In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Berkut]

Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

Only idiots are "proportional" when waging war.  Israel is going to insane lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, something no other nation would do. Little good it does them.  If they were to carpet bomb gaza and then ethnically cleanse it they would hardly get a more severe hostile response by the international community than they get by being extremely over cautious. No matter what Israel does Israel will always be wrong.

Pretty much.

Being proportional in self-defense is the stupidest concept ever.

Well, no it isn't. Unless you are willing to go full on genocide, being proportional is the only choice, in fact, if what you want to do is actually try to solve a problem.

It is not a jousting tournament. Your citizens are being attacked by the rulers of another country/city-state/whatever.

IN this case, Israeli citizens are being attacked by terrorists, not the rules of another country, and in fact there is no other country, and Israel is a large part of the reason there *isn't* another country.

This is such a stupid argument, since if you accept it, you are actually arguing for the perfect validity in, say, Palestinian's kidnapping and murdering Israeli teenagers. After all, the leaders of another country (Israel) are not just attacking Palestinians, they are occupying their lands, building more settlements, locking them up in large numbers, etc., etc., etc. So I guess murdering a couple teens is incredibly restrained, from their perspective and given yours' and Hans rules of "Fuck proportionality, anything goes!"

The answer should be as severe as to make sure it never happens again. Israel Palestineis actually not doing that.

Fixed that for you?

Oh wait - do these rules only apply to Israel?

[Tamas]

 

[Berkut]

The reality is that proportionailty is in fact demanded in military response to both state and non-state provocation.

I support Israel almost completely, but the idea that if Hamas tosses a rocket into Israel which is almost certainly going to miss, and if it doesn't miss is almost certainly going to be shot down, then Israel has the reasonable right to respond in any conceivable fashion is just idiotic.

Proportionality doesn't mean that Israel cannot respond, or that their response can only match the provocation. It does mean that the response should be tailored to the threat, and Israel has a responsibility as a rational, reasonable actor to tailor their response to the threat and the reality of the probability of collateral damage given the set of options available to them to respond to the threat.

It is trivial to walk back the trail of "Well, A should not X, then B would not have to do Y". But it doesn't get you anywhere. It might make you feel better about supporting the "right" side I suppose.


Finally, there is the fact that it simply does not work. Israel has responded in this fashion to this provocation before, and it solves nothing. It won't stop anything, because the people they are trying to stop do not care - in fact, the people they are trying to stop *want* Israel to respond in this fashion. It is counter-productive.

[Malthus]

Israel certainly is not carpet bombing Gaza.

However, their bombing of Gaza that is ongoing does seem well out of proportion to the threat posed by the rocket attacks.

They are targeting rocket launching sites.

Part of the reason why Hamas rocketeers are so dismally inaccurate is alleged to be the fact that they have to keep moving their launching pads, to avoid Israeli counter-battery fire. Cease the counter-fire, and Hamas will score more hits - or so it is alleged. I'm no rocket expert, so I don't know if this is true, but it makes a certain intuitive sense to me that it would be.

Israel allegedly takes all sorts of precautions, such as informing the civilian inhabitants to leave just prior to attacks. Hamas, of course, deliberately locates its launch sites so as to maximize civilian casualties.

Assuming the above is true, I cannot conclude that the Israeli response is "disproportinate". Hamas has launched over a thousand rockets at Israel. The fact they have 'scored' only a single death and a bunch of injuries can be put down, in part, to Israeli counter-measures. It strikes me as taking "proportionality" too far to demand that Israel suffer significant deaths before they can respond.

Whether the Israeli response is a "solution" to the political problem is of course a totally different story. IMO it is not, and they seem all out of ideas. But I disagree strongly that their response to date is "disproportionate". 

[Viking]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

[Malthus]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

[Viking]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

I'm saying Berkut's point isn't really a point since no lesser level of military action has shown itself capable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives and ending the rocket fire.

[Berkut]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

I am saying that, plus the fact that the threat from the rockets is clearly relatively minor, given their clear inability to do any damage at all.

They are simply ineffective, and hence a proportioned response to that threat should not be resulting in hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian casualties.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

[Razgovory]

It certainly isn't proportional.  Three Israelis get kidnapped and murdered, and the Israelis respond by beating up an American.

[Berkut]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral. If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians? Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

I think Berkut is saying that the political goals are not being met by Israeli actions, therefore they are not "proportional". Or at least, that would be a reasonable point.

