Timeline for What is Israel's strategy in invading the Gaza strip?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2023 at 0:23 | comment | added | Relaxed | I don't think you can really ignore all that. But you wrote that “A ceasefire that does result in the end of the war, if it doesn't match the concept of victory of one side, is usually both sides yielding on some level” This contradicts your original point. Both sides yielding on some level is definitely not a capitulation and “forcing your adversary to yield” on something (as opposed to “destruction or capitulation” that is still part of your answer) is in fact a much better generic description of the goals of many wars. Do you understand the difference? | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 22:47 | comment | added | David S | @Relaxed My answer is commenting on war in a generalized and abstract sense. A ceasefire that doesn't result in the end of the war is irrelevant to my point. A ceasefire that does result in the end of the war, if it doesn't match the concept of victory of one side, is usually both sides yielding on some level. The terms of a ceasefire or peace agreement are irrelevant. If the terms are rejected by one side, the war continues. Who the dominant force is doesn't matter. If they reject terms, they keep fighting until they are no longer willing to by having nobody to fight or getting what they want | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 21:38 | comment | added | Relaxed | In fact, historically the “agree to ceasefire then stop fighting” order of events applied even to famous cases of total and unconditional surrender like the various parts of the German Armed forces at the end of WWII. And the Allies very deliberately were not willing to end the war before that. This notion that wars end as soon as one party loses its willingness to fight just isn't very useful in practice. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 21:28 | comment | added | Relaxed | Maybe one way to put it is that you don't need them to be unwilling to fight, you only need them to be willing to stop fighting (on terms that are acceptable to you, otherwise we are back to my point about your own willingness to fight being the determinant factor). | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 21:26 | comment | added | Relaxed | @DavidS I am not so sure that the goal is always “victory” but I would agree that compelling your adversary to stop fighting is always part of it. The thing is, if we consider how wars end, your comment doesn't reflect what's often happening. Unilaterally stopping or refusing to fight typically doesn't stop anything and just results in more dramatic losses. The real order of events is more like this: Communicate your willingness to stop fighting, agree to a ceasefire (even a short and provisional one) and only then you stop fighting. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 21:11 | comment | added | David S | @Relaxed I'm speaking of war as its own independent event. Only 1 side needs to stop fighting to end any war. Its true that most wars end with a type of mutual agreement, however, before that agreement took place, 1 side had to yield on something they were fighting for. The general/basic goal of any party starting a war is for victory. That means at some point, the opposing side is no longer raising arms against yours. This is achieved by the enemy no longer having the capability and/or willingness to continue to fight. The change from willing to not willing is what I am calling capitulation. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 21:01 | comment | added | Relaxed | So it's really the “winning” side willingness to fight and whether or not they create a way out for their adversaries (while reaching their own goals obviously) that really matters, something that's well understood by military strategists. And the fact that most wars do not actually result in the complete surrender and disparition of one of the parties as a fighting force shows that this view of war as being aimed solely at the destruction or capitulation of the opposite side is naive and inaccurate. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 20:54 | comment | added | Relaxed | All this is true even when one of the warring parties overpowers their adversary and is able to extract significant concessions. That's also why I insisted on the need for both parties to see that ceasing to fight is in their interest. If the dominant party instead wants to press home their advantage all the way to complete destruction then obviously the weaker party unwillingness to continue the fight won't be enough to end the war. And this in turn might prompt them to mount a desperate resistance and prolong the war. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 20:44 | comment | added | Relaxed | @bharring There are many wars that end or at least get frozen without a surrender, let alone a capitulation. There is a difference between a capitulation and a ceasefire, that's exactly what I am getting at. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 20:38 | comment | added | Relaxed | @DavidS That's not the meaning of the word “capitulation”. My issue is indeed with that word but I am not looking for another word to express the same idea, I am trying to explain that this word conveys a misguided idea of wars and how military theorists think about them. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 17:33 | comment | added | David S | @Relaxed I can edit to be more clear that at least one side must be destroyed or capitulate. A fight doesn't need to end with both sides no longer seeing a need to fight. All fights will end if one side stops fighting. What you're mentioning are qualifiers regarding details of how destruction or capitulation occur. If your issue is with the word capitulate, then please suggest another way to express the loss of ability and/or willingness to fight. Total surrender, peace deals, armistice, frozen conflicts, and ceasefire, are all a form of capitulation in a simplified manner. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 16:56 | comment | added | bharring | Wouldn't terms of ceasefire or surrender be a capitulation on those terms? | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 16:28 | comment | added | Relaxed | In fact, you mention being “unwilling” to fight as a way a war ends. But that's only possible if the dominant forces let you do that at a cost that is acceptable to you. If capitulation was always the objective, this would leave many countries fighting costly forever wars with very little to gain. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 16:21 | comment | added | Relaxed | @DavidS No, two parties engage in a fight until both of them don't see more to be gained through continuous fighting. Capitulation is not the only outcome, a ceasefire or frozen conflict that lead to some sort of concessions or gains (territorial or otherwise) are much more common. On an operational level, completely overpowering the opponent, occupying their territory, or extracting a capitulation is rarely the stated or unstated goal of either military as only very few forces can reasonably expect to achieve that, either now or throughout history. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 15:22 | comment | added | David S | @Relaxed I'm sorry, could you expand on how it isn't true? The goal of a war and the political goals that lead to war are not usually the same. The reality is that in its most basic sense, the goal of a war is to win. Strategic, tactical, and political goals typically shape how a win is achieved, but the end result is almost always the same. Two parties engage in a fight until one side is either unable or unwilling to continue with the fight. | |
| Nov 1, 2023 at 11:58 | comment | added | Relaxed | (-1) “As with any war, the general goal is the destruction or capitulation of the opposing side.” That is, quite simply, not true, perhaps even an exception historically speaking. Stopped reading after that. | |
| Oct 14, 2023 at 5:00 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | "There haven't been any publicized conditions for surrender that I've been able to find either." A CNN report implied a stated condition for Israel to partially relent: "Hamas is holding as many as 150 people hostage, according to Israeli authorities. Israel is cutting off any electricity, water or fuel to Gaza until the hostages are returned home, Energy Minister Israel Katz said." cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-news-hamas-war-10-12-23/… | |
| S Oct 10, 2023 at 22:12 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Oct 10, 2023 at 22:12 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Politics Meta, or in Politics Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. | |
| Oct 10, 2023 at 8:43 | comment | added | Evargalo | CNN's translation of Gallant's speech might be using an euphemism here. Most sources quote him as calling Gaza inhabitants "human animals", which is even more de-humanizing than "barbarians" (e.g. huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/…). I don't read Hebrew myself, so I cannot check the original text. | |
| Oct 9, 2023 at 22:58 | history | edited | David S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added quotes and sources
|
| Oct 9, 2023 at 22:35 | history | answered | David S | CC BY-SA 4.0 |