Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

But you just said the IDF should keep disregarding civilian life in Gaza if they vote for Hamas.

I did not say this.  I said it changes the targeting algorithm.  I'll give you a concrete example.

IDF has intelligence (let's say perfect knowledge to keep it simple) that a certain building has 3 fighters, one high value target (a leader) and 4 civilians.  Do you shoot or not shoot?

Now let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters.  Shoot or don't?  I say their support should raise the shoot value.

[Admiral Yi]

I have no idea what you mean by this. Obviously other traditions around the world have their own teaching on this. But modern ideas around the rules and limits of war are very strongly incluenced from Medieval thought, from theology.

I don't understand what you mean by this because it's the literal opposite of my understanding of centuries of Western thought on war (not least because I think the identification of people with polity is very modern).

During WWI the UK blockaded Germany.  This had the effect of causing hunger in the entire German population.  After WWI the Allies imposed reparations on  Germany.  All Germans had to pay this.

Hamas are terrorists. You can't judge a military by the same standard as you do a terrorist organisation with a state. It's like judging a business by the standards of a cartel. They are different in nature - that's what defines them.

Of course if you don't think Hamas are terrorists - and I get there is argument about that (see the row over the BBC's language) - but I think they are and I think that's how they have to be understood.

Why can't/shouldn't/don't you judge a military by the same standards as a terrorist organization?  Judging them by the same standards is what gets us to the conclusion that they are terrorists?

[Admiral Yi]

Terror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can.  The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden.  The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.

You confuse terror bombing with genocide.

I see no evidence that the Allies did not kill every possible civilian they could at Dresden. Nor do I see any evidence that the US didn't kill every civilian it could in Japan.

I do not confuse the two.  Terror bombing means you keep killing until the enemy surrenders.  Genocide means you keep killing after they surrender.

[Sheilbh]

Terror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can.  The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden.  The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.

So totally separate but, Arthur Harris:

The aim of Bomber Command should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany. [...] The destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale.

Having said that there was unease about this at the time which almost immediately dominated in the post-war. Churchill's victory in Europe speech listed all the campaigns of the war - except for Bomber Command (which was an enormous focus of British resources and the only way Britain was hitting Germany in Europe for at least three years). For that reason Arthur Harris turned down a peerage. He was furious for most of the rest of his life that what him and his men did became an embarassment that wasn't talked about. Similarly Bomber Command, unlike almost every other branch and campaign were not given medals. They eventually got medals in the 2010s on more of a logic that it was a very dangerous campaign and ethics aside they deserved the same recognition.

During the war I think there was a thrill in a sense of hitting Germany back for the Blitz and it was part of propaganda. But it was also controversial even then - it was perceived as stooping to the enemy's level. This is how it's necessary to fight in the 20th century - I think you get this sense in British post-war war films which very much are either knights in the sky (Battle of Britain, Dambusters) or fighting good Germans (the clean Wehrmacht, Rommel). It does not focus on the reality of the war which was actually massive and ramping up industrialisation of death (I think this is a common trait in Britain's view of its past), or even, necessarily, the war's nastiness (we weren't exposed to the Eastern Front). Another example is that the Americans, I believe, refused to do the type of night-bombing raids the British did. But even there it's perhaps complicated by American racial politics, as I believe they did that type of bombing in Japan.

This is as I thik to an extent the logic of war for the last two hundred years. War transformed from something elite and specialised to something that relied on national mobilisation in some way or other until total war. And the more it relies on national mobilisation of conscripts, industry, the home front - the more it's a people's war the more it becomes a war against peoples. As I say I don't think the thinking is new but there's been an attempt to restrain that process (particularly now some weapons like WMDs can really destroy civilian populations almost to the exclusion of a military use). And in the West especially we have reverted to war as specialised activity - arguably to help de-politicise it?

Now let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters.  Shoot or don't?  I say their support should raise the shoot value.

I don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).

Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).

Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.

It's obviously about more than just the military value, or we wouldn't even be discussing the effect on civilians.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it makes a difference. It's about the importance of the military objective which, in that case, is probably the high value target - in another case if those three fighters are actively fighting IDF forces, then it's obviously them. In either case it's the value of the military target/objective to the civilian casualties - can you reduce them and what's the likely collateral damage (for example, other buildings in the area that are likely to be impacted).

