Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

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

FWIW to engage in the sort of discussion you do, I will restate your position for the observers:

"I have identified this expert as saying opinions I like, so I will consider any disagreement of those opinions to be wrong because he is an expert, and everything an expert says wins."

E.g. a pretty basic appeal to authority fallacy.

[crazy canuck]

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

FWIW to engage in the sort of discussion you do, I will restate your position for the observers:

"I have identified this expert as saying opinions I like, so I will consider any disagreement of those opinions to be wrong because he is an expert, and everything an expert says wins."

E.g. a pretty basic appeal to authority fallacy.

You say that despite me saying disagreeing with him is fine and part of the discussion.  If you are not going to be honest about my position then please fuck off.

[Legbiter]

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.

It's a massive undertaking to move into Gaza. It'll take some time to sort out the logistics and prepare the way with airstrikes and artillery and Israel has to decide whether they preempt Hezbollah and strike first or hope they stay fairly quiet. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, I mean U.S. planning for large invasions in modern times (say, Gulf War I and onwards) has usually taken months, not weeks.

Israel likely doesn't have the "initiative" politically and etc to last months of planning though, they likely need to start a ground invasion this month or I think there will be a lot of headwinds, both diplomatically and inside Israel's political system.

A bigger question than the planning IMO is the "what do we do long term." If the goal of the ground invasion is just punitive, e.g. hunt out Hamas leaders, make a half-hearted (but knowingly unlikely) attempt to find hostages etc, then it means the Israeli leadership has the flexibility of leaving "whenever they decide the getting is good" and can plausibly say goal achieved.

If they explicitly say they are going in to reshape the strip, permanently remove Hamas from power--they would almost definitionally require some form of extended occupation, and then if things get rough and they decide to leave, it will (politically) be seen as a significant failure of leadership I think, which for the political actors involved is likely as important, maybe more so, than anything else in this discussion.

[Legbiter]

If I had to guess I think Israel will go in, kill anything that resists and once that's achieved they'll have full physical control of all border crossings into the Sinai. So a much tighter vise on Gaza but no full-scale occupation. The aftermath will be Mosul on steroids.

[Barrister]

[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.]

I know you say for non-lawyers, but prompted a memory.

Back during articling (the year's apprenticeship we Canuck law-talkers have to do before being called) I had to do a memo for a client who wanted to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of property.  My memo came back saying "you can't".  Supervising lawyer was like "No, come back and give the best possible argument for why you can.  Client just needs something to use as leverage in trying to convince the other party to life the covenant"

That being said one of the nice things about being in prosecutions is we do have a quasi-judicial role, and are supposed to look out for the overall interests of justice, and not just nakedly argue for one side.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

I read Byers as saying that Israel is falling short of his aspirational view of international law should be. So:

1. If the question is do I agree that international law should be more restrictive on permissible action by belligerents and more protective of civilians than it actually is at present, in a manner that Byers thinks it should be, then the answer is that I'm not sure.  I have to think about it.  In principle, I think more protection of civilians is a good thing and that there is still a lot of work to be done inculcating such protective values into national military forces. OTOH I also think it's problematic to try to impose restrictions on the actions of sovereign states that no state would reasonably abide by if it believed its national security or the security of its own forces were at significant risk. The current conflict gives much food for thought.  When faced with an opponent that shows total contempt for the accepted rules of war, and who attempts to exploit their existence for miltiary advantage, how much freedom of action is it reasonable to give the other side?  If the international law of war itself becomes a weapon in the tactical arsenal of those who are its worst violators, what is the likely impact on respect for that body of law?

2.  If the question is whether it is appropriate to accuse Israel (or any other state) of violating international law, not because they actually are, but as a rhetorical device to give more impact to an argument for an aspirational view of a more protective international law, I disagree.

[grumbler]

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

Because he is not actually speaking as an expert here, he is just pretending to.  No actual expert on the subject would hold Israel to be the Occupying Power in Gaza.  Making statements meant to be taken as fact when they are not just opinions, but flat untruths, is not serving as an expert.  Hence, "expert" in quotes.

[The Minsky Moment]

Back during articling (the year's apprenticeship we Canuck law-talkers have to do before being called) I had to do a memo for a client who wanted to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of property.  My memo came back saying "you can't".  Supervising lawyer was like "No, come back and give the best possible argument for why you can.  Client just needs something to use as leverage in trying to convince the other party to life the covenant"

Right that's typical for junior lawyers just out of school because clinics and competitions aside, most exam work in law schools involves giving one's best view of the law, not client advocacy.  Most assocs work that out after a year or two, but a few never really get it.

[Jacob]

This feels like a strange line of discussion. Lies your enemy has spread whip up a frenzy on social media and traditional media loves to eat from that trough...well you should have better social media game.

OK...

If you thing my phrasing was indelicate that's fair enough.

That said, I think the Informational Warfare - i.e. the propaganda war - is a significant part of modern warfare. If you compare Ukrainian efforts and results in this realm to that of Israel then there's a significant difference. And yes of course the circumstances and particulars are vastly different.

I've seen very little that could be interpreted as Israeli attempts in that sphere, but I've come across plenty of things that seem like very effective massaging for Hamas and/ or Palestinians.

Anecdotally I've noted this absence. I'm basically 0% interested in assigning any kind of blame. I am, however, curious to see what - if anything - I've missed. And I'm interested in understanding why there appears to be little effort in this space.

It sounds to me like he's assigning some liability to Israel for the Arab's streets response to the fake Gaza hospital news.

