Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

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.

Yeah that's what prompted my question really, some line about "Gaza deaths pass 5700" or something. Not that I doubt or deny that this is a disaster for Gaza inhabitants, mind. But either Hamas are just basically using address registers to list all hit buildings as "all residents are now dead" or they have like the best ever rescue and reporting system in place to process hundreds of reports (not counting injuries) accurately per day during what I am told is a catastrophic bombing campaign.

[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.

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.

The big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.  I don't think anyone took the Kellog-Briand pact into consideration during the bombings campaigns in Serbia, Libya or Syria.  Notably, Saddam Hussein was not tried for crimes against peace despite Iraq having signed the Kellog-Briand pact.

[Threviel]

As an addendum to my post about it being Hamas responsibility to store enough materiel to supply the population the IDF has shared photos of what they claim is Hamas oil reserve, some 500 million litres.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-gaza-photos-show-half-million-liters-of-fuel-held-by-hamas/

Might be true, seems very plausible. I do not understand why IDF hasn't blasted the place to smithereens. If true there's enough fuel to supply the civilians and it's very much singularly Hamas fault if the hospitals go powerless.

[Iormlund]

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.

Russia doesn't give a shit about foreign opinion. If anything, they'd like to be seen as more of a threat.

The reason Putin labelled it an "operation" instead of war is purely domestic. He wanted to limit the scope so as to not generate dissent, and emphasize that it was merely bringing order to the Ukraine (which by the way is definitely part of Russia).

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. The people using the term "collective punishment" are either people who are just using it as as "conversational term", and have no special knowledge of the laws of war (in which collective punishment is a specific term with actual defined meaning), or they are people like Byers who does have expertise but is essentially making an aspirational statement in which he is trying to significantly expand the definition of collective punishment past the boundaries of currently established law.

Something interesting to keep in mind is this war has been ongoing for 19 days. It was unequivocally started by Hamas, perpetrating one of the largest mass terror attacks targeting civilians that we have ever seen. In those 19 days, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired rockets at Israel every single day.

This is a scenario where the Gaza strip is actively waging war against Israel.

The people who seek to call it collective punishment, largely seem to be operating under a few delusions:

1. That in a war, it is "morally wrong" for two sides to be fighting and one side to be "much better" at the fighting
2. That in a war, if one side is much more powerful, it is wrong to keep fighting when the other side is being "harmed a alot."
3. It is invalid in war to conduct any military operations that will have a negative impact on civilians

I think it is quite obvious we are now in the realm of "special rules of war", that appear to have never been suggested or applied in any wars, ever--even ones between the United States and very weak entities. The only time these special rules of war seem to apply is when one of the belligerents is a Jewish country.

[Threviel]

Damnit, almost everyone is much better at putting down a coherent argument than I am.

[Josquius]

The big mushroom cloud over Japan stopped most of the wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century.  I don't think anyone took the Kellog-Briand pact into consideration during the bombings campaigns in Serbia, Libya or Syria.  Notably, Saddam Hussein was not tried for crimes against peace despite Iraq having signed the Kellog-Briand pact.

You'll find the vast majority of the world's nations do not have nuclear weapons.
Kellog-Briand absolutely is taken into consideration every time a nation attacks another via its subsequent incorporation into the UN charter.
Waging a war of aggression is not an allowable action under international law. Any nation attacking another knows it is breaking international law and taking a huge risk in doing so. Hence not many do. There's been a material reduction in war since the pact  than before it.

Again its important to note the world doesn't work in easy black and whites. You can't say "Ha, look, here's an example of a war that happened anyway thus its useless". It failed to completely end all war, its silly to expect it could have done that, but it has greatly reduced it.

[Sheilbh]

I'd separate out the laws of war from "international law" which is very broad and includes some areas that could reasonably be described as having effective law, and other areas where it's very much more like guidelines.

[crazy canuck]

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. 

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. To be clear I do not associate you with those who now claim that the professor is being dishonest.

What did you think about the concern expressed in their discussion that what Israel (or to be more precise, the current Prime Minister of Israel) is really trying to achieve is another mass displacement of Palestinians from territory they will not be able to be returned to after the conflict?

[The Minsky Moment]

What did you think about the concern expressed in their discussion that what Israel (or to be more precise, the current Prime Minister of Israel) is really trying to achieve is another mass displacement of Palestinians from territory they will not be able to be returned to after the conflict?

I have a lot of concern because the current Israeli cabinet includes extremists some of whom I would not be surprised to hear favored some form of ethnic cleansing.  For example, look up Itamar Ben-Gvir.  As for Bibi himself, the problem is not so much that he has such a master plan to do something like that, as that his only master plan is doing whatever he can to stay in power and thus keep his immunity from criminal corruption charges - that could lead him to do anything including taking intentional steps to prolong and extend the conflict. But that kind of judgment requires facts to support it and the facts don't yet support the conclusion.

