Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

1. Manhattan isn't a city, it is a borough of a city. NYC is 470 sq. mi. which is around 3x the size of Detroit or Gaza.

2. San Francisco and Boston are both relatively small cities geographically. There is a lot of variation with urban development in the United States, but as a rule cities will often attempt to expand via annexation when geography and politics allow it. Some cities, particularly ones that were already completely "hemmed in" by surrounding municipalities many years in the past, don't have that option. Boston has been ringed by incorporated towns since the 18th century, and San Francisco is on the tip of a peninsula and never had room for expansion.

A lot of American cities are Detroit sized or larger--Detroit is only the 73rd largest city by area. Excluding the top few cities because they are all unique Alaska situations, Jacksonville as an example is 747 sq.mi. to Detroit's 140 or so.

[Josquius]

Gaza isn't a city-state but it would definitely count as a micro-nation.
Lots of farms and different settlements.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Gaza isn't a city-state but it would definitely count as a micro-nation.
Lots of farms and different settlements.

Definitionally city state has always applied to some limited amount of surrounding areas.

To crib Wikipedia (maybe soon to be Dickipedia):

A city-state is an independent sovereign city which serves as the center of political, economic, and cultural life over its contiguous territory.[1] They have existed in many parts of the world since the dawn of history, including cities such as Rome, Carthage, Athens and Sparta and the Italian city-states during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, such as Florence, Venice, Genoa and Milan.

None of those is out of line with Gaza in terms of political geography.

[viper37]

But to perhaps explain why I do no think it's the IDF, here is an example: so on the Hamas/Palestinian/world public opinion side we hear about the IDF indiscriminately bombing civilians for the hell of it (with usually Hamas as the news source), which the IDF denies - and of course I have no way of verifying whether they are just targeting Hamas personnel and installations despite Hamas putting these among civilians, or just shooting at whatever shows up in their crosshairs  .

You're adopting a too narrow view.  Both situations in the West Bank and Gaza are linked.

[DGuller]

Lol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".

You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.

So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority?  While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?

Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response.  He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.

[Jacob]

Jake, isn't water a moot point?  I thought they turned it back on around D+2.  Makes more sense to focus on the fuel for generators.

I hope it is. I'm seeing somewhat conflicting updates.

[crazy canuck]

Lol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".

You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.

So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority?  While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?

Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response.  He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.

Lol, now professor Byers not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but according to Otto he is now "dishonest".

You got a wonder about the validity of your position if you have to resort to that kind of malicious attack against somebody who JR recognized at the beginning of this thread as a world leading authority on the topic.

So you're appealing to JR's authority to validate your appeal to Byers' authority?  While completely ignoring the context of what JR wrote?

Guys, seriously, let's stop polluting this serious thread by continuously dignifying this very unserious poster with a response.  He will not start engage with what you're communicating regardless of how much effort you put in trying.

No, I am pointing out that through the magic that is Languish a world renowned scholar has been denounced as being dishonest.

And now somehow that I am the one doing something wrong by calling that shameful conduct out?  Give your head a shake.

[Legbiter]

Frankly, a not insignificant number of the critics of the IDF's operation seem to adhere to a view of "laws of war" in which wars can only be fought where civilians aren't, and where no civilians are harmed. DGuller mentioned maybe this is a fanciful view of war based on a misunderstanding that wars can be fought as a series of surgical SWAT style raids where almost no civilians are harmed, and anything else is a crime.

That is a nice and pleasant fiction--but we all know that isn't reality. And unlike a lot of international treaty law, the laws of war were largely written to operate at a more practical level--if they had been idealistic attempts to outlaw all warfare most major powers never would have agreed to them in the first place.

There have been some really stupid and ineffectual war's bad, mkay treaties through the years. Prime example has to be the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which outlawed war itself.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an agreement to outlaw war signed on August 27, 1928.

....In the final version of the pact, they agreed upon two clauses: the first outlawed war as an instrument of national policy and the second called upon signatories to settle their disputes by peaceful means.

On August 27, 1928, fifteen nations signed the pact at Paris. Signatories included France, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy and Japan. Later, an additional forty-seven nations followed suit, so the pact was eventually signed by most of the established nations in the world. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement by a vote of 85–1, though it did so only after making reservations to note that U.S. participation did not limit its right to self-defense or require it to act against signatories breaking the agreement

A modern example of this sort of idealistic but ineffectual idiocy is the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928

[Josquius]

Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al

[OttoVonBismarck]

NPR did a bit of an analysis on some of the mainstream reporting, and walking back of said reporting, about the Gaza hospital strike and I found this startling detail:

The Times' selection of journalists has come under sharp scrutiny in recent days as well. An Israeli diplomat chastised the paper for employing Soliman Hijjy as a freelance videographer in Gaza to document the conflict. On numerous occasions over the past 11 years, Hijjy has praised Adolf Hitler or invoked the Nazi leader in social media postings. A spokesperson for the Times says the paper reviewed those "problematic" postings last year, when the issue was first raised, and took actions "to ensure he understood our concerns and could adhere to our standards."

The New York Times response to finding out one of their contributors had "repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler in the past" was basically to tell him "remember we don't like that" and let him continue to be a contributor? I find it hard to not detect some level of antisemitism in this. I cannot imagine the Times keeping a contributor who had a similar track record of extreme bigotry against almost any other non-Jewish marginalized group.

[Razgovory]

Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al

The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective.  The Japanese ignored it and then  the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.

[crazy canuck]

A lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963

[The Minsky Moment]

A lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963

Is there a written transcript?

[Josquius]

Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al

The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective.  The Japanese ignored it and then  the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.

They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.

[crazy canuck]

A lengthy discussion of the Israeli response, including why it is an act of collective punishment

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000632417963

Is there a written transcript?

I will take a quick look

Here is a gifted link so anyone interested can see it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-spencer-ackerman-and-peter-beinart.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.upc_.Y1bnORSbYAs5&smid=url-share