In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Malthus]

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.

No, I am not saying that the rocket science of Germany in the 1940s is the same as rocket science of Hamas (really, Iran) in the 2010s.

What I AM doing, is nailing the notion that - as far as I know - you simply pulled out of your ass, that adjusting the aim of rockets makes no difference.

Clearly, it made a lot of difference in the 1940s - when fooling the Germans as to where the rockets were falling made a considerable difference.

So, the available evidence suggests that, in cases in the past where cities have been under rocket attack, screwing with the "aim" of the attacker HAS BEEN a viable strategy, and thus tactics to do so are "reasonable" as part of the analysis as to whether casualties sufffered as a result of such tactics are "proportunate".

Of course, you are free to point out how guidance and electronics of Iran in 2014 is so much *worse* that that in 1944, that such tactics are NOW worthless. Assuming such evidence exists.

See how that works? Using actual evidence, rather than supposition?

[Berkut]

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.

I am not saying they have to sit there and do nothing.

That is not the only alternative to killing hundreds of civilians.

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

I agree that the basic issue here is that they (and by they I mean both sides) are so far down the road of violence that they've constrained their available options to a small set of bad choices.

You can say "Well, Israel cannot be expected to just sit there and take it without response" and that is true.

You can also say "Well, Palestinians cannot be expected to live in abject poverty and misery without a response" and that is true as well.

So Palestinians and Hamas feel completely justified in kidnapping and murdering civilians, and Israel feels completely justified in killing hundreds of civilians under the guise of "protecting themselves" from completely ineffective rocket attacks. And life goes on, and everyone feels perfectly justified in continuing a conflict that has been going on for nearly half a century.

[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.

No, I am not saying that the rocket science of Germany in the 1940s is the same as rocket science of Hamas (really, Iran) in the 2010s.

What I AM doing, is nailing the notion that - as far as I know - you simply pulled out of your ass, that adjusting the aim of rockets makes no difference.

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Clearly, it made a lot of difference in the 1940s - when fooling the Germans as to where the rockets were falling made a considerable difference.

So, the available evidence suggests that, in cases in the past where cities have been under rocket attack, screwing with the "aim" of the attacker HAS BEEN a viable strategy, and thus tactics to do so are "reasonable" as part of the analysis as to whether casualties sufffered as a result of such tactics are "proportunate".

The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Oh wait - of course I can. Because comparing Hamas rocket attacks TODAY to Hamas rocket attacks in the last decade would suggest that they are in fact totally ineffective at doing what you claim it is necessary to kill hundreds of civilians to stop doing.

Of course, you are free to point out how guidance and electronics of Iran in 2014 is so much *worse* that that in 1944, that such tactics are NOW worthless. Assuming such evidence exists.

See how that works? Using actual evidence, rather than supposition?

I am using actual evidence. Thousands and thousands of Hamas rocket attacks, completely trivial Israeli casualties.

Weighed against the response that has killed hundreds and maimed over a thousand.

We don't need to go back to WW2 to evaluate how well Hamas rockets work at harming Israelis, or how good Israelis are at killing Palestinians while "preventing" Israeli deaths. The attacks on Pastinian cities has driven the Israeli death toll all the way from none down to none.

[Malthus]

]

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Again you are demanding "proof" that Israeli actions have in fact prevented Israeli casualties.

My point is rather a simple one: such a demand is unreasonable. The burden is not that Israelis "prove" that their efforts have been effective - which is, by the way, impossible even assuming the *were* effective (how, pray tell, is such "proof" to be obtained?).

Rather, the burden is that the Israeli actions be *reasonable* under the circumstances. THAT burden, they meet in spades. 

The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Is your contenion that missile guidance has grown *worse* over the last 70 years? It may have, I dunno. Otherwise, what is thge relevance of the age of the example to your argument?

You are committing a basic logical fallacy here (repeatedly) - insisting, over and over again, that a lack of effectiveness in the face if Israeli countermeansures "proves" that the countermeasures are ... unnecessary!

The fallacy is, of course, that we have no examples of what Hamas could do if it wasn't under the threat of attack. If Israel took the 'high road', and Hamas knew about it, would they do better? You say no, based on ... well, you say no.

Other examples of this fallacious argument below:

Oh wait - of course I can. Because comparing Hamas rocket attacks TODAY to Hamas rocket attacks in the last decade would suggest that they are in fact totally ineffective at doing what you claim it is necessary to kill hundreds of civilians to stop doing.

And

I am using actual evidence. Thousands and thousands of Hamas rocket attacks, completely trivial Israeli casualties.

Weighed against the response that has killed hundreds and maimed over a thousand.

We don't need to go back to WW2 to evaluate how well Hamas rockets work at harming Israelis, or how good Israelis are at killing Palestinians while "preventing" Israeli deaths. The attacks on Pastinian cities has driven the Israeli death toll all the way from none down to none.

