Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?

[OttoVonBismarck]

So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?

Not really. The UN has relief agencies with staff on the ground, and they have released some reports—but they are often just repeating what Hamas has given them. Hamas is fairly poor at actually administering Gaza. I suspect they don't even have very accurate figures to begin with.

[Tamas]

Killing of Jewish civilians continue to trigger strong reactions from the press: " Israel must stop weaponising the Holocaust"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/24/israel-gaza-palestinians-holocaust

[Sheilbh]

So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?

No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.

[Razgovory]

Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al

The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective.  The Japanese ignored it and then  the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.

They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.

  The treaty was signed in 1928, we had wars since then.

[jimmy olsen]

This doesn't seem good.

https://twitter.com/Schizointel/status/1716679184183894342?t=u1MqXJZAz7SBqibtch0iFA&s=33

US is starting to prepare but continues to deny the preparation of what could become one of the largest Non Combatant Evacuation Operations in history.

The Washington Post is reporting based on 4 officials familiar with the U.S. government's contingency planning that the Biden administration
preparing for the possibility that hundreds of thousands of American citizens (600,000 Americans in Israel and 86,000 Americans in Lebanon) will require evacuation from the Middle East if the Israel Gaza war escalates and expands beyond Gaza.
 
Washington Post continues "Top U.S. officials have not wanted to discuss such contingency planning in public, hoping to avoid setting off a panic among Americans in the region. But their posture has shifted in recent days to convey the anxiety about other actors entering the conflict."

Some quotes from officials familiar with the discussions.
"This has become a real issue," one official said. "The administration is very, very, very worried that this thing is going to get out of hand."

Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters that a "broader escalation" is possible "in the days ahead." Senior military leaders, he said, are taking "all necessary measures" to safeguard U.S. personnel.
"We don't necessarily see that Iran has explicitly ordered them to take these kinds of attacks," Ryder said. "That said, by virtue of the fact that they are supported by Iran, we will ultimately hold Iran responsible."

One official speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal deliberations, said Americans living in Israel and neighboring Lebanon are of particular concern, though they stressed that an evacuation of that magnitude is considered a "worst-case scenario and that other outcomes are seen as more likely."

Another official speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail internal deliberations said, it "would be irresponsible not to have a plan for everything."

Read the full Washington Post article below
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/23/us-evacuation-plans-israel-lebanon-hamas-war/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/drone-attacks-american-bases-injured-two-dozen-us-military-personnel-rcna121961

Drone attacks on American bases injured two dozen U.S. military personnel

The groups conducting the attacks are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Oct. 25, 2023, 5:45 AM KST
By Courtney Kube and Mosheh Gains
Two dozen American military personnel were wounded last week in a series of drone attacks at American bases in Iraq and Syria, U.S. Central Command told NBC News on Tuesday.

The Pentagon confirmed the attacks last week, but the number of U.S. casualties has not been previously disclosed.

Twenty American personnel sustained minor injuries on Oct. 18 when at least two one-way attack drones targeted al-Tanf military base in southern Syria, CENTCOM said.

One of the drones was shot down. All of the wounded personnel were returned to duty, CENTCOM said, and there was no damage to any military installations.

On that same day, another four American personnel suffered minor injuries during two separate drone attacks against U.S. and coalition forces stationed at al-Asad base in western Iraq, CENTCOM said.

The U.S. shot down the one-way attack drones, but the debris from one destroyed a hanger that contained small aircraft, CENTCOM said. All of the injured personnel returned to duty.

An American civilian contractor died due to a cardiac incident during a shelter-in-place order, but it did not occur during one of the drone attacks.

The attacks came amid rising tensions in the region over the conflict in Israel.

Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that over the past week U.S. and coalition forces were attacked at least 10 separate times in Iraq and three separate times in Syria "via a mix of one way attack drones and rockets."

Ryder said the groups conducting the attacks are supported by Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"What we are seeing is the prospect for more significant escalation against U.S. forces and personnel across the region in the very near term coming from Iranian proxy forces, and ultimately from Iran," Ryder said.

"We always reserve the right to defend ourselves and we will never hesitate to take action when needed to protect our forces and our interests overseas," he added.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ehh, I see little scenario where 600,000 dual citizens leave Israel over the war.

[crazy canuck]

So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?

No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.

Same with the Globe and Mail and the NYT.  Seems they all got on the same editorial page.

[jimmy olsen]

Ehh, I see little scenario where 600,000 dual citizens leave Israel over the war.

Nuclear war with Iran?

Well, obviously there'd be less than 600k at that point, but there would be still be a few hundred thousand.

[grumbler]

Otto leaves out the part just before where he starts to quote from his source:

Because the language of the pact established the important point that only wars of aggression – not military acts of self-defense – would be covered under the pact, many nations had no objections to signing it. If the pact served to limit conflicts, then everyone would benefit; if it did not, there were no legal consequences.

