War, what is it good for?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Oh, a thing called the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) apparently surveyed 668 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip regarding the current crisis to get a measure of public feeling. It is pretty grim reading. Does anyone know if there's any truth to it? I've no idea whether it's a reliable source or not

Let's just be clear what the finding was:

"An opinion poll conducted by Birzeit University's Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) revealed that a majority of surveyed Palestinians in the West Bank support the October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas, and an even wider majority have a positive view of the various terrorist factions.

After over 1,200 people were brutally murdered and over 240 taken hostage, including children and elderly, many civilians tortured and raped, the survey showed that 68 percent in the West Bank strongly supported the massacres and kidnapping, while another 16 percent supported to some extent."

Even better, the original report: https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf

It's published by Palestinian authors. I don't claim to know the veracity: https://archive.unescwa.org/arab-world-research-and-development

[CaptainFritz28]

Oh, a thing called the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) apparently surveyed 668 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip regarding the current crisis to get a measure of public feeling. It is pretty grim reading. Does anyone know if there's any truth to it? I've no idea whether it's a reliable source or not

Let's just be clear what the finding was:

"An opinion poll conducted by Birzeit University's Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) revealed that a majority of surveyed Palestinians in the West Bank support the October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas, and an even wider majority have a positive view of the various terrorist factions.

After over 1,200 people were brutally murdered and over 240 taken hostage, including children and elderly, many civilians tortured and raped, the survey showed that 68 percent in the West Bank strongly supported the massacres and kidnapping, while another 16 percent supported to some extent."

Even better, the original report: https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf

It's published by Palestinian authors. I don't claim to know the veracity: https://archive.unescwa.org/arab-world-research-and-development

I won't trust any study until I can see some proof of its legitimacy. That said, I don't have a reason NOT to trust that this study is legit. However, it seems like a bit of a stretch to extrapolate this to mean that 68% of all Palestinians approve of Hamas' October 7 attacks. Even if it is true, I wouldn't make it the basis of any poitical decisions.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I did more reading on the study. It's published by a research group that's associated with the PLO government and based out of a West Bank University that has several prominent alumni (incl. the Palestinian ambassador the UK). To be clear, the study is about Oct. 7 and was conducted earlier this month. I think it's the best possible gauge of Palestinian attitudes towards Oct. 7 we're ever going to get and the responses are extremely grim.

Table 27 is where the action is: In response to the question: "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?", 83% of West Bank respondents answered either "Extremely Support" or "Somewhat Support". Support in the Gaza strip was notably lower, but still 64%.

Palestinians' political views make them no less deserving of human rights. Obviously these views are partly shaped in response to Israeli policy. And Israel's war crimes would still be war crimes even if 100% of the civilian population was in favour of terror attacks on Israel.

But the idea that "Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians" is only half true. That seems relevant to anyone holding out for a two state solution. These views underscore the extreme security risks faced by Israel. They also partly explain why neighbouring Arab countries are extremely reluctant to take in Palestinian refugees.

[CaptainFritz28]

I did more reading on the study. It's published by a research group that's associated with the PLO government and based out of a West Bank University that has several prominent alumni (incl. the Palestinian ambassador the UK). To be clear, the study is about Oct. 7 and was conducted earlier this month. I think it's the best possible gauge of Palestinian attitudes towards Oct. 7 we're ever going to get and the responses are extremely grim.

Table 27 is where the action is: In response to the question: "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?", 83% of West Bank respondents answered either "Extremely Support" or "Somewhat Support". Support in the Gaza strip was notably lower, but still 64%.

Palestinians' political views make them no less deserving of human rights. Obviously these views are partly shaped in response to Israeli policy. And Israel's war crimes would still be war crimes even if 100% of the civilian population was in favour of terror attacks on Israel.

But the idea that "Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians" is only half true. That seems relevant to anyone holding out for a two state solution. These views underscore the extreme security risks faced by Israel. They also partly explain why neighbouring Arab countries are extremely reluctant to take in Palestinian refugees.