Earlier in this thread, I defended you against the attack that you are demanding some sort of equality of body-count. Was I wrong to do so?

[Malthus]

Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

[Berkut]

]

Never said that, I said that the rocket attacks are completely ineffective, and I have no reason to believe (and you have provided no evidence) that absent this response that has resulted in over a thousand casualties has saved anyone lives on the other side of the balance, much less enough lives to justify the collateral damage done.

Again, it is the Israelis who we are 100% certain have kileld several hundred and wounded over a thousand civilians. Against that you put up some imagined dead without that response, but even in your most fevered imagination, you cannot come up with a scenario that is going to increase effectiveness by some orders of magnitude necessary to justify the cost of stopping it. You haven't even tried, and instead insist that I prove (which of course is completely impossible) a negative.

Like I said, you claim that what they are doing is justified by the fact that it is preventing Israeli casualties, but have no evidence that absent these actions there would be any significnatly greater casualties.

I have ample evidence to the contrary - Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel for years, and the death toll from those attacks is miniscule.

Again you are demanding "proof" that Israeli actions have in fact prevented Israeli casualties.

No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

And you have provided none.

My point is rather a simple one: such a demand is unreasonable. The burden is not that Israelis "prove" that their efforts have been effective - which is, by the way, impossible even assuming the *were* effective (how, pray tell, is such "proof" to be obtained?).

Yes, it is difficult to show evidence that killing a lot of people to stop something that evidence has shown to be completely ineffective is hard to do.

Rather, the burden is that the Israeli actions be *reasonable* under the circumstances. THAT burden, they meet in spades. 

Only if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

Using your reason, any action they take is reasonable, since you cannot drive the death toll below zero, as long as Hamas continues to fail to kill anyone, any response can be assumed to be the reason.

The avialable evidence suggests that Hamas has never managed to effectively attack an Israeli city with a rocket, despite literally thousands of attempts. Why you choose to ignore that in favor of a 70 year old comparison, I cannot imagine.

Is your contenion that missile guidance has grown *worse* over the last 70 years? It may have, I dunno. Otherwise, what is thge relevance of the age of the example to your argument?

My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

The fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

You are committing a basic logical fallacy here (repeatedly) - insisting, over and over again, that a lack of effectiveness in the face if Israeli countermeansures "proves" that the countermeasures are ... unnecessary!

But those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective. Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

You are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

You have no evidence to justify the need to kill hundreds and maims thousands to prevent what exactly?

[Berkut]

Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

[Malthus]

No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

Really, you aren't demanding "proof"?

Yet you keep using that word!

Example:

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.

And you have provided none.

Right. How, exactly, is one to demonstrate that a particular measure *has* proved effective?

Only if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

You keep repeating that fallacy. Maybe, the hundreth time, it will be convincing.

My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

There is no doubt that the two examples are very different in many ways.

What is *not* different, is that the example demonstrates that rockets do, in fact, require aim correction - and if this is not available, they are rendered highly inaccurate.

The fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

101, 102 ...

But those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective.

Considerig the counter measure is "Hamas fear that the Israelis will kill them for firing rockets", when exactly has this NOT been true?

You are just making shit up here.

Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

Agreed ...

You are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

No, you mistake my point. It is reasonable fear on the part of Hamas that they will be killed if caught firing rickets that is a *large part* of the effective Israeli program you have outlined.

Your argument, I take it, would equally apply to *all* of the Israeli actions. Are they justified in ANY of "... targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.", if, AS YOU CLAIM, the rockets are totally "ineffective"? Why, those are all war crimes, if they are to no military purpose.

[Malthus]

Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

I guess Israel can just *pretend* to attack Hamas, and that will prove equally effective as *actually* attacking Hamas.

[Berkut]

No, I am demanding some evidence that there actions are reasonable responses to the threat they are intended to respond to.

Really, you aren't demanding "proof"?

Yet you keep using that word!

Example:

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.

And you have provided none.

Right. How, exactly, is one to demonstrate that a particular measure *has* proved effective?

It is hard to prove that killing a chicken is NOT effetive at stopping rocket attacks that never, ever work as well, as long as you categorically refuse to stop killing chickens to see.

But again, the way to show it is effective is to note that when you don't do it, the attacks work, and when you do it, they don't work.

History has shown that the rocket attacks don't work, even when Israel is not killing a few hundred civiians per week.

And evaluating the military effect of the rocket attacks, and WHY they don't work (they miss, and those that don't miss are shot down) make it pretty clear that a strategy of killing the people before they fire isn't really the key.

Hamas still manages to launch rockets, and they still all do nothing, despite lots of dead Palestinians, and even some dead rocketeers.

How can you conclude anything other than that the rockets simply don't work regardless off the bombing?

