In wake of teen deaths, Israel vows to crush Hamas

[Tamas]

The Gaza Strip (360 km²) is smaller than Vienna (414 km²), and less than half the size of Berlin (891 km²).

And?

I like to remind myself of the scale of places sometimes, because they seem "larger" in the news if that makes any sense.

Looking at the place on Google Maps/World helps drive that point home.  It's such a tiny strip of land, yet so troublesome.

It wouldn't even make the news if it wasn't the Jews on one side of the shooting.

[Berkut]

You never at any point disputed the facts, you never at any time said "Yeah, that would be a good point Berkut, but I don't think those numbers are right, therefore..." Ironically, the fact that the numbers may have been wrong pretty much proves my point - there apparently aren't any numbers that would make you call for restraint - even possibly grossly inflated numbers and you are still "Yeah, sucks to be them, but too fucking bad..." You know, because you have so much empathy for their situation.

No, your argument was that Israel was justified and "reasonable" in taking actions that resulted in over a thousand civilians casualties, and that was ok, even though what they were supposedly trying to stop had almost no effect at all.

That is not a strawman or caricature, that is your position.

And of course reasonable people can disagree on stuff. But that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees on stuff is being reasonable - and arguing that it is "reasonable" to kill hundreds of people in order to stop something that isn't actually happening is not reasonable.

You can retreat to a sense of faux indignation if you like, but that isn't reasonable either.

Dude. You know very well that what I was vigorously disputing was your absolutist conviction that the Israeli attacks were "disproportionate" because, according to you, they have had no effect on the accuracy of said rockets, and hence on Israeli casualties.

Now, proportinality has two parts - you measure civilian casualties against military objectives. You claimed that Israel was inflicting thousands of indiscriminate causualties and that the campaign was ineffective. I was saying that it is reasonable to assume that the campaign was effective - and in any event, the "burden" isn't proving the matter, but whether such effectiveness was a reasonable position.

You now admit you were wrong on the first part, but are clinging like grim death to the second - EVEN THOUGH to another poster, you actually conceded my point!

Yeah, Berkut, if you are right and the campaign was ineffective at saving Israeli lives and if I really believed you were right and supported the campaign anyway then supporting it would be evil. But, as has been amply demonstrated in this very thread, facts you thought were absolutely true have turned out to be questionable. How about this amazing notion - I happen to still think I was right? 

I can onlyu conclude that your pride will not allow you to back off of an insult once made.

There is no insult, hence nothing to back off from - but keep trying to make this even more personal, more about me and not about your empathy for killing civilians.

You've invented it to replace your argument that it is perfectly empathetic to think that killing hundreds of people is reasonable in order to stop something that isn't happening.

And I have no pride here - I have no investment in being right, and my loyalty, if I have any, is more naturally towards Israel, and always has been, so the extent that I am acting out of bias, it is *against* my natural bias. But that strikes me as perfectly reasonable - my bias does not overcome despair at the killing of civilians. Your own personal position is a bit more, let us say, "strongly held", and doesn't allow for actaul numbers of dead people to influence. Let's call it conviction, rather than lack of empathy...is that better?


I am perfectly content admitting when I am wrong, as I've already done. You are perfectly content insisting that the numbers don't matter - a thousand dead Palestinians to stop no Israeli deaths (or at worst very, very, VERY few if we grant your entirely unsupported claim that it is only through killing civilians that rockets are stopped from killing the ones that matter) is a acceptable price to pay.

[Malthus]

There is no insult, hence nothing to back off from - but keep trying to make this even more personal, more about me and not about your empathy for killing civilians.

You aren't "making this personal"?

You've invented it to replace your argument that it is perfectly empathetic to think that killing hundreds of people is reasonable in order to stop something that isn't happening.

And I have no pride here - I have no investment in being right, and my loyalty, if I have any, is more naturally towards Israel, and always has been, so the extent that I am acting out of bias, it is *against* my natural bias. But that strikes me as perfectly reasonable - my bias does not overcome despair at the killing of civilians. Your own personal position is a bit more, let us say, "strongly held", and doesn't allow for actaul numbers of dead people to influence. Let's call it conviction, rather than lack of empathy...is that better?


