In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[derspiess]

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.

LOL Pancho Villa drones.

[Malthus]

*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.

Based on what, exactly? The only data point we have is lack of success. How, exactly, are we to determine if this lack of success is, or is not, partly based on Israeli response?

I suppose the Israelis could do an experiment, and guarantee Hamas they they will do nothing to disrupt Hamas firing at Israel, and see.

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing from the lack of success that Israel needs take no action, when you cannot demonstrate that the lack of success is not due to Israeli actions.

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.

Agreed. However, I cannot see that counter-battery fire at someone shooting at your civilians is "unreasonable", and you have no proof is is "ineffective".

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".

No, it is a political argument. I am pointing out it is politically difficult if not impossible to do nothing.

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

Really? What would you suggest?

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

First, you are factually wrong in concluding it is all rockets - the only Israeli killed so far was killed by a mortar round, not a rocket. You most certainly do observe the fall of shot and adjust aim for mortars.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-mortar-kills-1st-israeli-in-renewed-gaza-conflict-1.2707102

Second, I have been informed, but do not know for sure, that adusting aim and observing accuracy is in fact important for accurate rocket fire - as adjustments must be made for tyhe peculiarities of the guidance system and launch setup.

[Berkut]

*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.

Based on what, exactly? The only data point we have is lack of success. How, exactly, are we to determine if this lack of success is, or is not, partly based on Israeli response?

This could be used to justify any and all responses of course. Israel could carpet bomb, note that the rocket attacks still miss 100% of the time, and conclude the exact same thing. Hey, you can't PROVE that it wasn't the carpet bombing that made the difference! Oh wait? What difference is that you say, since when Israel was not bombing Gaza, Hamas could hit anything with their rockets, and once they started bombing Hamas still couldn't hit anything?

Of course, it is reasonable to infer that absent Israeli bombing, Hamas never hit anything with the first rockets they fired, hence the leap here is to assume that the critical component to a completely and totally ineffective weapon system is the importance of taking action that results in the inevitable deaths of hundreds of civilians.

I suppose the Israelis could do an experiment, and guarantee Hamas they they will do nothing to disrupt Hamas firing at Israel, and see.

Are we to the part where we start creating ridiculous strawmen like Israel making guarantees to Hamas? That is the only possible options to what they are doing?

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing from the lack of success that Israel needs take no action, when you cannot demonstrate that the lack of success is not due to Israeli actions.

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing that since Hamas rocket attacks are totally ineffective, anything Israel is doing ought to be assumed to be the reason they are totally ineffective, and therefore any collateral damage as a result of anything Israel does, is justified because Hamas is completely ineffective.


And I never at any time said the alternative was to do nothing, so stop trotting that out. Israel does a LOT other than bombing Gaza.

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.

Agreed. However, I cannot see that counter-battery fire at someone shooting at your civilians is "unreasonable", and you have no proof is is "ineffective".

That is a non-responsive response. You agree, but place no restrictions on that "counter-battery fire" which means you really do not agree. You have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

What we know for certain is that the response in question has killed several hundred and wounded over a thousand people, and the vast majority of those people killed (75% is the number I think I saw) are not combatants. The burden of proof here is on the responsible actor, not on everyone else to "prove" a negative.

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".

No, it is a political argument. I am pointing out it is politically difficult if not impossible to do nothing.

Doing nothing is a strawman. Israel does a LOT short of bombing people.

And there is a lot they do not do - like dismantling settlements, and stopping new settlements.

The idea that Israel is completely blameless, and has no choice but to react in this particular fashion is as false as the idea that it is ok for Hamas to shoot rockets from behind schools, because the alternative is to shoot rockets from somewhere where they will get killed.

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

Really? What would you suggest?

Don't bomb Gaza. Stop building settlements. Take the high road. Use the most sophisticated air defense system ever created to protect you from these feeble attacks, and laugh at how ridiculous pathetic the attempts are. Continue to interdict weapons coming into the occupied territories. Use greater restraint when it is necessary to respond militarily.

This entire excuse that nobody has options except the shittiest options they choose is why this mess is still ongoing after 40 years. Hamas claims that they have no option except to fire rockets from schools. Israel claims they have no options but to blow up those schools.

I am NOT trying to draw equivalences here - there is a right side and a wrong side, IMO, and the right side is Israel, and the wrong side is Hamas. But that doesn't give Israel some kind of blank check to respond in any fashion desired, and given that the US supports Israel with vast amounts of funds, technology, and political capital, we should and ought to happily use the influence that should give us to force Israel to act in a more restrained manner, when it is clear that their responses are only serving a strictly internal and domestic political purpose.