Only if you consider it reasonble to kill and maim a couple thousand people to stop the deaths of nobody.

You keep repeating that fallacy. Maybe, the hundreth time, it will be convincing.

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

My contention is that the two circumstances are totally and completely incomparable due to radical differences in distances involved, relative capability of the actors, technological changes, etc., etc. You might as well argue that Hamas is about to take over Israel because the Nazi's Panther tanks were so much better than Soviet T-34s. It has no relevance.

And comparing Germany against the Western Allies to Hamas against Israel 70 years later rather than comparing the exact same actors using the exact same weapons in the exact same geography today is almost astoundingly obtuse. It is Hansmeister levels of willfullly ignoring the facts.

There is no doubt that the two examples are very different in many ways.

You don't think?

What is *not* different, is that the example demonstrates that rockets do, in fact, require aim correction - and if this is not available, they are rendered highly inaccurate.

No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the key to Hamas rockets going from zero effectiveness to some effectivenss jsutify killing hundreds of civilians is this theorized "aim correction" that we've already determined they could not do anyway, since they have no way of seeing where the rockets fall, and no way of stopping Iron Dome from shooting them down anyway.

The fact is that Hamas has fired thousands of rockets at Israel, and those thousands of rockets have done almost zero damage. That is not speculation, or conjecture.

We don't have to go back to WW2 to evaluate how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - we can just look at how effective Hamas rocket attacks are - the answer is rather obvious. They are completely and totally ineffective.

101, 102 ...

I will keep repeating the obvious no matter how much you insist on pretending it isn't right in front of you.

No Israeli casualties to speak of from rocket attacks.

Well over one thousand Palestian civilian casualties from reprisal attacks.

Bury your head in the sand all you like, the facts speak for themselves.

But those counter-measures ahve not been applied consistently, and even absent those counter-measures the rocket attacks have never been effective.

Considerig the counter measure is "Hamas fear that the Israelis will kill them for firing rockets", when exactly has this NOT been true?

That was true before Israel killed several hundred civilians last week, and yet Hamas still fired the rockets, and they still missed. Now you are claiming it is fear that makes the rockets miss? They are so afraid they cannot fire them accurately, but not so afraid that they are simply not deterred from firing them at all?

I think we are at least getting at the root of the response - it is reprisals. If you try to kill us, we WILL kill a bunch of you - well, not YOU, but people in your tribe anyway.

And you won't care about that of course, because terrorists never do, but WE will feel better at least.

You are just making shit up here.

Israel takes huge numbers of counter-measures, like a incredibly sophisticared anti-rocket system, targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.

All these things together, including at some times bombing potential targets, have resulted in the rocket attacks being totally ineffective.

Agreed ...

You are demanding that one particular measure, used very intermittently, is the key, and that absent that measure, rocket attacks would in fact be vastly more effective. Yet in cases where the Israelis were not bombing Gaza, the rockets still missed almost 100% of the time, or were shot down, and no Israelis were killed.

No, you mistake my point. It is reasonable fear on the part of Hamas that they will be killed if caught firing rickets that is a *large part* of the effective Israeli program you have outlined.

Your argument, I take it, would equally apply to *all* of the Israeli actions. Are they justified in ANY of "... targetting of militants via other means, interdiction of supplies, occupation of large amounts of territory, direct ground incursions at time, covert assasination of Hamas targets, etc., etc., etc.", if, AS YOU CLAIM, the rockets are totally "ineffective"? Why, those are all war crimes, if they are to no military purpose.

What a spectacular strawman.

I have, by an large, been a staunch supporter of Israeli actions, and believe strongly that they have a right to protect themselves in a reasonable and measured way against threats.

That by necessity implies value judgements about particular responses. Launcing an air strike into Gaza might or might not be justified, based on the particulars of the situation, the threat the strike is intended to neutralize, the danger of collateral damage, and the likelihood of the strike suceeding.

In this case, we have a largely non-existent military threat, a almost certainty that the strike will fail to prevent additional rocket launches, and a guarantee that the civilians harmed by the strike will outnumber the people you are trying to kill by about 4-1.

I do not believe, and I mean this completely honestly, that the 1000+ Israeli bombing attacks on the Gaza strip have prevented a single Israeli casualty. Hamas ability to harm Israel via rocket attacks is almost completely symbolic. They might (probably will in fact) kill some people eventually, but only because no matter how bad your weapon is, if you fire it enough times, you will eventually get lucky - the Iron Dome interceptor will fail, and it will happen to land somewhere with people.

But that is going to happen whether Israel bombs Gaza or not - in fact, it is MORE likely to happen because Hamas tends to fire more rockets during these little flare ups, since their goal is to incite more Israeli attacks.