That's as much credibility as I need. Thanks for looking into that for us. I agree with all the rest of this post (except for the spelling of neighboring).

[orathaic]

I did more reading on the study. It's published by a research group that's associated with the PLO government and based out of a West Bank University that has several prominent alumni (incl. the Palestinian ambassador the UK). To be clear, the study is about Oct. 7 and was conducted earlier this month. I think it's the best possible gauge of Palestinian attitudes towards Oct. 7 we're ever going to get and the responses are extremely grim.

Table 27 is where the action is: In response to the question: "How much do you support the military operation carried out by the Palestinian resistance led by Hamas on October 7th?", 83% of West Bank respondents answered either "Extremely Support" or "Somewhat Support". Support in the Gaza strip was notably lower, but still 64%.

Palestinians' political views make them no less deserving of human rights. Obviously these views are partly shaped in response to Israeli policy. And Israel's war crimes would still be war crimes even if 100% of the civilian population was in favour of terror attacks on Israel.

But the idea that "Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians" is only half true. That seems relevant to anyone holding out for a two state solution. These views underscore the extreme security risks faced by Israel. They also partly explain why neighbouring Arab countries are extremely reluctant to take in Palestinian refugees.

Does it go into why they support the attacks?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Does it go into why they support the attacks?

The closest answer to your question is probably in Table 31 "In your opinion, what was the main reason for the operation launched by the Palestinian resistance on October 7th":
(i) 35% said it was to stop the violations of Al-Aqsa Mosque (a religious flashpoint in East Jerusalem where Jewish settlers broke in and read the Torah, among other religious slights)
(ii) 29% said it was to "Free Palestine"
(iii) 21% said it was to "Break the siege of the Gaza Strip"
(iv) only a handful of respondents cited other causes

I'll wrap up a few more interesting insights from the survey here:

- 64% of respondents see this as a war between Israel and Palestinians, while only 19% see this as a war between Israel and Hamas in particular [table 39]

- Table 35: "Do you expect this war to end by:" seems relevant to the question of why this war started and whether it's supported by Palestinians. 75% of respondents believe the conflict will result in the liberation of Gaza from Israel. It's too complex to summarize here, but their views on other potential outcomes are also very interesting.

- There are mixed signals about how much Palestinians' support Hamas:
(i) 88% of West Bank Palestinians and 60% of Gazans have a favourable view of Hamas' role in this conflict. Support for Hamas' military wings (Al Aqsa Brigade, Al Kassam) is similarly higher This is much greater than the share with favourable views of either Fatah (23%) or the PLO (10%). Of course, Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia are all hated. [table 29]
(ii) However, in response to the question "What would you like as a preferred government after the war is finished in Gaza Strip?" only 14% of total respondents (and 8% of Gazans) answered "Hamas" - the most popular answer was an unspecified "National unity government". [table 55] This is a little hard to interpret though - I suspect a majority people in Canada would also opt for "some unspecified unity government" if asked to choose among existing political parties (and all their baggage).

- Various questions suggest that Palestinians are less interested in a two-state solution in the aftermath of Oct. 7. 75% prefer a Palestinian one state solution (from the river to the sea).

The full publication can be found here: https://www.awrad.org/files/server/polls/polls2023/Public%20Opinion%20Poll%20-%20Gaza%20War%202023%20-%20Tables%20of%20Results.pdf

[orathaic]

You can contrast support for paramilitaries in Northern Ireland before and after the good Friday peace agreement.

The more hardline/pro-violence parties (SF/DUP) were unpopular during the violence.

The more middle of the ground, working for peace parties (SDLP/UUP) were seen as offering a solution to end the violence and had a majority of support (on both sides).

Afterward the peace agreement this tendancy was reversed (nobody wanted compromise anymore, or to give any further ground).

If the above is accurate a majority of Palestinians seem to think violence is the only solution to their oppression, but don't seem to trust Hamas to be an effective government after peace/victory is achieved (I suspect similar opinions would prevail in Israel).

