War, what is it good for?

[CaptainFritz28]

But the point remains, a new leader can take over without even needing an election (just like the House speaker, or UK's prime minister). Israel may need a new election (if they can't figure out a stable ruling coalition...) But that isn't even the end of the world.

I find parliamentary systems curious; whereas in the U.S. the president actually has some power and balances out the legislative branch, in parliaments it seems that the entire government hinges upon one branch, and thus ultimately on the few who run the parliament.

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me: I am only an American high schooler who has not extensively studied parliamentary systems. I'm well acquainted with American government, but not so much with others.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

But the point remains, a new leader can take over without even needing an election (just like the House speaker, or UK's prime minister). Israel may need a new election (if they can't figure out a stable ruling coalition...) But that isn't even the end of the world.

I find parliamentary systems curious; whereas in the U.S. the president actually has some power and balances out the legislative branch, in parliaments it seems that the entire government hinges upon one branch, and thus ultimately on the few who run the parliament.

If I am mistaken, please enlighten me: I am only an American high schooler who has not extensively studied parliamentary systems. I'm well acquainted with American government, but not so much with others.

A parliamentary Democracy is still restrained by an independent judiciary.

There is often something akin to an executive branch in the Office of the Prime Minister (and, sometimes, this role is shared with a separate Presidential/Governor General position). The Prime Minister is also part of the Parliamentary branch, but they do not have absolute power over it - even if they command a party with a solid majority, they needs to keep their own Members of Parliament happy or they can face defections, leadership challenges, votes of non-confidence, etc. Power can be even further diluted when the Parliamentary branch itself is split into two Houses (Canada is bicameral, Israel just has one House - the Knesset).

In Israel the power of the Parliamentary branch is further restrained by a proportional representation system that encourages a proliferation of small parties. Governing coalitions there typically involve many parties, some of which actually agree on very little. Keeping these coalitions together typically requires huge compromises on policy, selecting Cabinet Ministers from multiple parties, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

Thank you for the explanation. It seems, then, that the collapse that Orathaic describes would not be so much a collapse as a standard transition of government?

When I think of collapse, I envision a situation in which the government is incapable of performing its duties for a substantial period, allowing for things to fall into disrepair, possibly irreparable. Is this too extreme a definition?

[orathaic]

Yeah, with or without an election, the standard terminology for a coalition government breaking up would be the 'collapse of the colation'.

There are cases where such a collapse leads to no government for a period of time, best examples where this happens but isn't catastrophic is where there is another level of government to keep things running... So Northern Ireland currently has no executive/power sharing but the government in Westminster has appointed the usual minister for Northern Ireland who is ultimately responsible for things.

And Belgium went over a year without a national government, which had local governments in the two major areas - which have significant autonomy - continue using their powers.

Israel has been struggling to keep a single stable government in place (7 in the last 10 years) and the current one was facing serious opposition coming up to October 7th, with many now blaming them for the security failures which allowed cotober 7th to happen (along with attempts to undermine the independence of the judicial system, which the IDF reservists were threatening to strike over) - so I'm a way the war has stabilised the political situation, as no-one wants to collapse the government during an ongoing conflict. And in another way, the lack of a deal over hostages was destabilising.

I have seen the suggestion that Netanyahu will not survive once the war 'concludes' as he was already struggling in popularity and is taking most of the blame for what happened.

[CaptainFritz28]

Per that definition, I can agree that the Israeli government will most likely collapse after the war ends.

[orathaic]

Per that definition, I can agree that the Israeli government will most likely collapse after the war ends.

The question remains what kind of government will replace it. And how split public opinion will be. I have no idea of what that will look like, or whether a lasting peace will be possible with different people in charge (on both sides).

But the current level of support for Hamas (and thus the violence of October 7th) doesn't fill me with hope.

Maybe Egypt's proposal of a demilitarised Gaza operating independently will bring ús in the right direction... But I have my doubts.

[orathaic]

More on the claims that the IDF indiscrimate fire killed Israeli civilians, and Intelligence warnings and failures:

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1728854362917847203?s=20

[CaptainFritz28]

More on the claims that the IDF indiscrimate fire killed Israeli civilians, and Intelligence warnings and failures:

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1728854362917847203?s=20

Notably, that post cites no sources. Also notably, we've gone over everything stated in it already. Are you implying that an uncredited twitter post is valid evidence?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Since we're revisiting factual claims in this thread, maybe it's time to update the evidence on Al-Shifa hospital.

