Israel-Hamas War 2023

[viper37]

This is a shitshow.  I've met you veep, I think you're  good guy, I've never seen you lying before, it breaks my heart to think of you as a liar but there's no other way I can parse this whole 50+1 exchange.

I'll have to just think this whole Gaza thing is frying people's brains, tune you out for the duration and hope you return to the veep that I knew before.

Look, I'm going by the report here.  They killed about 50 people.  47 according the Al-J this week.  

Last week it was 50 for one of the architect of the October 7th attacks:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/31/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-latest-news-on-gaza-conflict.html

I'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives.  They could have waited at another moment.

There's no way they would have killed 50 Israeli-Jewish citizens to get to this guy.

Sure, he's worth killing.  But at the cost of 50 civilians?  Not so sure.  Maybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.

I'm saying that act was deliberate to terrorize the Palestinians.  You're saying it's not.  We will disagree on that.

[Iormlund]

Maybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.

Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.

There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.

[Tonitrus]

Houthi fired ballistic missile was shot down by Israel outside of the earth's atmosphere. I think this is the first example of space combat in our history. Initiated by Yemen Iran rather surprisingly.

As with drones in Ukraine, it really feels like the future is here but perhaps not in the ways or being shown by the powers we anticipated.

Fixed. 

[Threviel]

I'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives.  They could have waited at another moment.

How do you know this?

[Josquius]

That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting.  He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can.  I.e. the terror bombing charge.

Nobody claimed Israel was killing all the civilians they can. Israel has nuclear weapons. They could glass Gaza if they wanted.
Terror bombing doesn't mean trying to kill as many civilians as you can. In theory you could conduct terror bombing without killing a single person if you can scare the population enough (a dumb extreme obviously).

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.

I don't think the 7000 was from Hamas. That was from a pretty conservative western commentator. Look to Al-Jazeera who are probably getting their numbers more from the Hamas line and I see at least 10k being reported.

Israel have the 'right' to fight a conventional war against Hamas.... but there we're getting into the Life of Brian I want to be a woman scene. Its a pretty academic right as fighting a conventional war against Hamas just isn't possible. They're not setup as a conventional army.
They're a terrorist group/local mob/sui generis on those lines.

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

[Grey Fox]

I'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives.  They could have waited at another moment.

How do you know this?

Knowing has nothing to do with Viper having that opinion.

[Threviel]

That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting.  He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can.  I.e. the terror bombing charge.

Nobody claimed Israel was killing all the civilians they can. Israel has nuclear weapons. They could glass Gaza if they wanted.
Terror bombing doesn't mean trying to kill as many civilians as you can. In theory you could conduct terror bombing without killing a single person if you can scare the population enough (a dumb extreme obviously).

We should start by defining terror bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#Terror_bombing

Terror bombing is an emotive term used for aerial attacks planned to weaken or break enemy morale.[5] Use of the term to refer to aerial attacks implies the attacks are criminal according to the law of war,[6] or if within the laws of war are nevertheless a moral crime.

So, if we go by what wiki says it's objectively not terror bombing. The purpose of the attacks is not to break the enemy morale, it's to kill enemies. Motive matters and all that.

Reading further, from the perspective of the Gazans the bombings can be described as terror bombings. Even if the bombings are legal, which I have argued¹, or illegal which others have argued, they might nevertheless be a moral crime.

In conclusion: The current bombings of Gaza can be described as terror bombings, but it is an emotionally laden term very much giving away the bias of the user.

I guess future historians will give a verdict down the road. I would not use the term right now since it's so obviously loaded and biased.

1. They might of course be illegal, or most probably sometimes illegal, but we cannot know that now. Like most wars it's a horrible shit show where even good guys sometimes make horrible mistakes, and IDF isn't exactly a innocent white knight right now.

[Threviel]

"if israel really wanted to they could kill a lot more people" is a pretty shit defence of killing civilians.
Like. The US could wipe out the world if it wanted to. Does that mean it has a freebie of wiping out a country or two?

That's not the charge Threviel is rebutting.  He is rebutting the charge that Israel is killing all the civilians it can.  I.e. the terror bombing charge.

I don't actually remember what the point of my diatribe was. Presumably something along the line of: 7000 deaths, which is a highly unreliable number, is very very low for the level of bombing done. So few civilian deaths in this kind of conflict with this intensity is proof in and of itself that the IDF is showing great restraint for the circumstances.

If they had been bombing willy-nilly, ignoring civilians, the death toll would have been far far larger. If they had been actively targeting civilians the deaths would have been 6 digits now.