Hamas might as well be throwin spitballs at Israel. The disparity in ability in this realm is that great. This is classic asymmetrical warfare, and Israel is responding in the classically wrong way.

[Berkut]

Hell, in your response to other posters you CONCEDE my argument! WTF?

And the point isn't whether or not they should do nothing, the point is whether what they ARE DOING has any relevance to the threat. The threat is at or near zero, because the rockets suck, the people using them are mostly incompetent, the threat of airstrikes makes effective use problematic, and the Israelis have an incredibly effective and sophisticated defense system.

Yes, listing several things that Israel has done to prevent attacks from succeeding surely concedes your argument that killing hundreds of civilians is necessary.

And note that it is the threat of attack that works to keep Hamas from hanging out in one location - not actual attacks, now numbering over 1000 Israel attacks.

Israel could get that same effect from 1/10th the number of attacks. But of course, the point of the attacks is not to actually stop rockets from killing Israelis, since that is clearly happening anyway, but to make sure everyone knows they ARE DOING SOMETHING!


This is very simply Malthus.


Absent bombing, you claim that those rockets would be effective, even though they have never, EVER been effective, not even a tiny bit effective.


Their effectiveness right now is literally zero.


So in order to justify Israel killing hundreds and wounding thousands, how effective are you claiming the rockets would be if Israel kept doing everything they have been doing, except for the part where they create 1200 dead and wounded civilians?


Note that even when Israel is NOT actively killing or wounding about a thousand civilians per week, the effectiveness of rocket attacks were stilll...zero percent.

I guess Israel can just *pretend* to attack Hamas, and that will prove equally effective as *actually* attacking Hamas.

They could try not attacking Palestinian civilians, and that is rather likely to work exactly as well as killing hundreds of them - at least insofar as it prevents Hamas rockets from killing Israelis.

It won't work nearly as well to convince people like you that they are DOING SOMETHING, of course.

[Solmyr]

And here we go with the ground invasion.

http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/IDF-intensifies-Gaza-attacks-with-artillery-fire-air-strikes-363289

[Malthus]

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

All along, I have agreed with you that attacks have to be proportinate to legitimate military objectives. This is true whether thet are by Israel, Hamas, the US, or Russia - whether by "my tribe" (nice dig, BTW) or by anyone else. Never have I for one second had one wit less "empathy" than you. I have merely disagreed as to the effect of the Israeli campaign. 

Why, why cannot you debate a point without being a total asshole about it?

[Zanza]

I wonder if Israel could just have done nothing and let Iron Dome do its work. A bit like ignoring an internet troll. Once Iron Dome gets 100% instead of the current 90% that might become viable.

[Berkut]

It isn't a fallacy, and you convincing yourself that killing civilians in droves is completely necessary in order to prevent the deaths of no Israelis at all is rather revolting.

I am amazed at how little empathy you have for the "others", just because they don't share your tribe. They are still just people, and they are still just as dead, just as maimed, just as torn into little shreds, and for no discernible purpose.

All along, I have agreed with you that attacks have to be proportinate to legitimate military objectives. This is true whether thet are by Israel, Hamas, the US, or Russia - whether by "my tribe" (nice dig, BTW)

What is that supposed to mean?

Are you asking me to believe that if the situation was reversed, and Hamas was killing hundreds of Israeli civilians at a 4-1 pace of civilian to military casualties, all to achieve a supposedly military objective that is demonstrably bullshit because the "threat" has not managed to hurt anyone, you would be arguing that that was a "reasonable" response?

I don't buy it.

or by anyone else. Never have I for one second had one wit less "empathy" than you.

That is impossible to believe - you cannot argue that Israel is perfectly justified in killing 3 times as many civilians as they do militants in response to a completely hypthetical threat that has been shown to be less effective than throwing rocks, while claiming that you have ANY empathy for those killed.

I have merely disagreed as to the effect of the Israeli campaign. 

You are arguing that we should ignore the actual results of the Hamas campaign to kill Israelis civilians in favor of speculating about V-1 rockets attacks on London.

You ahve a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

That fact is that Hamas rocket attacks are completely ineffective. You claim that a critical part of that ineffectiveness is the need to kill hundreds of civilians in order to scare them so they don't shoot straight, and at the same time demand that I believe that you have equal empathy for Palestinian civilians who are being injured at a rate literally 1000 times or more than Israelis the actions is supposedly stopping.

Those are the facts.

Israeli casualties from rocket attacks: Zero, or so close as to make no difference
Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli attacks designed to stop rockets from killing civilians: ~1200 in the last week, some 200-300 dead.

Those are the facts.

If that is a proportional and reasonable response to the threat, then there is no such thing as a proportioned and reasonable response.

Why, why cannot you debate a point without being a total asshole about it?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you - why can you not see that killing hundreds of people to prevent the deaths of nobody is not ok, even when it is your side doing it.