As such the chances of peace seem remote at this point. Which is a very sad situation. Various US mil-bloggers are discussing what the US learned from 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and fear the war Israel is getting itself into is unwinnable. But I suspect the ethnic cleansing which the US would not engage directly in will be acceptable to hard right elements of the current Israeli coalition, and my only ipe is that this will not be considered acceptable to their US backers (and less importantly EU leaders).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

As such the chances of peace seem remote at this point. Which is a very sad situation. Various US mil-bloggers are discussing what the US learned from 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and fear the war Israel is getting itself into is unwinnable. But I suspect the ethnic cleansing which the US would not engage directly in will be acceptable to hard right elements of the current Israeli coalition, and my only ipe is that this will not be considered acceptable to their US backers (and less importantly EU leaders).

"Ethnic cleansing" really has some strong implications here. Do you really think a plausible end result of this conflict the death or displacement of most Gazans? Seems much more likely that some thousands more will die, Hamas will get wiped, then Israel will either (i) occupy the territory directly, something they really don't want to do; or (ii) run a controlled election of hand-picked Palestinian leaders / try to put the PLO in charge.

Calling this "unwinnable" isn't quite right - if the goal is to make Hamas unable to do Oct. 7 again then the IDF might actually succeed. If they find a way for Gaza to be governed without active IDF occupation, and not by Hamas, that might feel like a victory compared to the pre-Oct. 7 status quo. No doubt the current conflict will radicalize more Palestinians, but how much more radicalized can they get? What matters to Israel now isn't Palestinians' opinions, but their military capabilities.

Israeli society might countenance the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians following the terror attack on Oct. 7, but they're not Nazi German and they will not pursue an exterminationist approach. I'm not denying Israel's war crimes and I'm not blind to what prominent Israeli politicians have said in public, but any Israeli government that tried a exterminationist approach would not stay in power long. Bibi's government is unlikely to survive much longer. I see no situation in which millions of Palestinians don't continue to live in Gaza after this conflict, albeit a bombed out and shittier version of Gaza than before Oct. 7 (then again, if Hamas' rule is durably ended this might help over time).

[orathaic]

As such the chances of peace seem remote at this point. Which is a very sad situation. Various US mil-bloggers are discussing what the US learned from 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and fear the war Israel is getting itself into is unwinnable. But I suspect the ethnic cleansing which the US would not engage directly in will be acceptable to hard right elements of the current Israeli coalition, and my only ipe is that this will not be considered acceptable to their US backers (and less importantly EU leaders).

"Ethnic cleansing" really has some strong implications here. Do you really think a plausible end result of this conflict the death or displacement of most Gazans? Seems much more likely that some thousands more will die, Hamas will get wiped, then Israel will either (i) occupy the territory directly, something they really don't want to do; or (ii) run a controlled election of hand-picked Palestinian leaders / try to put the PLO in charge.

First, on Ethnic cleansing, on Israeli minister suggested using nuclear weapons in Gaza. This may not be supported by the entire Israeli government, but I did say 'some parts of the far-right coalition'.

Second, when I say it is unwinnable, I am talking about the experience of the US spending 20 years in Afghanistan and failing to 'wipe out' the Taliban, and their exper with urban warfare in Iraq. Hamas being wiped out without ethnic cleansing seems rather unlikely.

Third, since Hamas actually had support from the far right elements of the current Israeli government, I am not sure they even want a hand picked/PLO government in charge (the PLO from what I can tell is an umbrella organisation which included Hamas, as their only goal was to unite all Palestinians political parties in the goal of Liberating Palestine), but what the decide to do seems less interesting than how they can possibly get there.

What matters to Israel now isn't Palestinians' opinions, but their military capabilities.

And Hamas or other militant groups are likely to continue to receive international support, at least from Iran and rebuild their military abilities, without a military occupation this seems like it is inevitable. Israel has tried to blockade Gaza for years now. It hasn't prevented weapons from getting into the hands of militants.

