Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

Nor can you.
Nor can many really intelligent people who have devoted decades of their life to trying to create peace in the region.
Criticism of something that clearly isn't the solution isn't reliant on having a fully working alternative.

I'm not the one complaining about Israeli conduct.  The question wasn't about "peace in the region"  it was about how to deal with Hamas fighting among civilians and civilians fighting and committing war crimes.  You want the Israelis to do something else, but you don't know what that it is, and you are mad they aren't doing it.  That's simply irrational.

You know, its perfectly valid to condemn for instance bank robbers without having a detailed plan for how they can make money legally.
Saying something is wrong doesn't mean the responsibility is therefore on you to come up with an alternative.

[Razgovory]

You're not a child.  It is totally your responsibility to know what you want.  We had this problem in 1945, more or less, the solution was to accept that there would be civilian casualties and push forward.  Nobody said that the Allies should "stop being dicks" or get the fuck out of Germany in the interests of a long term peace.

[crazy canuck]

You're not a child.  It is totally your responsibility to know what you want.  We had this problem in 1945, more or less, the solution was to accept that there would be civilian casualties and push forward.  Nobody said that the Allies should "stop being dicks" or get the fuck out of Germany in the interests of a long term peace.

The Israelis are also not children, and yet their government has not been able to state what they want.  That is why their war cabinet had to be dissolved.

[Valmy]

You're not a child.  It is totally your responsibility to know what you want.  We had this problem in 1945, more or less, the solution was to accept that there would be civilian casualties and push forward.  Nobody said that the Allies should "stop being dicks" or get the fuck out of Germany in the interests of a long term peace.

I think this problem was in 1940 and the solution was to get pissed off about Rotterdam and the Blitz and bomb German cities in retaliation.

Nobody said that to the Allies because something like four countries were still neutral by 1945. If the entire world was currently at war with Palestine, I guarantee you nobody would be asking the world wide coalition to stop being dicks. But Israel has not secured a world wide coalition, so there are going to be people unhappy with massive civilian casualties.  Also we haven't had five years of total war to get everybody in a state of mind to accept the concept.

But I don't see most of our terror bombing in World War II getting praised much, even under the circumstances. And here you are just saying that because the Allies committed atrocities in World War II, therefore atrocities are now fine and everybody should be cool. I don't know about that...

[grumbler]

I am fascinated by the way in which the Combined Bomber Offensive has morphed into "terror bombing" as the years have gone by.  The meaning of words has become so much more flexible.

[Tamas]

I am fascinated by the way in which the Combined Bomber Offensive has morphed into "terror bombing" as the years have gone by.  The meaning of words has become so much more flexible.

I mean, calling it terror bombing is closer to describe the intent, isn't it? And this isn't an accusation, in a total war like that was (or more likely, in any kind of modern war), it is the population's will that needs to be broken to end it.

[Admiral Yi]

I mean, calling it terror bombing is closer to describe the intent, isn't it? And this isn't an accusation, in a total war like that was (or more likely, in any kind of modern war), it is the population's will that needs to be broken to end it.

AFAIK the US didn't bomb houses.  We bombed factories and transport and troop concentrations.

[grumbler]

I mean, calling it terror bombing is closer to describe the intent, isn't it? And this isn't an accusation, in a total war like that was (or more likely, in any kind of modern war), it is the population's will that needs to be broken to end it.

Except that no one in a position of authority believed by 1941 that a population's will could be broken by bombing (in fact, the evidence of The Blitz was that it was the opposite).  The CBO was aimed at crippling Germany's warmaking by destroying factories and communications lines. 

The British later shifted to firebombing to destroy German housing in the manufacturing cities on the (true) presumption that ill-housed workers were less efficient workers.  They knew, though, that the population was in bomb shelters and so not being killed/terrified, merely inconvenienced.

[Tamas]

Fine.

[grumbler]

Fine.

I wasn't specifically targeting your comment.  I've heard the same "terror bombing" assumption made frequently in online communities and even from some younger fellow teachers.

[grumbler]

The IDF have, according to the WaPo, announced a daily ceasefire in Gaza to allow humanitarian aid to reach the civilians there.

The Israeli military on Sunday announced it had begun a daily 11-hour pause of operations along an aid corridor in southern Gaza to safeguard deliveries of humanitarian relief — a move that some within the government denounced.

The limited "tactical pause" will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 7 p.m. each day "until further notice along the road that leads from the Kerem Shalom Crossing to the Salah al-Din Road and then northwards," the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement Sunday. The IDF later clarified that there is "no cessation of fighting" elsewhere in southern Gaza, including Rafah.

The government has denounced this move.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir denounced the plan, saying on X that "whoever decided on a 'tactical truce' ... is an evil and a fool who should not continue in his position." Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called the pause announcement "delusional" and "detached," adding that the "'humanitarian aid' that continues to reach Hamas keeps it in power and may put the achievements of the war down the drain."

This is all from June 16th and I was surprised to see it missing from this discussion.  Clearly, even senior leaders in the IDF don't see the Israeli government's position as tenable.

[PJL]

With all due respect, seeing the enemy planes overhead, hearing the bombs fall and the air raid sirens and rushing to the shelters can't be described as anything but terrifying. Whether the bombing offensives of the allies could be considering a deliberate terror bombing is debatable. When the objectives were factories, transport hubs and the like, you could argue it was a unfortunate byproduct. It gets murkier with the firebombing of civilian areas though.

[Grey Fox]

Aren't we simply going back to the old conflict between war of necessity vs war of choice?

[grumbler]

With all due respect, seeing the enemy planes overhead, hearing the bombs fall and the air raid sirens and rushing to the shelters can't be described as anything but terrifying. Whether the bombing offensives of the allies could be considering a deliberate terror bombing is debatable. When the objectives were factories, transport hubs and the like, you could argue it was a unfortunate byproduct. It gets murkier with the firebombing of civilian areas though.

But seeing enemy planes overhead, hearing the bombs falling and the air raid sirens and rushing to the shelters is just as true for an army attacking the city.  Warfare is terrifying to everyone experiencing it, but that doesn't mean that warfare is terrorism.

What distinguishes terrorism is that its target isn't its victims, but a third group that is thought to be influenced in the terrorist's favor by instilling the terror that the terrorists will repeat their attack.

Arguably, the German bombing of Rotterdam on May 14, 1940 was a terror-bombing, given that Göring stated in his orders that the plan was to destroy so much of the city center that the Dutch would be forced to capitulate, which they did later that day when a similar ultimatum was received by the Dutch regarding Utrecht.  The counter-argument is that the   Germans had troops in the city and that this justified air support for them.

Intent is what distinguishes terrorism, and there's no evidence that the CBO was targeting some civilians in order to terrorize others.  One can debate whether military necessity justified the resultant civilian casualties, but that's a completely separate argument from whether or not he WAllies were engaging in terrorism.

[grumbler]

Aren't we simply going back to the old conflict between war of necessity vs war of choice?

Not quite, I don't think.  A given action in a war of necessity can be terrorism, and the same act in a war of choice could not be.  Terrorism isn't the same thing as war crimes, which can more readily be invoked in a war of choice.