Israel-Hamas War 2023

[viper37]

I'm saying it's not worth it for the costs of in civilian lives.  They could have waited at another moment.

How do you know this?

50 dead civilians for one life.
One of the best equipped army in the world beside the Americans.

It took them 6 days to come up with a plan to displace 2.3 million people, since they never ever even entertained the idea before and I was just imagining thing, amounting to blood libel against Israel.

Don't tell me they don't have the logistics to minimize casualties.

Had the guy been surrounded by 50 Israelis hostages, would they have taken the shot?

[crazy canuck]

It's proportional to the needs of military operations.  So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry. 

A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms.  If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.

Proportionality is a well understood term in law, and is rarely reduced to a numerical ratio.

[Josquius]

I can see the argument if the civilians are willingly sheltering combatants but when it's not their choice?

Shelf says it doesn't matter.  Civilian means civilian.

Surely that raises the question of when a civilian stops being a civilian.
Merely cheering for Hamas obviously isn't enough. And if they're armed and shooting obviously is.
But reloading guns? Cooking for soldiers?
It's a messy grey zone in the middle. Which is something Israel is keen to empathise. Just forget the kids.

[viper37]

Maybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.

Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.

There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.

They now seem to know exactly where all the tunnels are since everywhere they bomb a civilian area, they can tell us there was a tunnel entrance right there, a rocket launching site or some high value target that just got out of a tunnel.  Kinda mysterious that they had no way of knowing what Hamas was doing on October 6th, but now they know everything?


I agree, there's no way for sure to know.  But the IDF does not act alone, they have intelligence agencies to help them coordinate their strikes.

Unless Netanyahu still thinks they are a bunch of leftists no better than traitors and he does not trust them? Who knows.

I will maintain until the bombs have stopped that the goal of this war is to expel the Palestinians of Gaza.

And the plans to have Indian workers replace Palestinian workers lends credibility to that.

Lower wages, cheap accommodations and these guys work in construction.  Perfect for rebuilding New Gaza while the IDF refocus on the West Bank.

[Admiral Yi]

Surely that raises the question of when a civilian stops being a civilian.
Merely cheering for Hamas obviously isn't enough. And if they're armed and shooting obviously is.
But reloading guns? Cooking for soldiers?
It's a messy grey zone in the middle. Which is something Israel is keen to empathise. Just forget the kids.

I agree.  1 civilian does not always equal 1 civilian.

[Josquius]

Maybe 15 minutes later the cost would have been lessened.

Or maybe he would've disappeared inside a tunnel.

There's no way for us to know. Hell there's probably no way the IDF could know.

They now seem to know exactly where all the tunnels are since everywhere they bomb a civilian area, they can tell us there was a tunnel entrance right there, a rocket launching site or some high value target that just got out of a tunnel.  Kinda mysterious that they had no way of knowing what Hamas was doing on October 6th, but now they know everything?


I agree, there's no way for sure to know.  But the IDF does not act alone, they have intelligence agencies to help them coordinate their strikes.

Unless Netanyahu still thinks they are a bunch of leftists no better than traitors and he does not trust them? Who knows.

I will maintain until the bombs have stopped that the goal of this war is to expel the Palestinians of Gaza.

And the plans to have Indian workers replace Palestinian workers lends credibility to that.

Lower wages, cheap accommodations and these guys work in construction.  Perfect for rebuilding New Gaza while the IDF refocus on the West Bank.

Just what is Israels game here. It's like they're trying to keep the situation unchanged.

[viper37]

I don't know how clear that is.  The military manuals of the two countries say similar things.  The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now.  I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate.  But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.

The military manuals say one thing.

What a military commander will do is another, especially if he was appointed for political reasons.

With everything happening in the West Bank now, I'm not sure I believe the IDF is following its manuals.  Or they clearly don't have the same manuals.

No, the US never faced an exactly similar situation.  In Iraq, Baghdad or Fallujah were never entirely controlled by the enemy, only portions of it.  And they were never totally alone in fighting this war, nor any other.

Still the insurgents had control of 80 percent of the city (more or less), they were hiding among the civilian population or committing crimes against other part of the population and the US had zero authority over the parts controlled by these militant factions.