Obviously one thing we have learned from October 7 is that Israeli intelligence and knowledge of what's going on in Gaza is lower than they (or I think others) thought. So I doubt their insight is this good.

It's obviously about more than just the military value, or we wouldn't even be discussing the effect on civilians.

The Israeli justification is based on the value of the military target in proportion to the collateral damage.

If it is anything other than a military target, then it is a war crime.

I don't see anybody claiming the Israelis are intentionally targeting non-military targets. Rather the criticism is in the proportionality analysis they are using to justify the collateral damage caused in their attacks.

[viper37]

The Israeli justification is based on the value of the military target in proportion to the collateral damage.

If it is anything other than a military target, then it is a war crime.

I don't see anybody claiming the Israelis are intentionally targeting non-military targets. Rather the criticism is in the proportionality analysis they are using to justify the collateral damage caused in their attacks.

Israel will always claim it was a Hamas hot spot.

Even it we only see dead civilians, they will claim there were munitions in the ambulance.

We're supposed to take this government's word at face value.

[Tamas]

Can restraint be in doubt?

Last time I checked there had been more bombing sorties than civilian deaths were claimed (by Hamas no less).
So either the pilots are terrible are finding and hitting targets or they are indeed trying to minimize civilian casualties.

More bombs dropped than victims killed?! TERRO BOMBING!

No consideration this might not be true?
Even the most conservative estimates have 7000+ Palestinian dead.

And don't forget how bombs tend to work. I believe even in ww2 it was typical for fewer deaths than bombs.

Well in WW2 massive formations of strategic bombers dropped ridiculous amounts of unguided ordinance with very poor aiming, in case of the cities with no other aim than to cause damage to civilians. You can argue whether the IAF would do that if they had strategic bombers but they don't.

And the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).

But I guess it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, all this discussion comes down to one question: does Israel have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas? If yes, we have seen no evidence that they are going beyond that - they might, but it is simply not possible, morally, legally, or practically, to expect that Israel wage this war by throwing away their two advantages (technology and firepower) and have themselves going mano-i-mano with infantry only. Especially since civilians would still die by the droves if that was happening.

And if your opinion is that no, Israel does not have the right to wage a conventional war on Hamas then there's nothing further to discuss then.

[viper37]

Terror bombing does not mean you kill all the civilians you can.  The allies did not want to kill all the civilians of Dresden.  The Americans did not want to kill all the civilians of Japan with their firebombing, nor those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the nukes.

You confuse terror bombing with genocide.

I see no evidence that the Allies did not kill every possible civilian they could at Dresden. Nor do I see any evidence that the US didn't kill every civilian it could in Japan.

I do not confuse the two.  Terror bombing means you keep killing until the enemy surrenders.  Genocide means you keep killing after they surrender.

Dresden had over 500 000 people.  The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text.  Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.

Terror bombing to me means your bomb until the enemy flees the area or surrender.  Israel wants Palestinians to flee the area so they don't come back.  They don't want surrender, there's no one to surrender anything.  Israel wants colonies.

[viper37]

But you just said the IDF should keep disregarding civilian life in Gaza if they vote for Hamas.

I did not say this.  I said it changes the targeting algorithm.  I'll give you a concrete example.

IDF has intelligence (let's say perfect knowledge to keep it simple) that a certain building has 3 fighters, one high value target (a leader) and 4 civilians.  Do you shoot or not shoot?

Now let's say the same set up, all 4 civilians are rabid Hamas supporters.  Shoot or don't?  I say their support should raise the shoot value.

But it's not what they do.

The parameters are this way:
1 mid value target (local leader).
50 civilians.
Shoot.

Like the bombing in the refugee camp/city.

They shot an ambulance recently.  They said there were terrorists onboard, and munitions hiding under children.

So...  They have intel knowing precisely were some ammunition is hidden, apparently under an injured child.  Let's assume it is true.  The best method they found to deal with it was to lauch a missile toward the ambulance to kill the kid?