I am perfectly content admitting when I am wrong, as I've already done. You are perfectly content insisting that the numbers don't matter - a thousand dead Palestinians to stop no Israeli deaths (or at worst very, very, VERY few if we grant your entirely unsupported claim that it is only through killing civilians that rockets are stopped from killing the ones that matter) is a acceptable price to pay.

Where, exactly, did I ever say that "numbers don't matter"? Or that I would support "a thousand dead Palestinans to stop "... no Israeli deaths ... at worst very, very, VERY few "?  You are just pulling that from your ass.

[Berkut]

That is the entire crux of your argument - that is was ok for the IDF to engage in bombing that killed hundreds (I mispoke, should have said a thousand injured, several hundred dead) of people, because it was designed to stop rocket attacks, or rather, designed to make them less effective.

But there is still zero evidence that absent that bombing, those rockets would have any significant effect. They have never had any significant effect, whether Israel was bombing or not.

And you say now that number do matter? But apparently whatever numbers might matter, it certainly does not matter at a 3:1 civilians to combatant casualty rate, nor does it matter at a overall 1000:0 Palestinian:Israeli casualty rate.

So what would it take for you to say "Hey, that is a bit of an over-reaction! Maybe the IDF needs to back off a bit!". Five thousand casualties? Ten thousand casualties? Fifty thousand?

I am just amazed that against ZERO ISRAELI CASUALTIES you are all gung-ho, hell yeah, drop some bombs on those guys, even if it means that for every "militant" we kill, we will take out 3 or 4 civilians.

Now it looks like the numbers are probably more in the realm if 50% civilians casualties, rather than 75%. That is a pretty huge improvement, IMO, and even enough to make me rather begrudgingly accept that perhaps the IDF is showing some reasonable restraint. I am just amazed that apparently you are ok with the previous numbers, and all outraged that I might find your position "lacking empathy"

I am quite certain that if the numbers were reversed, you wouldn't be arguing that Hamas was showing reasonable restraint.

[Viking]

The only other alternative is the Hansmeister option - genocide.

Sadly this is the case. Israel exists and will continue to exist. Palestine will only exist once it's population and leadership concede to Israel the right to exist.

Any solution other than negotiating a two state solution is a one state solution where that one state is Israel. Israel is unwilling both to include the Palestinians in their democracy and the Israelis are unwilling to expel them by force. So what will happen is that Israel will build it's one state with the borders it wants and with the security arrangements that it wants. They won't take the final step or acknowledge the consequences of Palestinian revenchism to avoid the ugly consequences.

The problem is that this is the point where civilized states went and got on with the butchery and enslavement and ethnic cleansing the laws and rules of war eventually banned. One forgets that the quid pro quo in that was that the losing side actually surrendered when all means of resistance were exhausted.

[Malthus]

That is the entire crux of your argument - that is was ok for the IDF to engage in bombing that killed hundreds (I mispoke, should have said a thousand injured, several hundred dead) of people, because it was designed to stop rocket attacks, or rather, designed to make them less effective.

But there is still zero evidence that absent that bombing, those rockets would have any significant effect. They have never had any significant effect, whether Israel was bombing or not.

And you say now that number do matter? But apparently whatever numbers might matter, it certainly does not matter at a 3:1 civilians to combatant casualty rate, nor does it matter at a overall 1000:0 Palestinian:Israeli casualty rate.

So what would it take for you to say "Hey, that is a bit of an over-reaction! Maybe the IDF needs to back off a bit!". Five thousand casualties? Ten thousand casualties? Fifty thousand?

I am just amazed that against ZERO ISRAELI CASUALTIES you are all gung-ho, hell yeah, drop some bombs on those guys, even if it means that for every "militant" we kill, we will take out 3 or 4 civilians.