So sort of an argument that it's a horrible war, lots of unnecessary deaths. But if I were a civilian living in a murderous state that just committed an absolutely horrible terror crime against a far stronger neighbour then IDF would probably be my preferred enemy. Had it been Russia or Pakistan or perhaps even the US the response would probably have been bloodier, if nothing else at least due the effect of combat history and doctrine. As a civilian you at least have a chance when the IDF come knocking.

[Iormlund]

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

Legally? Absolutely.

Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.

[Josquius]

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

Legally? Absolutely.

Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.

That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?

I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?

[The Brain]

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

Legally? Absolutely.

Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.

That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?

I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?

AFAIK armed forces who are terrorists don't get any special free pass in war.

[Sheilbh]

It seems there's more concern growing in Washington. Story in the NYT about an Israeli request (and previous American support) for assault rifles - in particular growing concern that these may actually be provided to settlers and borderline paramilitary civilian militias. A week or two ago Ben Gvir posted a photo of himself handing out asssault rifles to civilians at a political event which helped prompt the concerns.

It's worth pointing out that there has been an upsurge in settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Obviously this is wrong on its own but from an Israeli perspective it means that, again, a lot of IDF forces are required in the West Bank to either - as best they can - restrain settlers or protect them after they've attacked Palestinians. It's not helpful when Israel is describing itself as at war in Gaza that so much resource is being taken up elsewhere. While the GOP may not care (and may even consider it a model) I can understand American concern that their military aid for Israel is ending up in the hands of civilian paramilitaries associated with extremist parties in Israel - I mean Ben Gvir was literally part of groups the US considers terrorists and was in the circles that shot Rabin. So the risk of him handing out US aid to his supporters is one I imagine the US absolutely wants ruled out.

Also US sources in the Washington Post growing increasingly concerned at the number of civilian casualties in Gaza. Apparently they are confident there is a process in place for Israeli forces to assess strikes - to work out if it is proportionate. But they're also noting that "the Israeli calculus about acceptable levels of civilian casualties was clearly different from that of the United States".

This feels like the point where recent Israeli campaigns in Gaza have normally end. There's criticism/a little bit of concern from the US, protests in Europe are causing problems for governments there and the US/Western Arab allies are very unhappy. At this point, normally all of that is brought to bear (particularly by the US) to restrain/stop Israel's campaign. Here, though, Israel is saying they're not finished or going to stop so it feels like we're heading into new territory.

[Threviel]

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

Legally? Absolutely.

Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.

That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?

First and foremost Hamas/Gaza is a government at war. They may also be terrorists, but in the eyes of international law they are a warring party. This is a war, not a police action.

Civilians used as human shields do not lose their protection under the eyes of the law. The responsibility to keep them safe lies with the party endangering them. In this case a civilian family forced by Gazans to stand on a weapons cache is endangered by the Gazans and IDF is within its legal right to shoot at the cache. In this example Gaza breaks international law.

Otherwise we risk a future where civilians will be used as a tactical resource by extremist regimes. The earlier silly example of strapping babies to combatants for example illustrates the point.

The international laws on war are designed to protect civilians, in that protection there are built in systems to not make it advantageous to use civilians as human shields. Using human shields is not a cheat code to become invulnerable, it cannot be, because that makes dragging civilians into war zones a military tactic.

Hamas strategy is based on external observers put blame on IDF for every civilian dying when, probably, the overwhelming lions share of that blame ought to fall on the government that endangered the civilians; Gaza.

Also: International law is a series of treaties (what the Canadians call the "Geneva suggestions" among them) that countries have, or have not signed. Presumably Gaza have signed very few, if any, so I don't actually know how the laws affect them. I don't think they care and I don't think very many outside of Gaza care either.

[Iormlund]

Israel have the right to try to kill hamas members... but do they have the right to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to do this?

Legally? Absolutely.

Hamas removes the protected status of any civilians they use a human shields.

That doesn't sound right. So terorrists decide to use you as a human shield... And you've lost your protected status as a result of this?

I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?

Once there's a legitimate military target, the only obligation of the attacking party is to keep Proportionality.

But that is really murky, since as outsiders we cannot know the value of the targets to the war effort.
I can see how the Israelis would think that bagging a guy who was instrumental in the incursion was worth dozens of civilian deaths (since thousands have died as a result in both sides). But if he was just a pawn, then not so much.

[Admiral Yi]

I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?

Shelf says it doesn't matter.  Civilian means civilian.