The pact was ineffective because nations could always pose their war activities as defensive.  The pact was effective enough to see to the executions of a number of German and Japanese officials postwar and the imprisonment of many more.

[Jacob]

This CBC article - quoting various American analysts, journalists, and government sources - articulates some of the questions and concerns I have as well. What are Israel's objectives in this war? How do they see the aftermath playing out?

A worried Washington prods Israel to define its military objectives
Amid fear of being pulled into escalating conflict, U.S. peppers ally to explain gameplan

As Israel prepares to expand its Gaza campaign, it has Washington's worried voice in its ear, pushing it to define its objectives.

It's a reflection of Americans' fears they could be pulled into a spiralling Mideast conflict by any missteps in the coming days.

Biden administration officials confirm that they've been urging their ally to contemplate a series of potential outcomes as Israel prepares an anticipated ground offensive.

White House spokesman John Kirby on Monday was using the terminology of preparing for complex and unpredictable situations.

"We are asking [Israel] what their answers are to the kinds of questions that any military ought to be asking itself, as it conducts operations," Kirby told reporters.

"'Have you thought through the branches?'" — meaning, unintended consequences.

"'Have you thought through the sequels?'" — that is, not the immediate aftermath, but what comes later.

"We are in active conversation with them about that," he said.

The U.S. is more concerned about the Israeli war plan than it lets on in public, according to a succession of stories in The New York Times.

The Times reports that U.S. President Joe Biden and senior aides have urged Israel to delay moving into Gaza to buy time for hostage negotiations.

That's atop another report describing U.S. concerns about a push from Israel's defence minister with the potential to drastically escalate the war.

The paper said Yoav Gallant has been urging for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's powerful Lebanon-based proxy militia Hezbollah, without success as the U.S. and others in the Israeli government warn against it.

Meanwhile a Times columnist with connections to Biden, Thomas Friedman, repeated that the U.S. president has been urging his Israeli allies to see beyond their immediate rage and think three steps ahead.

He wrote that Biden has failed to persuade the Netanyahu government to think through the potential implications of a ground offensive without, at least, offering residents of Gaza any hope of a better political future without Hamas.

In a column titled, "Israel is about to make a terrible mistake," he warned that a ground war without any talk of future Palestinian statehood could trigger a global conflagration.

Then, on Monday evening, The Times put it in the bluntest possible terms: reporting that the Biden administration fears Israel lacks achievable military objectives in Gaza, citing senior U.S. sources.

In Washington, on Monday, several Middle East experts shared their fears.

At separate think-tank events, observers said Washington's biggest worry is the war pulling in Hezbollah, then Iran, and, finally, the U.S.

"This potential for a greater regional conflict takes a situation that's already horrible and could turn it into a complete nightmare," said Daniel Byman, an adviser to the State Department, a former U.S. government staffer, and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

At a different event, another analyst said the most pressing U.S. objective of the moment is containing the war.

"Biden's approach has been to hug Israel, and to try to push it where he thinks it [should] be," said Natan Sachs, director of the Brookings Institution's centre for Middle East policy.

"He has ... tried to steer Israeli goals and policy."

Sachs says he doubts the conflict will lead to U.S. boots on the ground, but would not be surprised to see American naval firepower used; two U.S. carrier strike groups are already mobilized for Israel's defence.

Sachs says people must understand the Israeli mindset right now, following the murderous Hamas attacks of Oct. 7.

He says Israelis are determined to ensure their country never suffers a repeat and it doesn't matter how many international campus protests burn Israelis in effigy.

Israelis, he said, will take whatever measures they deem necessary to prevent their children from ever again being burned by Hamas.

Unfortunately, he added: "This does not mean that Israel has an answer [to that]."

He and several colleagues voiced their fear that the Israeli government hasn't defined a longer-term strategy beyond attacking Hamas.

What questions could Israel be weighing?

A former CIA counterterrorism and counterintelligence official cited two challenges that military firepower alone will not resolve.

One is maintaining relationships with surrounding Arab states, especially Egypt and Jordan, whom, she said, will be essential in establishing any post-Hamas governance. Another is reducing the political rage in Gaza that allowed Hamas to thrive.

"You can't destroy an idea," Emily Harding, now deputy director of the international security program at the CSIS.

Another former U.S. official said Washington has been pressing Israel to articulate clearer goals like: How will you separate Palestinian civilians from their current leadership? Who will rebuild the Gaza government, if Hamas is destroyed?

"I don't sense the Israelis are very receptive to that right now. They are still so shocked, stung, by Hamas's terror," said Jon Alterman, former State Department official, now director of the Middle East Program at CSIS.

"They're talking about crushing, crushing, crushing. Without giving Palestinians a more desirable course to take.

"You're seeing Americans, all up and down, saying, 'Look, we've been [fighting counter-terrorism] for decades. You have to think more deeply.'"

In a speech in Israel last week, Biden alluded to this. He said the United States, in its fury, made grievous errors after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

At home, Biden is now facing pressure on two fronts.