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

First, you are factually wrong in concluding it is all rockets - the only Israeli killed so far was killed by a mortar round, not a rocket. You most certainly do observe the fall of shot and adjust aim for mortars.

I didn't make any such conclusion - we were talking about rockets in particular, so I was speaking about rockets in particular.


I think we are both quite aware that there is more going on than just a bunch of shitty rockets being fired.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hamas-mortar-kills-1st-israeli-in-renewed-gaza-conflict-1.2707102

Second, I have been informed, but do not know for sure, that adusting aim and observing accuracy is in fact important for accurate rocket fire - as adjustments must be made for tyhe peculiarities of the guidance system and launch setup.

But they have no ability to see where it lands, these rockets are not line of site, hence even if Israel didn't bomb them, it would not help.


But none of that is relevant - you are just imagining that these rockets would be effecive, or more effective, because that is the only way to justify killing hundreds of women and children because someday a rocket *might* actually hit something.


And someday one will - the odds are in favor at some point that if you blindly launch a thousand rockets, someone will eventually be unlucky enough to be there where it comes down.


But that won't change the fact that the rocket attacks are a totally ineffective weapon, and hence the response to those attacks must still be in proportion to the actual threat they pose, which is basically zero, or even if we grant your unsupported theory, very, very close to zero.

[Valmy]

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". 

They could, you know, end the occupation a la Kadima.  Sure Elohim struck down Ariel Sharon for it but otherwise that could have worked.

Of course I guess that provides no solution to what happens if the Pals form a state and they elect Hamas and keep shooting rockets at them.

[viper37]

Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

[Malthus]

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". 

They could, you know, end the occupation a la Kadima.  Sure Elohim struck down Ariel Sharon for it but otherwise that could have worked.

Of course I guess that provides no solution to what happens if the Pals form a state and they elect Hamas and keep shooting rockets at them.

They *did* end the occupation of Gaza, under Sharon. The result: Hamas took over Gaza.

[Valmy]

Really? What would you suggest?

Stop colonization, start negotiating with Palestinans without doing everything you can to provoke them, don't answer to Hamas provocations while the peace process starts.  Eventually, agree to dismantle most settlements, in exchange for no right of return to proper Israeli territory.

Negotiating with the Pals while ignoring the party they elected to represent them?  Seems like a strange plan.  Hamas is the only group representing the Pals with any legitimacy and that says it all.  Negotiating with the Pals is a proven failure, Sharon had the right plan.

[Valmy]

They *did* end the occupation of Gaza, under Sharon. The result: Hamas took over Gaza.

Still think we needed to send in support to build Gaza before holding that election.  Ah well won't get that pitch to hit again.

[Malthus]

This could be used to justify any and all responses of course. Israel could carpet bomb, note that the rocket attacks still miss 100% of the time, and conclude the exact same thing. Hey, you can't PROVE that it wasn't the carpet bombing that made the difference! Oh wait? What difference is that you say, since when Israel was not bombing Gaza, Hamas could hit anything with their rockets, and once they started bombing Hamas still couldn't hit anything?

This *could* be all sorts of things. Only, it isn't. I will go on record: carpet-bombing of Gaza in response to rocket fire would not be "proportional" and would not be justified. 

Really, is that the best response you can make?

Are we to the part where we start creating ridiculous strawmen like Israel making guarantees to Hamas? That is the only possible options to what they are doing?

I think the "rediculous strawman" award goes to your argument that mine would justify "carpet bombing".

Your problem, it seems to me, is one of facts and logic: you are arguing that since Hamas rocket attacks are totally ineffective, anything Israel is doing ought to be assumed to be the reason they are totally ineffective, and therefore any collateral damage as a result of anything Israel does, is justified because Hamas is completely ineffective.

No, I am arguing no such thing. Try again.

That is a non-responsive response. You agree, but place no restrictions on that "counter-battery fire" which means you really do not agree. You have no proof it IS effective, and I would argue that nation state military taking military action that most certainly is killing and maiming large numbers of civilians bear the responsibility of proving that their response is proportional and effective.

You want restrictions? Okay, how about "taking all reasonable means to limit civilian casualties commensurate with the legitmate military goal of destroying weapons actively being fired at your country"?

Your position is the absurd one of claiming that a nation ACTIVELY BEING ATTACKED has to "prove" somehow that its self-defence measures are "effective" BEFORE it can take them. How, exactly, is it supposed to do that to your satisfaction?

How about taking measures that, on their face, are reasonable, without demanding "proof" that is impossible to obtain?

And there is a lot they do not do - like dismantling settlements, and stopping new settlements.