The counter-argument is that Israel is not using counter-battery fire for a political purpose, but to ensure that Hamas rockets in fact do little damage, by killing off rocket crews and by making the rest keep moving launching sites. In short, for purely military self-defence purposes.

I'm saying Berkut's point isn't really a point since no lesser level of military action has shown itself capable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives and ending the rocket fire.

*This* level of military action has shown itself incapable of changing HAMAS political and military objectives! In fact, it completely server their political and military objectives.

Israel is running *exactly* the script Hamas wrote for them.

[Berkut]

The central point in morals and ethics in war is to not refer to proportionality in terms of retribution but rather in terms of relating the force used to the objective desired.

Exactly correct - that is what I mean by proportional in fact.

Of course, the objective itself is part of that - it needs to be reasonable given the threat posed.

Pointing to the relative casualties and complaining that it isn't proportional is both wrong and immoral.

Not at all - pointing out that the threat posed by Hamas rocket attacks is largely trivial and symbolic is both relevant and important. Exagerating the threat in order to justify using force in a manner that will result in massive civilian casualties is wrong and immoral.

If HAMAS rockets had actually hit something would that give Israel license to kill more civilians?

If Hamas rockets were a greater threat to Israelis civilians, then absolutely Israel would have greater operational bounds on their response. I would not say they have a greater license to kill more civilians, since killing civilians is never "licensed", but certainly if the threat to Israel were greater, they would have every right to take actions that would have, as the inevitable result, a greater number of civilians casualties.

Do you really think that a situation where a HAMAS hit on kinder garten suddenly turns an IDF strike on a rocket lager in a residential neighborhood proportional?

I think a situation where Hamas has the ability to hit anything at all would result in a greater justification for the IDF to take actions that will result in greater civilian casualties.

That seems kind of obvious to me.

No, each action is moral and proportional in and of itself. A proportional response is one where the collateral damage expected is proportional to the military gain expected.

And in this case, the military gain expected is zero. The effectiveness of Hamas rocket attacks is effectively zero.

Hansy is right that no sane government is going to wage war based on the relative casualties on both sides. Berkuts trivial response quip about ICBMs is wrong since he is comparing apples to oranges.

Not at all - Hansy claimed that no government waging war ever worries about proportionality. I was trivially pointing out that he is, as usual, completely full of shit, and of course governments ALWAYS concern themselves with proportionality.

[Malthus]

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

This isn't exactly the first go-around for Hamas rockets vs. Israeli counter-battery fire. Hamas knows that Israel will shoot at their rocket launching positions as soon as they fire. Thus, if they want to live, Hamas "rocketeers" (? sounds like a 1950s children's show  ) have no choice but to fire a couple off and immediately dismantle their position and move elsewhere.

Are you telling us that you know, for a certainty, that being shot at like that has nothing to do with Hamas' lack of effectiveness? Would you, personally, be willing to bet your family's life on that, if they lived in Israel? Because that is, in effect, what you are asking the Israelis to do - cease firing back at Hamas in the knowledge that Hamas can't hit the side of a barn door from inside the barn anyway, and could not do so even if they had the leasure to maintain proper launching sites, observe the fall of their rockets, adjust their aim, etc. Rather than hurredly firing them off and scuttling away.

Maybe a bold politician will say one day 'know what? Fuck it. Let them fire, will will do nothing'. Problem is that, whaile this will no doubt play well to the foreign press (hell, even the Euros would probably like it), if people in Israel start dying from more accurate rocket-fire, what then? What if that experiment fails?   

[The Minsky Moment]

I can't find much fault with Berkut's analysis.  But Malthus is right, it is a political impossibility.  If Mexico started launching drone attacks at the US, it is inconceivable the President would do nothing militarily to respond, even if we were able to intercept all the drones quite easily.

Also while Berkut is correct to say that Hamas is deliberately provoking a response to rally support, it does not necessarily follow that Hamas is really benefiting.  The conflict is having the usual effect of rallying domestic opinion in Gaza in the short run, but the long run gain impact is more murky, and this particular episode is really highlighting Hamas stark isolation internationally in a way that must be uncomfortable for them.

[Berkut]

That sounds like bullshit to me - it's not like the rockets were killing anyone, or hitting anything, up until Israel started bombing Gaza.

They've fired something like 1000+ rockets, and done basically nothing. Nothing. That means they have a less than 0.1% success rate. Hamas would have better luck hurting Israelis by throwing rocks at the nearest one.