Now it looks like the numbers are probably more in the realm if 50% civilians casualties, rather than 75%. That is a pretty huge improvement, IMO, and even enough to make me rather begrudgingly accept that perhaps the IDF is showing some reasonable restraint. I am just amazed that apparently you are ok with the previous numbers, and all outraged that I might find your position "lacking empathy"

I am quite certain that if the numbers were reversed, you wouldn't be arguing that Hamas was showing reasonable restraint.

And I am quite certain that you are full of shit. If Hamas was aiming its rockets at Israeli weapons used to randomly bombard Palestinians, rather than Israeli civilians, I would use the exact same analysis.

How many times do I have to repeat that we don't know if the Israeli campaign MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTED to the relative lack of Israeli casualties - and if so, then it may well be "proportinate"? And that the FACT that the Hamas campaign has proved ineffective IN THE FACE of Israeli counter-measures isn't evidence that the Israeli counter-measures were not necessary?

Yes, Berkut, I agree that IF YOUR POSITION WAS CORRECT and the Israeli counter-battery fire campaign DID NOT contribute to the lack of Israeli casualties, it would NOT be "proportionate".

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue. Why not ask yourself that? If Mexican drug cartels were firing weapons into Mexico hiding behind civilians, and you knew attacking them would MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTE to saving American lives, how many civilian Mexican casualties would YOU be willing to risk to save each American life - assuming that the Mexican government was non-existent or could not do squat? It's a reasonable debate, and quite honestly, I don't know myself what the answer should be.

But then, unlike you, I don't claim to have the answers.

[Berkut]

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

[Berkut]

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

[Malthus]

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

I note you haven't in fact answered the question. And it wasn't intended as a "catch".

[Tamas]

IDK Berkut - if your home was in the area targeted by random rocket attacks, however ineffective they are, would you be content with your government saying "well, statistically, one rocket hitting a home and killing a family is next to zero. So we will just let them poke away as much as they want"?

That's one angle neither of you mention: there is actually a government of a nation is involved in this, whose primary function is to protect its citizens from violence within or across the borders.

[Berkut]

I don't claim to have any answers, but if the US started bombing Mexican drug cartels and killed several hundred civilians and injured a thousand or more, I would vehemently oppose that as a response to Mexican drug cartels ineffectively firing rockets into random patches of the Arizona desert having no effect whatsoever.

Even if the US Air Force insisted that the reason they had no effect was the bombing - I would want to actually see them do ANYTHING at all remotely effective before I conclude that killing hundreds of innocent people is a reasonable and necessary response to their threat.

Yes - that is right - I actually would in fact want to see some Americans hurt or killed *before* I decide it is a-ok awesomesauce to kill several hundred innocent Mexicans.

Hell, this is actually a good analogy, because PART of my analysis would be accepting that the very reason the violence is happening is due in some part to American behavior that we bear *some* responsibility for - it is the US consumption of drugs that makes the violence actually happen to begin with, so I would be even less ok with the US killing a bunch of Mexican civilians.

Sorry, going to have to come up with something better to catch me than that.

I note you haven't in fact answered the question. And it wasn't intended as a "catch".

I didn't answer the question, because it isn't the question under debate.

The question under debate is whether *your* answer is reasonable, the one YOU have answered, which is that you are ok with several hundred dead and injured Palestinians in order to save some number of Israeli injuries or deaths between zero and some very, very small number.

I agree that the upper bound is hard to know, and depends on a lot of different variables.

But to the extent that I have NOT answered, I think I have at least provided a bound - IMO, it is certainly LESS THAN 1000:0.

I guess "reasonable" people can disagree on that. You are ok with 1200:0, I am not. You insist that that is reasonable, I insist that is no where even near to reasonable.

[Berkut]

IDK Berkut - if your home was in the area targeted by random rocket attacks, however ineffective they are, would you be content with your government saying "well, statistically, one rocket hitting a home and killing a family is next to zero. So we will just let them poke away as much as they want"?

False analogy - Israel is not "letting them poke away...". Israel does a LOT of things to fight against Hamas and their rockets that do not involve bombing Gaza. Or they could bomb Gaza less, or with more restraint (assuming the apparently incorrect previous numbers of some several hundred dead and a thousand or more wounded).

