Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josephus]

It's not usual Israeli MO to deny something so vehemently. They wouldn't shoot at the hospital on purpose, so if they did hit it, it would be accidental, in which case their usual response would be to say "we are launching an investigation to determine what happened."

On the other hand, Hamas WOULD do this on purpose, although I don't think thats what happened. I think they launched a rocket from the hospital parking lot (a typical thing for them to hide behind hospitals, schools, etc.) that misfired and came back down. They immediately thought this would be good PR if we blame it on the Israelis. By the time the truth comes out, people would only remember the initial headlines.

[crazy canuck]

Professor Byers as now written an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail

(snip)
The second clearly violated rule is the prohibition on forcible transfers within or from an occupied territory, for instance, from Gaza City to southern Gaza. An alleged violation of this rule is the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier this year.

Israeli lawyers will point out that there is an exception to the rule, namely that transfers may occur "if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But even then, the transferring power "shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated."

Clearly, those responsibilities are not being fulfilled in southern Gaza today.

Still catching up on the discussion, but I am flabbergasted that an "expert" on international humanitarian law would so blatantly mis-state the law and what is happening.

International humanitarian law prohibits the mass movement of occupied people by the occupying power:

Article 49 (relevant portion)
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

GCIV
Note that this is a prohibition of action by an "Occupying Power."

Israel is not forcibly transferring anyone in Gaza.  I don't know why the professor would think that they are.

Further, Israel is not an occupying power.   Hague Convention 4 is still the defining document in occupation law, and state that

Art. 42.

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Hague 4

For Israel in Gaza, this occupied territory is non-existent, so Israel cannot be violation this element of the rules of armed conflict.
 
While I agree with the prof on the collective punishment issue, this clearly is not an "expert" on which we should rely for authoritative statements about the situation in Gaza.

I will think about the points you raised but initially I'd like to know why you put the word expert in quotation marks.

[The Minsky Moment]

I can't speak for grumbler, but when lawyers or law professors speak about the law, they can do so objectively and descriptively, or they can do so as advocates for a client or a particular point of view.  The line is not always strictly well-defined but it is definitely there.

[Story for the non-lawyers: in my big firm days I once supervised a litigation associate who was very bright and a competent writer.  But her draft briefs always required lots of revision because she was incapable of advocacy.  She would just state what she believed the stronger legal position was based on existing precedent, even if that result was bad for our client.  She couldn't wrap her head around the sophistical role of lawyers in the US adversarial system that sometimes you need to make the weaker argument try to sound like the stronger one.  Eventually, she left the litigation department for a counseling role, where she succeeded and eventually made partner.]

The objection to Byers is that he is representing himself as presenting the law as it is (descriptively), in the role an objective expert.  But in reality is presenting a particular desired interpretation of the law aspirationally, as an advocate.  He is representing his personal view of what he wants international law to be and how it should be applied as it were a neutral description of what international is.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, to me it seems akin to Alan Dershowitz, he is a controversial figure, but a lawyer of many years of expertise who has been involved in a lot of prominent cases. It wouldn't be invalid to cite him as a legal expert. But when he is on Fox News advocating for one of his specific clients, his arguments are far more likely going to be advocacy than they are neutral expressions of expertise. Most lawyers when representing a client don't go out and explain ways their client's legal position is defective. Instead they tend to craft a narrative where their client is entirely in the right.

[Sheilbh]

From a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.

The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.

It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.

I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?

[Valmy]

Don't underestimate the extent that Netanyahu's corrupt power grabbing has led to institutional decay. Look at what he tried to do to the legal system.

[crazy canuck]

I can't speak for grumbler, but when lawyers or law professors speak about the law, they can do so objectively and descriptively, or they can do so as advocates for a client or a particular point of view.  The line is not always strictly well-defined but it is definitely there.

[Story for the non-lawyers: in my big firm days I once supervised a litigation associate who was very bright and a competent writer.  But her draft briefs always required lots of revision because she was incapable of advocacy.  She would just state what she believed the stronger legal position was based on existing precedent, even if that result was bad for our client.  She couldn't wrap her head around the sophistical role of lawyers in the US adversarial system that sometimes you need to make the weaker argument try to sound like the stronger one.  Eventually, she left the litigation department for a counseling role, where she succeeded and eventually made partner.]

The objection to Byers is that he is representing himself as presenting the law as it is (descriptively), in the role an objective expert.  But in reality is presenting a particular desired interpretation of the law aspirationally, as an advocate.  He is representing his personal view of what he wants international law to be and how it should be applied as it were a neutral description of what international is.

I think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public.  That latter role is very different from the former. 

It is clear that Professor Byers a leading academic in his field. I don't think there is anything wrong with disagreeing with the points he makes.  That makes for an interesting discussion and is at the heart of what academic inquiry is all about.  But it is curious that someone would question that he knows his area.