When it was just the IDF and US Military saying the hospital was used for military purposes, I was skeptical. The initial BBC reporting that Jamie shared seemed to confirm the hospital had been used by Hamas at least a little bit.

More journalist have now been allowed to look and it now seems as though Hamas was using the hospital somewhat extensively (tunnels, underground bunkers, drones, etc.).

See:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-army-displays-tunnel-beneath-al-shifa-it-says-served-hamas-hideout-2023-11-22/#:~:text=,13%2C000%20people%20in%20the

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-war-gaza-shifa-tunnels-hamas-c71ebee136e018fd5a3572a54040f73e

[CaptainFritz28]

Since we're revisiting factual claims in this thread, maybe it's time to update the evidence on Al-Shifa hospital.

When it was just the IDF and US Military saying the hospital was used for military purposes, I was skeptical. The initial BBC reporting that Jamie shared seemed to confirm the hospital had been used by Hamas at least a little bit.

More journalist have now been allowed to look and it now seems as though Hamas was using the hospital somewhat extensively (tunnels, underground bunkers, drones, etc.).

See:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-army-displays-tunnel-beneath-al-shifa-it-says-served-hamas-hideout-2023-11-22/#:~:text=,13%2C000%20people%20in%20the

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-war-gaza-shifa-tunnels-hamas-c71ebee136e018fd5a3572a54040f73e

Every time something like this happens where some war crime or other is blamed on Israel for unjustly killing civilians (like the rocket that hit a hospital on the 17th of October) I think "oh, Israel must be a lot worse than I thought" and then the truth is revealed (for the aforementioned strike, the fact that it was a misfired rocket from Gaza), and I realize why I have the views that I do.

[orathaic]

More on the claims that the IDF indiscrimate fire killed Israeli civilians, and Intelligence warnings and failures:

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1728854362917847203?s=20

Notably, that post cites no sources. Also notably, we've gone over everything stated in it already. Are you implying that an uncredited twitter post is valid evidence?

Notably the only fact checkers I can find online suggest the claims are false.

So I would like to withdraw them, pending actual evidence.

[Octavious]

That's progress, I guess.

Does it concern you at all how quick you were to believe such claims?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

That's progress, I guess.

Does it concern you at all how quick you were to believe such claims?

We have to count our blessings in this thread. Jamie finally admitted that Israel's policy isn't actually aimed at killing every last Palestinian. Orathaic admitted to sharing pretty crappy "evidence" to support their viewpoint. This is pretty good self reflection for an online discussion about a very heated topic :)

[CaptainFritz28]

That's progress, I guess.

Does it concern you at all how quick you were to believe such claims?

We have to count our blessings in this thread. Jamie finally admitted that Israel's policy isn't actually aimed at killing every last Palestinian. Orathaic admitted to sharing pretty crappy "evidence" to support their viewpoint. This is pretty good self reflection for an online discussion about a very heated topic :)

Honestly, it really is. A sizeable majority of other internet-goers would fail to make said progress. I know that I at certain points in my time on this interweb (as short as it is) have made similar mistakes, and have to akwardly go back and correct them, or at least the ones I remember. I have a good deal more respect for Orathaic having admitted that he was wrong about something, or at least that some evidence he presented was flawed. That is something a great many of our political leaders could learn from, unfortunately.

(I'm still annoyed at Jamie for muting me :D)

[orathaic]

We can all be wrong about things.

I think it is only in being willing to recognise where we are wrong that we can learn.

I still think indiscrimate bombing of civilians is bad. And if Israel decides to occupy Gaza for years or decades then it will result in a lot more Israeli casualties as insurgences are very difficult to end.

And the the Egyptian suggestion of a demilitarised Gaza (or was it Palestine) might be the only workable solution i have seen put on the table.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

We can all be wrong about things.

I think it is only in being willing to recognise where we are wrong that we can learn.

It's an special type of wrong to glom on to low quality reporting that fits your preferred narrative. I'm happy you looked into it later, but I'd be curious to know what went wrong. I don't know what source can claim to be unbiased in this conflict, but a random Substacker on X isn't where I'd go first.

I love my print subscriptions to The Economist, Canada's Globe & Mail, etc. They're biased too, but their bias is predictable. They run genuinely critical letters to the editor. They can't algorithmically target their articles to my previous reading on the subject. And by reporting only once per week, I'm not inundated by heart-wrenching but ultimately uninformative articles that boil down to "BABIES ARE DYING".