Israeli society might countenance the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians following the terror attack on Oct. 7, but they're not Nazi German and they will not pursue an exterminationist approach. I'm not denying Israel's war crimes and I'm not blind to what prominent Israeli politicians have said in public, but any Israeli government that tried a exterminationist approach would not stay in power long. Bibi's government is unlikely to survive much longer. I see no situation in which millions of Palestinians don't continue to live in Gaza after this conflict, albeit a bombed out and shittier version of Gaza than before Oct. 7 (then again, if Hamas' rule is durably ended this might help over time).

I think you are forgetting, a majority of Germans didn't support extermination of the 'undesirables' (their Jewish, Romani, disabled, and queer populations). Some even disbelieved it was happening/buried their heads in the sand.

It doesn't require majority support for ethnic cleansing to take place.

They will not build concentration camps, Palestinian populations are already concentrated in Gaza (and the West bank) and not distributed across the region, intermixsd with the rest of the population.

They will not build gas chambers, but they are killing entire families.

They are kidnapping individual Palestinians and holding them without trial (Hamas had offered to release all the hostages in exchange for the release of all Palestinians held by Israel).

They are forcing the population to move and destroying their homes so they can't return - this is pretty much the definition of ethnic cleansing. You only have to kill the ones who remain behind and tell the public they were all Hamas militants.

Lastly, you are right, Bibi's rule may not last, but the far right in Israel has been gaining support for years and is likely to have some influence in the next government (maybe they won't control it completely, but if the next government tried to dismantle the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, I suspect they would face far right protestors if not outright civil war, so whoever comes to power will not do that. And will be forces to continue some policy in Gaza which prevents peace, and encourages more Palestinians to pursue violence as their only hope to escape oppression.)

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

I've got nothing to say other than that sounds wildly unlikely to me. Gazan civilian deaths are tragic, Israel should not get a pass on its war crimes, and yet the civilian death rate is currently not way out to lunch relative to other modern urban assaults (e.g., Mosul). The most intense period of fighting is likely coming to a close and there will not be hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians as a result of this conflict. Israel's failure to restrain the settler movement is horrific, but it's nothing like Nazi Germany. Northern Gaza will have hundreds of thousands Gazans in it again even if it remains conquered by Israel indefinitely. I wish we could bet money on these things.

[orathaic]

I've got nothing to say other than that sounds wildly unlikely to me. Gazan civilian deaths are tragic, Israel should not get a pass on its war crimes, and yet the civilian death rate is currently not way out to lunch relative to other modern urban assaults (e.g., Mosul). The most intense period of fighting is likely coming to a close and there will not be hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians as a result of this conflict. Israel's failure to restrain the settler movement is horrific, but it's nothing like Nazi Germany. Northern Gaza will have hundreds of thousands Gazans in it again even if it remains conquered by Israel indefinitely. I wish we could bet money on these things.

Do you think an Israeli occupation will result in a prolonged insurgent style conflict?

[CaptainFritz28]

I've got nothing to say other than that sounds wildly unlikely to me. Gazan civilian deaths are tragic, Israel should not get a pass on its war crimes, and yet the civilian death rate is currently not way out to lunch relative to other modern urban assaults (e.g., Mosul). The most intense period of fighting is likely coming to a close and there will not be hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians as a result of this conflict. Israel's failure to restrain the settler movement is horrific, but it's nothing like Nazi Germany. Northern Gaza will have hundreds of thousands Gazans in it again even if it remains conquered by Israel indefinitely. I wish we could bet money on these things.

Do you think an Israeli occupation will result in a prolonged insurgent style conflict?

There are a few options:
A) Israel backs out now, Hamas remains in control, and nothing gets fixed.
B) Israel annexes Gaza, leaving it in a better state than under Hamas, but not by much. The rest of the world dislikes Israel more, and Israel has to deal with a very tense situation in Gaza indefinitely. On the positive side, Hamas is gone. However, anti-Israel sentiment may result in the rise of a new, just as evil, group.
C) Israel institutes a selected government that is pro-Israel, reaches a treaty, and allows Gaza, after a short occupation, to be left mostly alone with strict monitoring. The people of Gaza, after seeing their situation change for the better, may be less anti-Israel, and the likelihood of a new Hamas goes down.