I also share the concerns discussed above about the water cutoff.  I understand Israel is now piping some water back in but it may be they have a moral obligation to pump more than they are doing now and perhaps even an obligation under the law of war.  Applying the proportionality analysis, the impact on the civilian population seems disproportionate to the likely need in relation to the conduct of military operations.  It also seems like a bad idea to facilitate conditions for the spread of disease.  That said, my understanding is that the piped water is a small fraction of the water supply, which mostly comes from aquifers and desalinization plants.  Although the fuel shortage has compromised those sources, I can better understand why Israel is reluctant to turn over large quantities of fuel to the Gaza authorities in the middle of a shooting war.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Only around 10% of Gazan homes had piped water before the war. My understanding is most piped water that directly benefited the population went to communal water faucets which people would use, but yes to your point Gaza was not largely reliant on Israeli piped water for drinking water prior to the war itself.

Additionally, if we care to believe Hamas, they claim Israel turning the water pipes back on actually doesn't matter anymore, because they are saying the pipe system they connected to that distributed water inside Gaza is heavily damaged. You would need utility crews doing pipe repairs etc for the water to actually get anywhere. Again, that is Hamas claim.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd also say that the composition of Israel's cabinet isn't very reassuring as to the other concerns raised about the clarity of Israel's military strategy.  It's a cabinet packed with religious zealots whose main skill set involves graft maximization and the settler lobby whose main focus is West Bank land grabs of dubious legality. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

If I had to guess the main problem the hard liners have right now is their dream likely relied on being able to permanently ignore Gaza. I don't think most of them really want to annex Gaza, they just don't want it be a problem. They would likely love it if Egypt took over Gaza, but they never will.

The hardliners goal is the full annexation of the West Bank, and I think they are not easily able to see how committing a lot of military and occupation resources to Gaza furthers that goal (because it probably doesn't.)

My guess is few in the cabinet actually believe they can just push 2 million Gazans into Egypt. Some of the cabinet are extremists, but they likely understand the bounds of what they can and cannot do.

It is worth reflecting--if Israel eventually has to take over internal security for inside of the strip, it will create a persistent "problem" for Israeli society. In a sense this also undermines the hardliners, the hardliners engage in a lot of wishful / magical thinking, one of the big ones is that the status quo was not really bad. The more Israeli voters view the status quo as bad, the more currency going back to a diplomatic approach could develop, which is anathema to the hardliners.

I think an Israeli occupation of Gaza, maybe paradoxically to some, actually is to the long term political benefit of the Israeli left / supporters of the 2SS more than the hardliners / 1SS guys.

[Sheilbh]

My guess is few in the cabinet actually believe they can just push 2 million Gazans into Egypt. Some of the cabinet are extremists, but they likely understand the bounds of what they can and cannot do.

I'm not so sure on some of the extremists. I don't think they are uncomfortable with ethnic cleansing - I think Smotrich who's described the options for Palestinians in the West Bank as that they can submit, can leave or can resist and they'll be killed. Instead, as you say, I don't think they particularly want Gaza.

Also Egypt is a key partner of Israel and Egypt, looking at Lebanon and Jordan, absolutely does not want to host two million Palestinian refugees especially with an embedded revolutionary movement with military power. That's, historically, been an incredibly destabilising force in national poltics of other Arab states.

It is worth reflecting--if Israel eventually has to take over internal security for inside of the strip, it will create a persistent "problem" for Israeli society. In a sense this also undermines the hardliners, the hardliners engage in a lot of wishful / magical thinking, one of the big ones is that the status quo was not really bad. The more Israeli voters view the status quo as bad, the more currency going back to a diplomatic approach could develop, which is anathema to the hardliners.

I think an Israeli occupation of Gaza, maybe paradoxically to some, actually is to the long term political benefit of the Israeli left / supporters of the 2SS more than the hardliners / 1SS guys.

I agree I think even if Israel doesn't do an occupation. I think the idea that Gaza can just be ignored and Hamas left to their own devices there (especially because Israel has relative security against rocket attacks) is dead. That's a core part of Netanyahu's strategy for the last 20+ years.

I think it may, as you say, paradoxiacally strengthen forces in Israel that acknowledges that there needs to be a solution for Palestine (which includes Gaza). But also I think the current bombs will no doubt bolster Hamas' or Islamic Jihad's ranks, I think that could also in the long run strengthen the PA because I think this has increased the need for Israel - and the world - to have a Palestinian interlocutor. I think all the European leaders who've been visiting Israel have also done a stop in Ramallah and I think Abbas has had more high-level political visitors in the last few weeks than in many years. Again undermining a core part of Netanyahu's strategy for many years.

[Tamas]

Harrowing little clip from I think a university library in New York where a handful of Jewish students sheltered while protesters no doubt concerned with general humanitarian concerns are pounding on the doors.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1717297845592821933