The idea that Israel is completely blameless, and has no choice but to react in this particular fashion is as false as the idea that it is ok for Hamas to shoot rockets from behind schools, because the alternative is to shoot rockets from somewhere where they will get killed.

More bullshit. Who, exactly, is claiming Israel is "completely blameless"?

Your response to someone attacking your nation is to redress all the gievances that person may have, BEFIRE you are allowed to defend yourself? Nonsense. 

But they have no ability to see where it lands, these rockets are not line of site, hence even if Israel didn't bomb them, it would not help.

I love how you "know" that adjusting the aim of rockets does not help. Remember that they are aiming at cities, not individual targets.

Yet, somehow, it "helped" defeat the German rocket attack on London in WW2 - a very analogous bombing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#Deception

A certain number of the V-1s fired had been fitted with radio transmitters, which had clearly demonstrated a tendency for the V-1 to fall short. Oberst Max Wachtel, commander of Flak Regiment 155(W), which was responsible for the V-1 offensive, compared the data gathered by the transmitters with the reports obtained through the double agents. He concluded, when faced with the discrepancy between the two sets of data, that there must be a fault with the radio transmitters, as he had been assured that the agents were completely reliable. It was later calculated that if Wachtel had disregarded the agents' reports and relied on the radio data, he would have made the correct adjustments to the V-1's guidance, and casualties might have increased by 50% or more.[37][38]

The policy of diverting V-1 impacts away from central London was initially controversial. The War Cabinet refused to authorise a measure which would increase casualties in any area, even if it reduced casualties elsewhere by greater amounts. It was thought that Churchill would reverse this decision later (he was then away at a conference); but the delay in starting the reports to Germans might be fatal to the deception. So Sir Findlater Stewart of Home Defence Executive took responsibility for starting the deception programme immediately. His action was approved by Churchill when he returned.[39]

But that won't change the fact that the rocket attacks are a totally ineffective weapon, and hence the response to those attacks must still be in proportion to the actual threat they pose, which is basically zero, or even if we grant your unsupported theory, very, very close to zero.

You started this argument with no way of knowing that, and by god, you will stick to your total lack of evidence if it kills you.

[Berkut]

And you are sticking to your total lack of evidence that it is necessary to kill and maim hundreds of civilians in order to make sure that the the totally ineffective rocket attacks are still totally ineffective.

Shrug. You are the reason Israel responds in this manner - you care more about OMG WE HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO SOMETHING even if that something has no effect, and kills lots of people. And that isn't even starting on the political costs.

But hey, lots of the OTHERS are dieing, so kudos on that.


And yeah, I am sure Hamas rocket attacks on Israel in 2014 are very similar to German rocket attacks on London in 1944, and the same techincal limitations apply.


Your article states that casualties would have increased by 50% - why, that would bump the Israeli death toll from 0 killed in rocket attacks all the way up to...0 killed in rocket attacks.

[derspiess]

There has been one Israeli death, I believe.  Heard something about it on NPR this morning.

[Berkut]

There has been one Israeli death, I believe.  Heard something about it on NPR this morning.

But Malthus assures us that wasn't a rocket, it was a mortar.

Like I said, if killing Israeli's was the goal, throwing rocks at the nearest one would work a lot better.

Of course, Israel won't bomb you for that, so Hamas isn't doing that.

[derspiess]

Oh yeah, they did mention it was a mortar.  Forgot that part.  Kind of a distinction without a difference though IMO.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Probably also helps that that Iron Dome system they've got up and running has been shooting a bunch of rockets down.  I'm not really sure why they should have to sit there and eat rockets all day though just because shitloads of them haven't been dying.

[Berkut]

Oh yeah, they did mention it was a mortar.  Forgot that part.  Kind of a distinction without a difference though IMO.

True - and the difference between 1 death per 1200 attacks and zero deaths per 1200 attacks is pretty immaterial as well.

Either way, the chosen method is grossly ineffective, and you would be better off kidnapping Israeli teenagers and murdering them.

Which, of course, is the entire point of all of this. This is not about killing or hurting Israelis - if that is what they want to do, there are probably a hundred better ways than rocket and mortar attacks.

It is about getting people like Malthus to support an over-reaction so as to drive anger and hatred, and the way to do that is with spectacular, even if totally meaningless, attacks like rockets and such.

Why didn't Israel use air strikes to hit potential kidnappers all over Gaza? It would have, if anything, a *greater* chance of actually killing someone who might have been responsible for harming or killing an Israeli. Granted, it would be obviously a gross and ridiculous reaction, but in a practical sense it would be more justifiable (being almost completely useless, instead of actually completely useless).