I think, however, that if Israel continues the invasion they can be successful in entirely eradicating the military of Hamas. Hamas will still have its cowardly leaders in Qatar, but without military power, it will be up to Iran directly to engage in warfare against Israel, instead of letting Hamas do the dirty work. They are less likely to do so, but there is the possibility that it might result in a war between Iran/other Shia Arab nations against Israel.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Do you think an Israeli occupation will result in a prolonged insurgent style conflict?

Yes, that's been the situation for decades now.

Absent a durable two-state solution, which seems extremely unlikely now, Gaza will be militarily blockaded and/or occupied by Israel and there will still be some version of violent Palestinian resistance. What matters now is the form of Palestinians' resistance - if Hamas gets obliterated, Palestinian resistance might look more like stone throwing and less like killing 1,200 civilians in a single day. In this case the world goes back to something like the pre-war status quo: Palestinians languish in a blockaded Gaza, both sides failing to take serious steps towards a two-state solution, and there is constant but low-level conflict.

I think what's likely is something like the good Captain's Fritz' option C:

C) Israel institutes a selected government that is pro-Israel, reaches a treaty, and allows Gaza, after a short occupation, to be left mostly alone with strict monitoring. The people of Gaza, after seeing their situation change for the better, may be less anti-Israel, and the likelihood of a new Hamas goes down.

With the caveat that I firmly don't believe Palestinians are going to be less anti-Israel after this conflict - rather, they'll be more anti-Israel, but less able to do anything about it.

[CaptainFritz28]

Do you think an Israeli occupation will result in a prolonged insurgent style conflict?

I think what's likely is something like the good Captain's Fritz' option C:

C) Israel institutes a selected government that is pro-Israel, reaches a treaty, and allows Gaza, after a short occupation, to be left mostly alone with strict monitoring. The people of Gaza, after seeing their situation change for the better, may be less anti-Israel, and the likelihood of a new Hamas goes down.

With the caveat that I firmly don't believe Palestinians are going to be less anti-Israel after this conflict - rather, they'll be more anti-Israel, but less able to do anything about it.

Good point. I suppose I mean in the far future, with Hamas gone, the Gazans' situation will be better. Israel won't have to be AS worried about Gaza, and over time, things will become more favorable for the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are not force fed propaganda by the then former Hamas leaders, and if they have some sense, they will realize that thus increase in the quality of their condition was brought about by Israel's leadership. Thus, they will have a more favorable outlook on Israel.

However, that all hinges on multiple factors which are very much not guaranteed. It is almost certain that they will be more anti-Israel in the short term, and it is more probable that that will remain as a grudge for the long term.

Either way, whether they recognize it or not, Israel's liberation of Gaza from Hamas will be a better situation for the Gazans than it has been since 2006.

[orathaic]

Utter fantasy.

Hamas will not be defeated militarily. They will continue to hide, plan and fight the IDF with increasingly desperate and inhumane tactics, with support from Gazans unsympathetic to Israel (ie the vast majority of them) because they are seen as the only ones at least attempting to do something.

The IDF will be bogged down for years, and suffer a constant stream of casualties while inflicting thousands back on Gazans. Nothing will change in Gaza while things can get wroae in the West Bank, and other Iranian proxies may even figure out ways to escalate.

That is what the experiences of US troops who fought this kind of urban warfare in Mosul believes.

There is no 'pro-Israeli' group to take over run I g the place, and anyone pro-Israeli enough would be seen as illegitimate by Palestinians (and thus seen as a legitimate target and attacked by their own people for collaborating with Israel).

This will continue until Israel's government collapses and a new leader decides to end the current wave of violence.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Utter fantasy.

