However, there were a few minor, nitpicky problems with the story: 1) The hospital wasn’t blown up, 2) Nowhere near 500 people were killed, and 3) Israel had nothing to do with it.

But that inconvenient reality won't protect Westerners from enraged "retaliation" by the Easily Excitable.

UPDATE: As Westerners demand a "ceasefire now" be clear that they mean only as long as it takes for Hamas to reload and resume slaughtering Jews in Israel. 

UPDATE: Yes, I think I've pointed out that fact: 

During the campaign against ISIS in Mosul, the U.S. flattened a large city with far less provocation—while observing all the rules of modern war[.]

A decision to fight for a city is a decision to destroy it. The Arab world didn't get enraged despite Arab civilian casualties and massive destruction over a very long Iraqi campaign to capture the city from ISIL terrorists. 

And a reminder of ISIL vehicles filled with explosives driven by suicide drivers used to ram into Iraqi positions. Add that to the example of ISIL armed drones and bomb houses designed to utterly destroy all Iraqi troops that entered the house. Israel needs to be very careful.

UPDATE: Hamas has sure exploited its attack (and fake destruction) of a hospital in Gaza to inspire West Bank Palestinian attacks on Israelis. And oddly, Gazan terrorists are firing rockets and mortars at Israeli military targets inside Israel. Huh. Hamas must really fear an invasion that even more killing of civilians won't deter.

UPDATE: Iranian proxies are attacking American troops in Syria and Iraq. And dramatically:

The USS Carney, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer in the northern Red Sea, on Thursday shot down multiple missiles and drones launched by Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen that the Pentagon said were potentially headed toward targets in Israel.

That's another Iranian proxy. Don't assume Hezbollah can't aim missiles at our ships in the Mediterranean Sea, as the Houthi have done to an American destroyer in the Red Sea some years ago. 

UPDATE: If this is true, the motivation for the attack can't be breaking up the Trump-sponsored Abraham Accords, which Biden had halted back then:

Hamas's idea for Saturday's attack on Israel dates to 2021, when the militant group began preparing intensively by studying the tactics and strategies of its opponent, according to Abu Obaida, the spokesman for Hamas's military wing[.]

But the motivation could be from our shameful and needless retreat from Afghanistan that led to a spectacular jihadi victory. 

UPDATE: Oh, and in regard to being careful with our carriers when both are in the eastern Mediterranean,  I recall that Hezbollah hit an Israeli ship some years ago. The small Israeli ship was much closer to shore, but Hezbollah may have better Iranian anti-ship missiles now.

UPDATE: The wringing of hands over the Gazan people perplexes me. Nobody in the Allied side shed tears for Germans and Japanese in 1945 on subsistence diets as blockades and bombardment weakened the logistics sustaining their people in their homelands. Today, why should Israelis care more about the fate of Gazans than Hamas does? The minute the horrible situation of Gazans gets too bad, Hamas can surrender. Just like the Germans and Japanese finally did. Victory first. Compassion later.

UPDATE: Could Gaza be a Mediterranean Hong Kong (well, before China fully took it over)? Or maybe just northeast Gaza, eh? Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: Israel says it has killed a couple senior Hamas leaders. That's nice. Kill enough and regenerating Hamas fighting capabilities will be harder. But Israel needs to kill the trigger pullers in wholesale lots to destroy the fighting capabilities and demoralize supporters by showing all of them that theoretical martyrdom in the jihadi recruiting videos is all too likely in the rubble of Gaza if they attack Israel.

UPDATE: But it contributes to the image of indiscriminate Israeli bombardment:

More than 500 rockets fired by Palestinian Islamic terrorists over the last couple of weeks have fallen inside Gaza, killing and wounding large numbers of Palestinians.

Rockets that kill Jews in Israel? Great. Rockets that kill Palestinians in Gaza? Well that's good, too, according to Hamas and its smaller allies. 

Remember that so-called human rights activists say American cluster bombs with bomblet dud rates of a few percent are a war crime. Twenty percent of the terrorist rockets are falling inside Gaza.

UPDATE: Sure, nice outcome if you can get it:

U.S. and Israeli officials looking to the future of the Gaza Strip after dislodging Hamas have begun discussing possibilities, including potentially installing an interim government backed by the United Nations and with the involvement of Arab governments, people familiar with US government deliberations said.

Or maybe just half of Gaza will have that new Hamas-free government, eh? I mean, Israel is trying to reduce casualties in northeast Gaza by pushing civilians to the southwest. But assuming Israel fights to gain control of the northeast, what next. Where to the civilians in southwest Gaza go? To Egypt? Back to the northeast? 

I just don't know how Israel can clear all of Gaza without even more dead civilians. Even if Israel is responsible for 0% of those deaths, Israel will still get 100% of the blame. That applies to the October 7th hostages and foreign residents and visitors Hamas won't let leave.

UPDATE: Israel has set up a force to go after (and kill) all the terrorists identified in the October 7th terror raid, no matter how long that takes, I assume. That reinforces my suspicion that perhaps Israel doesn't plan to launch a ground attack into all of Gaza. Maybe just in the northeast. 