This keeps coming up - like the two options here are:

1. Do nothing, send Hamas a nice note asking them to fire more rockets so we can REALLY test out Iron Dome, and suck it up, or
2. BOmb the fuck out of Gaza, and who cares how many Palestinians we kill.

That's one angle neither of you mention: there is actually a government of a nation is involved in this, whose primary function is to protect its citizens from violence within or across the borders.

Indeed, and I did mention it earlier. I don't fault Israel for defending itself, nor do I expect them to value Palestinian lives the same way they value Israeli - they should not, that isn't their function.

[Malthus]

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

Your answer demonstrates why you just. Don't. Get. It.

The number we need to know - for this question - is not the ratio of civilians to combatants, it is the ratio of Israeli casualties *prevented* by Israeli military actions to the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli actions.

The military objective of the Israeli campaign is not to kill Hamas members - that is just a means to an end. The objective is to protect Israeli civilians.

You position has been all along that the Israeli campaign doesn't do that, it is unnecessary. You *claim* to know this number - that it is zero or near enough to zero. In short, you are claiming to know the significant fact, and I am not. Your position is based on a fact you have simply invented - that the Israeli counter-battery campaign has no effect on saving Israeli civilian lives.

Mine is that we haven't a clue how many Israeli lives were saved, but that if the campaign materially contributed to saving Israeli lives in significant number, it would be reasonable - as long as steps were taken by the Israeli military to minimize civilian casualties in support of this legitimate military goal.

Exactly how many is "significant"? I dunno, and apparently, insofar as you have refused to engage in my Mexican scenario, neither do you.

[Tamas]

Well, disproportionate answer worked very well in the American Civil War - it needed Sherman to show just how fucked up an idea continued resistance is. Same thing with allied terror-bombing in WW2.

This is why I place all responsibility in the hands of Hamas.

[Berkut]

As for numbers, I haven't a fucking clue.

Oh, but you DO in fact have a clue. We don't know what the number is, but we certainly do know what it isn't.

We know for certain that several hundred dead and a thousand injured, with a 3:1 civilian to combatant ratio is acceptable against zero Israeli casualties.

You may not know what the number that would make you actually say "Wow, that seems kind of out of whack..." is, but at least we know it isn't 1300:0.

Your answer demonstrates why you just. Don't. Get. It.

The number we need to know - for this question - is not the ratio of civilians to combatants, it is the ratio of Israeli casualties *prevented* by Israeli military actions to the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli actions.

The military objective of the Israeli campaign is not to kill Hamas members - that is just a means to an end. The objective is to protect Israeli civilians.

You position has been all along that the Israeli campaign doesn't do that, it is unnecessary. You *claim* to know this number - that it is zero or near enough to zero. In short, you are claiming to know the significant fact, and I am not. Your position is based on a fact you have simply invented - that the Israeli counter-battery campaign has no effect on saving Israeli civilian lives.

Mine is that we haven't a clue how many Israeli lives were saved, but that if the campaign materially contributed to saving Israeli lives in significant number, it would be reasonable - as long as steps were taken by the Israeli military to minimize civilian casualties in support of this legitimate military goal.

Exactly how many is "significant"? I dunno, and apparently, insofar as you have refused to engage in my Mexican scenario, neither do you.

But that is a complete cop-out. You claim you don't know how many lives were saved, and hence you simply imagine that enough are saved to justify thousands of casualties.

I addressed this precise point in the scenario you asked - I said that I would want to see some reason to believe that the threat actually existed before I accepted that hundreds of innocent lives were a reasonable price to pay to prevent it.

And there is plenty of evidence that Hamas rocket attacks don't work, even absent Israeli bombing. The complete lack of any effect at all, EVER, is in fact pretty good evidence that they are not effective. You simply continue to pretend like this FACT does not exist.

You insist that it is completely unnecessary, and even if we can just *imagine* that absent bombing some Israelis might be hurt, that is good enough to justify at least several hundred innocent deaths.