Hamas will not be defeated militarily. They will continue to hide, plan and fight the IDF with increasingly desperate and inhumane tactics, with support from Gazans unsympathetic to Israel (ie the vast majority of them) because they are seen as the only ones at least attempting to do something.

The IDF will be bogged down for years, and suffer a constant stream of casualties while inflicting thousands back on Gazans. Nothing will change in Gaza while things can get wroae in the West Bank, and other Iranian proxies may even figure out ways to escalate.

That is what the experiences of US troops who fought this kind of urban warfare in Mosul believes.

There is no 'pro-Israeli' group to take over run I g the place, and anyone pro-Israeli enough would be seen as illegitimate by Palestinians (and thus seen as a legitimate target and attacked by their own people for collaborating with Israel).

This will continue until Israel's government collapses and a new leader decides to end the current wave of violence.

I think you're catastrophizing. Every previous conflict in the region didn't spiral into endless mass killing. Israel's government will change democratically, not collapse.

[CaptainFritz28]

This will continue until Israel's government collapses and a new leader decides to end the current wave of violence.

I find it humorous that you describe the plight of the Gazans as being entirely and totally against Israel, but then you portray the collapse of Israel's government as a positive thing. If the Palestinians are truly so opposed to Israel, then the collapse of the Israeli government would only lead to more violence instigated by the resurgence of Hamas and other terrorist groups in the region.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too: either Israel's government collapses and chaos ensues with thousands more deaths, or Israel stays intact and some solution is worked out. If Israel collapses, there will be no end to the current wave of violence.

[orathaic]

This will continue until Israel's government collapses and a new leader decides to end the current wave of violence.

I find it humorous that you describe the plight of the Gazans as being entirely and totally against Israel, but then you portray the collapse of Israel's government as a positive thing. If the Palestinians are truly so opposed to Israel, then the collapse of the Israeli government would only lead to more violence instigated by the resurgence of Hamas and other terrorist groups in the region.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too: either Israel's government collapses and chaos ensues with thousands more deaths, or Israel stays intact and some solution is worked out. If Israel collapses, there will be no end to the current wave of violence.

I'm not sure if you have a concept of how governments collapse in a parliamentary democracy.

The UK has had several leadership crises and replaced their Prime Minister multiple times in recent years, despite not new election (outside of the Tory party's membership voting in a new leader), but as a two party state that hasn't involved a complete collapse of government.

Israel on the other hand has had ~7 different governments in the last 10 years. Even if Netanyahu and his Likud party has lead 5 of them.

It isn't some catastrophic thing for the government to collapse, especially when it is made up of a number of parties in coalition.

It is closer to the US Republican party failing to agree on who should run the House of Representatives and having to devote many times because their internal party is so divided...

[orathaic]

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.

[CaptainFritz28]

This will continue until Israel's government collapses and a new leader decides to end the current wave of violence.

I find it humorous that you describe the plight of the Gazans as being entirely and totally against Israel, but then you portray the collapse of Israel's government as a positive thing. If the Palestinians are truly so opposed to Israel, then the collapse of the Israeli government would only lead to more violence instigated by the resurgence of Hamas and other terrorist groups in the region.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too: either Israel's government collapses and chaos ensues with thousands more deaths, or Israel stays intact and some solution is worked out. If Israel collapses, there will be no end to the current wave of violence.

I'm not sure if you have a concept of how governments collapse in a parliamentary democracy.

The UK has had several leadership crises and replaced their Prime Minister multiple times in recent years, despite not new election (outside of the Tory party's membership voting in a new leader), but as a two party state that hasn't involved a complete collapse of government.

Israel on the other hand has had ~7 different governments in the last 10 years. Even if Netanyahu and his Likud party has lead 5 of them.

It isn't some catastrophic thing for the government to collapse, especially when it is made up of a number of parties in coalition.

It is closer to the US Republican party failing to agree on who should run the House of Representatives and having to devote many times because their internal party is so divided...

Ah, so the issue was simply in our definitions of collapse. What you describe I think of not as collapse, but as a turn of election. With what you describe I can see your point.