He has progressives fuming that he's been too pro-Israel and some Arab-Americans warning they might not show up to vote for him next year.

His critics on the right say hasn't supported Israel enough. One Republican senator chided him for continuing to talk about Palestinian statehood, accusing him of prioritizing "the creation of a terror state for the people who elected Hamas."

"Israel doesn't just have a right to defend itself; Israel has a right to destroy its enemies. We should back Israel to the hilt, not try to 'restrain' them," Sen. Tom Cotton tweeted over the weekend.

[The Minsky Moment]

I will take a quick look

Here is a gifted link so anyone interested can see it
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-spencer-ackerman-and-peter-beinart.html?unlocked_article_code=1.5Ew.upc_.Y1bnORSbYAs5&smid=url-share

Thanks for the link.

The issue I had with Professor Byers as you know what not his expertise, but rather that he was using descriptive statements of what is to describe aspirational views of what he thinks should be. 

The issue with this colloquy is rather different - this is not a discussion about international law or the laws of war.  It is a discussion between three journalists about their broader perspective on the conflict.

Peter Beinart is brilliant and eloquent and extraordinary well read, but he would not claim particular expertise on questions of international law, nor does he offer an opinion on that here.  As always I find myself in substantial agreement with about 90% of what he says.  The 10% has changed over time - in the old days, he was a bit more of an Israel hawk than I was, but his opinions have crossed over to the other side.  But always thoughtful and well-reasoned.

Spencer Ackerman I am less familiar with.  He is the one that uses the phrase "collective punishment" but in a way that is very clearly rhetorical and in no way a reasoned judgment based on authoritative principles of international law.  The specific fact he mentions is a shortage of anesthetic.  The proposition that a belligerent power conducting military operations against a hostile city has a legal obligation to provide supplies of anesthesia to the enemy does not appear to be supportable.  The matter would stand differently if the hospitals fell under Israeli military control, but that has not happened.  But Ackerman seems to be operating under the misapprehension that Gaza the place and ordinary Gazans exist in some different and physically separate plane of existence than the Hamas leaders and militants that govern Gaza and whose roots are planted deep in the territory. 

[Josquius]

Is that so ineffectual though?
It makes clear war lies outside of the domain of acceptable behaviour and nations engaging in it are beyond the pale, hence Nuremberg et al

The Kellog-Briand pact was ineffective.  The Japanese ignored it and then  the rest of the world did as well after the Japanese attacked them.

They didn't though?
War crimes tribunals took place for Germany and Japan.
We've had a big lack of nations declaring war since.

  The treaty was signed in 1928, we had wars since then.

Not really.
Israels declaration on Hamas is counted amongst a very small group - though as a declaration of war its quite questionable given Hamas isn't a country.

War just isn't seen as acceptable foreign policy action anymore. Look for instance at Russias insistence that's not what it is doing in Ukraine.

It's pretty clear that the "lulz. Stooped naiive peaceniks failed" view of kellog briand is itself a pretty naiive and over simplistic view of history.

It obviously didn't stop all war the way it was worded to. But it did drastically cut down on wars and made clear it was an unlawful action where the aggressor was in the wrong.

[garbon]

So BTW is there any other source for Gaza casualties than the Hamas-run administration?

No. I've noticed since the hospital that the Guardian has started prefacing figures from the Ministry of Health with "Hamas-run Ministry of Health", which sees fair.

I don't know they have been consistent. I recall recently their live blog was near the top of their website and headline said 'Gaza says 5000 dead' which seemed unusual for a place to speak. Only if you clicked in to look for details then you found it was coming from Hamas.

[Threviel]

My impression of how international law handles civilian casualties is that it's both combatants responsibility to safeguard them. But not necessarily always at the same time.

Using civilians as a shield is, and should be, unacceptable. It cannot be a cheat code to hide in a hospital or a place of worship.

If one side uses baby meat shields all the other side can do is give up or shoot the babies. And in that case it is the side that's using the baby meat shield that is, and should be, responsible for the welfare of the babies.

So to take the Gaza example. Hamas having weapon factories in a mosque makes that building a target and it is well within the rights of IDF to bomb it. Likewise civilian buildings full of civilians used for military use by Hamas, that the civilians are put in danger is the responsibility of Hamas, not IDF. On the other hand a civilian building full of civilians with no military use cannot be targeted by IDF, it's their responsibility to not kill those civilians.

Civilians in Hamas controlled territory is the responsibility of Hamas, it was their responsibility to stockpile supplies so that they could handle the result of their action. That Hamas does not care about the population it rules is not, and cannot be, the responsibility of Israel. The absurdness of demanding that Israel supplies its enemies with aid during a brutal attack is staggering.

I'm not a law speaker, but to me it seems like this is the spirit of the laws, otherwise they are silly. Whatever Canadian politicians well versed in international law aspire for it to be.