Do you think it is an efficient method of solving the problem for the long term?

Assume the Israeli government was telling the truth.  There were 3 or 4 terrorists inside the ambulance hiding with a injured child and ammunition/weapons that we did not see under a gurney.

So, they killed four low-level combattants and one kid.

Now, will that kid's family blame Hamas or Israel for the death or their little angel?

[viper37]

And the two numbers compared are coming from opposite sources which makes it interesting for me: the IAF said 8000 bombs (they have an interest in under reporting this number) whil the 7000 deaths come from Hamas (they have an interest in over reporting this number).

Yes.  the IAF bombs are so precise that each bombs only kill one person at a time. They don't even need to use snipers anymore, they just use their bombs.

Here, one bomb, one kill.

[Sheilbh]

Dresden had over 500 000 people.  The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text.  Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.

The other bit is forcing the Germans to defend the skies of their own country - I think in the Wages of Destruction about 40% of German industrial output is building fighters and air defence. That's resources and capacity that isn't being used on offensive weapons to hit the western allies, it's also not being used on equipment for the Eastern Front.

It was the goal as Harris says, but it was also arguably all they could do. I think the RAF did some tests and even in day bombing with good conditions less than a third of bombs hit their targets. Harris was in part responding to what he was hearing from the men which was then proven in that test. So the strategy of just leveling an area was in part adopted because it was the best they could do (and night bombing reduced losses/made it more difficult for Germany to defend against - and was what happened to the UK in the Blitz).

That's partly what I mean by some of what's proportionate shifting with technology.

[viper37]

Dresden had over 500 000 people.  The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text.  Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.

The other bit is forcing the Germans to defend the skies of their own country - I think in the Wages of Destruction about 40% of German industrial output is building fighters and air defence. That's resources and capacity that isn't being used on offensive weapons to hit the western allies, it's also not being used on equipment for the Eastern Front.

It was the goal as Harris says, but it was also arguably all they could do. I think the RAF did some tests and even in day bombing with good conditions less than a third of bombs hit their targets. Harris was in part responding to what he was hearing from the men which was then proven in that test. So the strategy of just leveling an area was in part adopted because it was the best they could do (and night bombing reduced losses/made it more difficult for Germany to defend against - and was what happened to the UK in the Blitz).

That's partly what I mean by some of what's proportionate shifting with technology.

Good point about the defense, I forgot about that.  Any resources they devoted to that they couldn't use to bomb England, obviously.

[Admiral Yi]

Dresden had over 500 000 people.  The bombing killed 25 000 people.
The goal was to inflict terror, to create a refugee problem as Sheilb pointed out in his text.  Destroy the industry, kill the workers, force people to flee their homes because they fear other bombings.

It's an interesting possibility, one I had not considered.  Do you have other evidence to support the claim the allies killed fewer at Dresden than they were capable of?  Were bombers ordered not to fly?  Are there planning documents that say "we want to kill 25K and no more?"

[Admiral Yi]

But it's not what they do.

The parameters are this way:
1 mid value target (local leader).
50 civilians.
Shoot.

Like the bombing in the refugee camp/city.

They shot an ambulance recently.  They said there were terrorists onboard, and munitions hiding under children.

So...  They have intel knowing precisely were some ammunition is hidden, apparently under an injured child.  Let's assume it is true.  The best method they found to deal with it was to lauch a missile toward the ambulance to kill the kid?

Do you think it is an efficient method of solving the problem for the long term?

Assume the Israeli government was telling the truth.  There were 3 or 4 terrorists inside the ambulance hiding with a injured child and ammunition/weapons that we did not see under a gurney.

So, they killed four low-level combattants and one kid.

Now, will that kid's family blame Hamas or Israel for the death or their little angel?

I'm confused what you want me to respond to, 1 wounded kid and 3 or 4 fighters in an ambulance or 1 fighter and 50 mixed civilians.

I'm also confused as to whether you are presenting the 50 +1 scenario as fact or hypothetical.

And yes, I think a hellfire is an excellent way of taking out an ambulance with 1 kid and 3 or 4 fighters, if you want to take it out.