I still think indiscrimate bombing of civilians is bad. And if Israel decides to occupy Gaza for years or decades then it will result in a lot more Israeli casualties as insurgences are very difficult to end.

And the the Egyptian suggestion of a demilitarised Gaza (or was it Palestine) might be the only workable solution i have seen put on the table.

I mostly agree with this. However, the obvious counterpoint is that the non-occupation of Gaza still resulted in 1,200 dead Israeli civilians (and the internal displacement of tens of thousands living near the border), so maybe a change of approach is warranted. I agree that IDF occupation would be a disaster, I'm just not so certain it would be worse than the pre-war status quo from the perspective of Israel.

Gaza will be demilitarized one way or another. We've seen the IDF's approach and it ain't pretty. It would be much better if it could done via a formal deal with other international participants. That said, I'm doubtful that Egypt or any other neighbouring country would actually involve themselves given their demonstrated lack of interest in materially supporting Palestinians.

[Octavious]

We can all be wrong about things.

I think it is only in being willing to recognise where we are wrong that we can learn

I couldn't agree more, and I very much share Bert's curiosity regarding what lesson you have taken

[orathaic]

Egypt wants next to nothing to do with it. They have the Muslim brotherhood, their equivalent to Hamas, and I think they had a cue to remove them from power, because their military would rather just not.

Peace over fighting a war for the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy.

Jordan has an issue that a majority of their population are Palestinians (who fled from Palestine over the past decades). And so they would also love to have a peaceful solution where some of that population can return (whether to the West Bank or otherwise) but I don't know what their current thinking is now, other than fearing what this large population of refugees could do if they sided too much with Israel.

And those are the two major neighbourhood who want peace (I'm sure someone who has done more recent reading could enlighten me further...)

Gaza will be demilitarized one way or another.

That may be easier said than done.

Israel has been blockading Gaza since Hamas took over, and they still managed to get weapons in, despite Egypt not exactly supporting the weapons flow. So expect massive Palestinian casualties.

However, the obvious counterpoint is that the non-occupation of Gaza still resulted in 1,200 dead Israeli civilians

Have you read anything about the failed intelligence efforts in the part of the Israelis, this shouldn't have been allowed to happen, I have seen reports the Egypt warning Israel the day before and that some Israeli groups warned the govt aswellm

Not sure how accurate that info is.

The other side is, of course the Hamas military wing attacked Israel, they wanted all prisoners held by Israel (often without charge) to be released. They see them as people kidnapped by Israel, and they knew that Israel would trade them back for hostages, and even trade more than one Palestinian for each Israeli hostage (as this has happened before). The killing seems like it was spontaneous rather than planned, they weren't expecting to have so much success, but it isn't surprising. So the real counter is why do ground level Palestinian fighters hate Israel so much, and how can the cycle of violence be ended?

Continued bombing and occupation of Gaza is guaranteed to not achieve an end to the violence.

[orathaic]

Thank you for the explanation. It seems, then, that the collapse that Orathaic describes would not be so much a collapse as a standard transition of government?

Standard transition in functioning democracies is for the government to serve a full term, organise an election, and act in a care taker role until the newly elected Parliament forms a new government.

No period of instability, no surprise elections, though some parliaments allow early elections whenever the Prime Minister wants (as the UK saw with their last election... It is usually done when the party in power wants to increase their majority... Or on that case gain an absolute majority).

The government collapsing is usually the result of some crisis (at least a crisis which the current government is to blame for) or where a coalition partner decides they can't stand by the current ruling party's actions.

So you could imagine the deadlock in the US at present, the Republican party is split, in most countries with proportional representation they would not be a single party, those Republicans would be a less formal coalition of conservatives and their inability to select a speaker or figure out how to pay for federal employees (except of course themselves, because if their own pay was tied to a government shutdown that would mean only those who were independently wealthy could do the job... But I guess that is pretty much the case anyway) would be enough to collapse the Republican lead House and instead force a coalition of centre left and centre right to take over...

Which wouldn't necessaroly be a bad thing, in my opinion.

[orathaic]

We can all be wrong about things.

I think it is only in being willing to recognise where we are wrong that we can learn

I couldn't agree more, and I very much share Bert's curiosity regarding what lesson you have taken

I have learned that sharing things without comment will lead people to believe that my position is proven entirely by the thing I shared and the falsity means my entire position can be dismissed.

Is that a fair comment?