[Grey Fox]

There's, apparently, a 1500 Israeli volunteer army of tech workers trying to geolocate the hostages thru social media and other internet sources. Such is the decay of institutions under populists.

[OttoVonBismarck]

From a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.

The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.

It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.

I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?

My main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public.  That latter role is very different from the former.

I'm not conflating those roles, I am accusing Pf. Byers of doing so in those statements. The basis of that accusation is statements such the claim that cutting of outside supplies of electricity to a besieged city violates international law; that has no support in existing international legal sources and practices, but rather represents Byers' aspirational desire to extend the existing law and practice to impose greater restrictions on belligerents.

Except that I'm doing more than that.  Even a retained party expert is usually more careful to accurately represent controlling understandings within the relevant area of expertise as opposed to minority views or views that lack general acceptance in the field but that the expert believes has merit.  I wouldn't analogize what Byers is doing to that of a retained party expert but rather a lawyer for a party advocating a desired position for a client.

[frunk]

From a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.

The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.

Israel hasn't known what to do with the Gaza Strip for 30 years, an attack from there doesn't change this.

[Sheilbh]

My main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.

Totally agree - and it may well clearly be total nonsense in a day or two. But I think it's fair to say this is how it appears (and it may just be deception). Obviously it also reflects that it doesn't seem like there are any "good" options.

I think it matters for Israel - deterrence is very important and part of that isn't just Israeli tech and weapons systems, but also military brilliance and decisiveness.

[Josephus]

From a fellow at RUSI, which I totally agree with, Israel appears far weaker and more dysfunctional than I'd expected. It has the firepower but it feels like the political issues in recent years may have also bled into security.

The attack was almost two weeks ago and I'm still not any clearer on what Israel is intending to achieve and I find it very surprising. It's not clear what they want or how they intend to get there. The military may have, as you'd expect, a menu of contingency plans ready and the issue is political but I'm not sure if even that is the case. It feels like there's just no consensus view politically or militarily on what to do, how to do it and what the follow on risks might be so there's bombs but it feels almost like a displacement activity with a sense of paralysis honestly.

It could be, as I wondered earlier, lots of preparation for entering territory they know will be very difficult. But it doesn't feel like preparatory stages. It feels like the Israeli state still doesn't know what it intends to do, which I'm really surprised by. I think that is a risk particularly if this moves to three fronts because I think Hezbollah will be watching this closely and the West Bank could explode into protests.

I've known about and read stuff about the political issues in Israel and I obviously disagree with Netanyahu - and think as a politician he is purely interested in his own position and advancement - but I am surprised. I thought the security state was separate (and this could all be wrong, they may have been planning an incredibly effective operation to launch this evening), but maybe it wasn't?

As I said before, I'm pretty sure they're trying to determine where the hostages are before going in willy-nilly. If there is a chance they can be rescued before they rain hellfire on Gaza, they will try to do that. Also giving a bit more chance for Palestinians to evacuate the north.

[crazy canuck]

I think you are conflating what an expert witness is in court proceeding (and advocacy in a court proceeding for that matter) with an expert in an area who is trying to educate the public.  That latter role is very different from the former.

I'm not conflating those roles, I am accusing Pf. Byers of doing so in those statements. The basis of that accusation is statements such the claim that cutting of outside supplies of electricity to a besieged city violates international law; that has no support in existing international legal sources and practices, but rather represents Byers' aspirational desire to extend the existing law and practice to impose greater restrictions on belligerents.

Except that I'm doing more than that.  Even a retained party expert is usually more careful to accurately represent controlling understandings within the relevant area of expertise as opposed to minority views or views that lack general acceptance in the field but that the expert believes has merit.  I wouldn't analogize what Byers is doing to that of a retained party expert but rather a lawyer for a party advocating a desired position for a client.

Perhaps address the whole of my post if we are to engage in a discussion rather than simply restating your position.

[PJL]

My main issue with this analysis is we aren't really privy to the information. For all we know Israel has a plan of invasion and occupation worked up, but they haven't communicated it at all. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I don't necessarily disagree with the thesis, I just don't see that we have enough access to the deliberations and planning to reasonably know.

Totally agree - and it may well clearly be total nonsense in a day or two. But I think it's fair to say this is how it appears (and it may just be deception). Obviously it also reflects that it doesn't seem like there are any "good" options.

I think it matters for Israel - deterrence is very important and part of that isn't just Israeli tech and weapons systems, but also military brilliance and decisiveness.

I'm getting the impression that a ground offensive will begin soon, once all the Western leaders doing the rounds supporting Israel and getting support from Arab leaders for humanitarian stuff & containment have left the region.