The rockets are there to kill or hurt Israelis - they are there to incite Israel to react in precisely the manner that Israel is reacting. Which is just stupid.

This isn't exactly the first go-around for Hamas rockets vs. Israeli counter-battery fire. Hamas knows that Israel will shoot at their rocket launching positions as soon as they fire. Thus, if they want to live, Hamas "rocketeers" (? sounds like a 1950s children's show  ) have no choice but to fire a couple off and immediately dismantle their position and move elsewhere.

Indeed, given that they want to shoot rockets at Israel (and believe me, I think THAT is a stupid way of getting anything done in regards to a long term solution as well), shooting them from urban areas then moving is the only possible way to do so.

Are you telling us that you know, for a certainty, that being shot at like that has nothing to do with Hamas' lack of effectiveness?

*Nothing* to do with it? That seems unlikely, but given their total lack of success, it seems likely that the difference is material, certainly not material enough to justify 1100 civilians casualties on the chance that it *might* make a difference.

And I think the onus is on the Israeli military to make reasonable judgements about how to respond in an effective manner. They are the responsible actor here, or at least they should be.

Would you, personally, be willing to bet your family's life on that, if they lived in Israel?

That is an emotional response, not an analystical one. If we want emotional responses, I am going to with "Fuck them, lets drive them all into Egypt and shoot any that try to come back". But that isn't the standard that ought to be applied.

We certainly do not tolerate that standard when applied to the Palestinians, right? We don't say "Hey, kidnapping and murdering some teens is fine, because Israel is doing X, Y, and Z that very understandbly results in a very unhappy group of people, hence emotional and violent responses are to be expected and even lauded".

Because that is, in effect, what you are asking the Israelis to do - cease firing back at Hamas in the knowledge that Hamas can't hit the side of a barn door from inside the barn anyway, and could not do so even if they had the leasure to maintain proper launching sites, observe the fall of their rockets, adjust their aim, etc. Rather than hurredly firing them off and scuttling away.

It isn't binary though - there are options here other than bombing heavily populated areas which doesn't actually stop the rocket fire anyway.

These are rockets, not artillery. There is no "observing the fall of the shot" or "adjusting their aim".

Maybe a bold politician will say one day 'know what? Fuck it. Let them fire, will will do nothing'. Problem is that, whaile this will no doubt play well to the foreign press (hell, even the Euros would probably like it), if people in Israel start dying from more accurate rocket-fire, what then? What if that experiment fails?   

Then try something else. Then ramp up your response.

I think what is happening right now is that both sides are playing to their audiences. Israel is bombing Gaza not because this is the best way to handle the problem, but because that is what the Israeli people want their leadership to do, and that is what Netanyahu wants to do, not because they are sitting around saying "Man, this really sucks, but it is really the only valid military response to these attacks".

Hamas is firing rockets not because they think that is the best way to harm Israel, as it clearly is not, but because it is the best way to incite the response they have gotten from Israel, which is what they want.

And the civilians in Gaza pay from both sides.

[Berkut]

I can't find much fault with Berkut's analysis.  But Malthus is right, it is a political impossibility.

I don't know if that is true - I wonder if in fact someone with some balls could actually make a lot of headway by having the courage to lead instead of follow public opinion. Public opinion in these kinds of situations is almost always lowest common denominator.

If Mexico started launching drone attacks at the US, it is inconceivable the President would do nothing militarily to respond, even if we were able to intercept all the drones quite easily.

But that doesn't mean that we would respond in a fashion that resulted in thousands of Mexican civlians casualties. And if we did, we would (rightly, IMO) be blasted for that, just like there are serious questions being raised about our response to the Taliban in Pakistan, for example. Are our drone strikes proportional? We kill plenty of civilians, and there is very reasonable questions raised about whether that is a reasonable response given the threat.

Also while Berkut is correct to say that Hamas is deliberately provoking a response to rally support, it does not necessarily follow that Hamas is really benefiting.  The conflict is having the usual effect of rallying domestic opinion in Gaza in the short run, but the long run gain impact is more murky, and this particular episode is really highlighting Hamas stark isolation internationally in a way that must be uncomfortable for them.

I don't think Hamas is benefiting, but neither do I think Israel is either, as long as we define "benefit" as "getting either side closer to an actual workable peace". But I suspect neither side, at this point, really wants that anyway.