I'm not. I basically have no insight into "the Arab street" and how to influence it. I reckon it'd be a challenging operational environment for Isreal. I suppose if Israel had a strong informational warfare operation, they could spare some effort there as well. But it does not appear as if they do.

I'm basing my observations on the parts of the West I pay attention to - Canada, the US, the UK, Denmark - and like I said I haven't seen much that could be interpreted as Israeli supporting narratives (a few here and there), but I've seen plenty that could be interpreted as Palestinian supporting, and even Hamas supporting.

Your enemies will always try to hurt you. The only thing you control directly is your own actions.

Exactly.

It's not like it's a wholly new concept for your enemy to lie brazenly, or to actively reframe facts to suit their narratives.

The Israel aligned response to those kind of actions by their enemies do not seem to be particularly on point. I'm curious why that is. Maybe they're doing the best they can but the odds are against them. Maybe they're under resouced in this area for any number of reasons (good or bad). Maybe they've decided it just doesn't matter (which I'd tend to disagree with, but obviously it's not my call).

[Jacob]

I'm seeing reporting that the Israeli minister of defence say the land operation is going to start soon.

[DGuller]

Israel is currently disadvantaged in that they're fighting a side that's aided by Russia.  Russia may not be winning the PR war against Ukraine, but they're still formidable in that area and they have a lot of war experience.  Israel is still at the Kasserine Pass level.

[Sheilbh]

If you thing my phrasing was indelicate that's fair enough.

That said, I think the Informational Warfare - i.e. the propaganda war - is a significant part of modern warfare. If you compare Ukrainian efforts and results in this realm to that of Israel then there's a significant difference. And yes of course the circumstances and particulars are vastly different.

I've seen very little that could be interpreted as Israeli attempts in that sphere, but I've come across plenty of things that seem like very effective massaging for Hamas and/ or Palestinians.

Anecdotally I've noted this absence. I'm basically 0% interested in assigning any kind of blame. I am, however, curious to see what - if anything - I've missed. And I'm interested in understanding why there appears to be little effort in this space.

But how much of that is different from the norm? I mean every single previous war in Gaza (normally started by Hamas attacks) move very swiftly from sympathy with Israel to large demonstrations across the world condemning Israel and in solidarity with Palestinians.

I think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.

I agree that I don't see much in the way of comms or efforts from Israel  - but again I think I very rarely have in previous conflicts. I'm not sure how much of that is because Israel basically is entirely focused on American opinion  which may not be the wrong approach. Or to possibly add to it on governments. I think Ukraine's need was bigger it was tied to its European ambitions and desire to integrate into the West. They needed to convince countries to spend money on them and supply them with arms, which is not a requirement for Israel - also they're the underdog in a way I don't think Israel is or has been perceived as for decades.

The Israel aligned response to those kind of actions by their enemies do not seem to be particularly on point. I'm curious why that is. Maybe they're doing the best they can but the odds are against them. Maybe they're under resouced in this area for any number of reasons (good or bad). Maybe they've decided it just doesn't matter (which I'd tend to disagree with, but obviously it's not my call).

I honestly think that part of it may be that they don't care.

Edit: And again - they might not be wrong. There is an argument that basically opinion is pretty entrenched on Israel-Palestine, in all my time on the internet, say, I don't think I've seen a single person change their mind about it. So what matters is keeping the US and decision-makers onside (and willing to take some heat domestically). I think many people wouldn't even really have heard of Ukraine far less had an opinion on it - so there's more scope for opinion shaping.

[Jacob]

But how much of that is different from the norm? I mean every single previous war in Gaza (normally started by Hamas attacks) move very swiftly from sympathy with Israel to large demonstrations across the world condemning Israel and in solidarity with Palestinians.

I think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.

I agree that I don't see much in the way of comms or efforts from Israel  - but again I think I very rarely have in previous conflicts. I'm not sure how much of that is because Israel basically is entirely focused on American opinion  which may not be the wrong approach. Or to possibly add to it on governments. I think Ukraine's need was bigger it was tied to its European ambitions and desire to integrate into the West. They needed to convince countries to spend money on them and supply them with arms, which is not a requirement for Israel - also they're the underdog in a way I don't think Israel is or has been perceived as for decades.

I don't think there's been much change from the norm. My perception has changed somewhat which is why I'm interested in the conversation.

But yeah, that's a good analysis of how Israel could be approaching it.

I honestly think that part of it may be that they don't care.

Edit: And again - they might not be wrong. There is an argument that basically opinion is pretty entrenched on Israel-Palestine, in all my time on the internet, say, I don't think I've seen a single person change their mind about it. So what matters is keeping the US and decision-makers onside (and willing to take some heat domestically). I think many people wouldn't even really have heard of Ukraine far less had an opinion on it - so there's more scope for opinion shaping.

Yeah you're probably right. Maybe Israel has assessed the amount of effort vs the payoff and determined it's just not worth it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think this forum and the US are a little bit outliers in global opinion. I'm not sure it's information warfare or Hamas propaganda as much as it is the broad public opinion in large chunks of the world since 1967 - at the latest. A lot of what I see that is pushing this isn't Hamas or Palestinian propaganda but left-wing people online who have views. I've not seen anything from Hamas or Palestinians that seems like Ukraine's efforts.

Polling has found a pretty overwhelming majority of Americans support Israel, in a crazily divided country it is like 65%.

To Americans, which many of us are, we largely don't give a fuck what a bunch of countries that stone women to death for wearing the wrong type of hat, or lynch gays in their spare time think about Israel.