The delay in going into Gaza on the ground reduces the time Israel has to do the job of destroying Hamas. Is it American pressure to provide time for Hamas to release hostages? At two per week? So nearly two years of delay? 

Or the delay may be necessary to train rusty reservists and avoid having them die in large numbers. To "shape" the battlefield with air attacks and artillery--which probably had a plan in existence. And to make a plan for a major ground operation--as opposed to smaller raids--that probably didn't exist. 

But delay has consequences that limit Israel's options. I warned from the start the clock is ticking. 

The plan to hunt down the terrorists may mean that a serious quasi-war will be on for years and decades after only a partial destruction of Hamas in the time Israel feels it has left.

UPDATE: Remember that we don't really know what the casualty figures are for Gazans. One, Hamas is telling us how many died. And two, Hamas is telling us who is a civilian and who is armed and a legitimate target. 

Just keep in mind that vastly inflated "hospital" death count of 500 that turned out to be a tiny fraction of the claimed toll, was actually inflicted by Palestinian Islamic Jihad with an errant missile, and which struck a parking lot and not the hospital itself. And the media only grudgingly retreated from the loud false claim under pressure. Extrapolate that lesson freely. 

UPDATE: Hmmm:

Israel has reportedly agreed to a request by the United States to delay its ground offensive to allow more time for hostage negotiations, humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza and for the U.S. to move air defense systems into the region.

Plausible. But I don't rule out the possibility that Israel needs more time to train its reservists some more for the difficult missions ahead. This could be to let Israel blame America for the delay. 

UPDATE: I know we're supposed to figure out why Hamas struck Israel on October 7th. But while there are many tactical and strategic reasons offered, I suspect the root cause is that they simply enjoy slaughtering and abusing Jews. And Hamas knows their constituencies enjoy watching Hamas slaughter and abuse Jews. 

UPDATE: Israeli ground troops probed Gaza defenses:

Speaking to CNN, IDF spokesperson Peter Lerner said the raid, which he described as large but limited in scope, was “a clear and sweep operation intended to create better terms for ground operations if and when that comes in.”

UPDATE: Apparently with air defenses in place, American aircraft on October 26th struck Iranian proxies in eastern Syria to protect American troops under attack by those groups. No details yet but I assume they were limited strikes. The problem is that Iran will fight its enemies to the last dead Arab. Does this really deter Iran?

In one sense this is part of a longstanding fight between American forces and Iranian proxies. But in practice this is part of Iran's expanded war using Hamas against Israel, with Hezbollah and the Houthi acting up to distract us. The biggest question is whether Hezbollah will enter the war. Hard to judge how much is bluff.

UPDATE: Television news had a graphic showing the Eisenhower strike group heading for the Persian Gulf. FFS, are we that stupid? A burning carrier sends a different message than we intend.

UPDATE: DOD statement on "narrowly tailored" strikes on Iranian Revolutionary Guards facilities in Syria. Yeah, we're still in the nuanced signaling phase.

UPDATE: Israel launched another ground raid and warned the actual invasion would take a long time.

Tick tock, Israel. Granting enemies time means they may use it. And their friends and allies may use it, too. And not to sound too pessimistic, but I don't know how much the Biden adminstration can--or wants to--shield Israel.

UPDATE: News Sunday morning (October 29th) indicates Israel has moved to the next stage of the war with ground operations. But the article speaks of elite troops rather than regular army forces. So it seems more like an expansion between raids and full invasion. Live news doesn't seem to be focused on anything like a full counter-invasion. Tip to Instapundit.

UPDATE: I don't know how long Eisenhower will remain in the Mediterranean Sea. But as of October 28th, the group is there:

The Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group is headed toward the mass of U.S. naval power in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea after transiting the Strait of Gibraltar on Saturday. Meanwhile, two ships of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group are now in the Red Sea.

There are British and French warships in the eastern Med., too. 

I seriously wonder if our destroyer in the Red Sea is there to protect American warships transiting the Suez Canal from Houthi anti-ship strikes--and not protecting Israel, as claimed.

UPDATE: The Nazis made the Palestinian case for equating Hamas terrorism with Israel's war to stop Hamas. There is a great difference. It actually matters that Hamas deliberately killed civilians while Israel only kills civilians who get in the way of killing Hamas terrorists. The Nurenberg trials judge rejected that defense of terror murder:

A city is bombed for tactical purposes… it inevitably happens that nonmilitary persons are killed. This is an incident, a grave incident to be sure, but an unavoidable corollary of battle action. The civilians are not individualized. The bomb falls, it is aimed at the railroad yards, houses along the tracks are hit and many of their occupants killed. But that is entirely different, both in fact and in law, from an armed force marching up to these same railroad tracks, entering those houses abutting thereon, dragging out the men, women and children and shooting them.

Exactly.

NOTE: I took the basic features of this original post from my thoughts in updates to this post, "The Last Hamas War".

NOTE: ISW is offering some war insights in its coverage of Iran.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.