Yet, they didn't bomb the city to oblivion, they didn't use heavy artillery, they didn't use their tanks to level up entire neighborhoods, only places from which they were attacked.

I'm not as knowledgeable in military affairs as many here, but I know the kind of firepower the US military has, be it Air Force of Army, and I know they could have reduced a lot of the city to
rubble had they wanted to, to protect their soldiers.

It took a long while to regain control of the city and a lot of soldiers were left dead or injured.  Casualties among the Iraqi army were high too.

But did it work or not?  Was it a success or a failure? Who is governing Iraq now?  I don't think we can call it perfect, but I would not say it is an abysmal failure the way Gaza is.

[PJL]

No, the US never faced an exactly similar situation.  In Iraq, Baghdad or Fallujah were never entirely controlled by the enemy, only portions of it.  And they were never totally alone in fighting this war, nor any other.

Still the insurgents had control of 80 percent of the city (more or less), they were hiding among the civilian population or committing crimes against other part of the population and the US had zero authority over the parts controlled by these militant factions.

Yet, they didn't bomb the city to oblivion, they didn't use heavy artillery, they didn't use their tanks to level up entire neighborhoods, only places from which they were attacked.

I'm not as knowledgeable in military affairs as many here, but I know the kind of firepower the US military has, be it Air Force of Army, and I know they could have reduced a lot of the city to
rubble had they wanted to, to protect their soldiers.

It took a long while to regain control of the city and a lot of soldiers were left dead or injured.  Casualties among the Iraqi army were high too.

But did it work or not?  Was it a success or a failure? Who is governing Iraq now?  I don't think we can call it perfect, but I would not say it is an abysmal failure the way Gaza is.

That was over 15 years ago. So by that logic, let's wait until 2040 before writing off Gaza.

[viper37]

In this case here, it's a matter of perceptions and the winner will be right in the end. For some, 10k and counting deaths is an ok price to pay to remove Hamas (and further other Israeli aims). Others find these deaths outrageous but file 1400 Jews machine gunned down in the "they had it coming" cabinet. Our sensibilities are informed by our (often tribal) affiliations to the two sides, putting higher morals to this is kidding ourselves, with respect to the few exceptions.

I was just reading about this, this morning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
From approximately 18:00 on 16 September to 08:00 on 18 September, the Lebanese Forces carried out the massacre while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had the Palestinian camp surrounded.^[5][6][7][8] The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. As the massacre unfolded, the IDF received reports of atrocities being committed, but did not take any action to stop it.^[9]


In essence what you are saying is the same as OvB.  As long as the victims are Muslims, it is justified to kill them?

At least 20-30 000 will be dead before the war is over, the rest deported.  Something that we expect of Russia.  Killing Ukrainians, deporting others.  It was done to Tchetchens before, but we did not care, they were just Muslims.

And why?  Because one fucking idiot wanted to kill more Mulslims in the West Banks instead of listening to warnings.

No fucking defense. The enemy was right there.  Not hidden.  The money kept flowing, he was aware of it.  "Oh, it's for rebuilding Gaza".  Ffs.  How many millions does it take to build cheap apartments with no running water?  Don't they have accountants in Israel?

Why keep the border unguarded?  Why was it so important to defend the murderers of the West Bank? Ah, yes, they vote for him and his coalition.

1400 people died because their leader was an incompetent moron who let it happen.  They were left to fend for themselves against a brutal sadistic opponent known to hate Jews.  Because the priorities of this government was to kill defenseless Palestinians in the occupied territories to steal more lands.

How the fuck do you leave a border unguarded when a territory is controlled by Hamas and you know they are rearming thanks to the money you let flow in the place?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's proportional to the needs of military operations.  So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry. 

A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms.  If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.

That's true but it is subjective judgment tied to an objective reality as opposed to just a free form subjectivity.

To make it more concrete in context, if Israel is pursuing the military objectives of: (a) denying Hamas access to supplies and materials they need to make and maintain more weapons, (b) targeted raids by ground forces to locate and rescue hostages and draw militants into firefights, and (c) search and destroy raids into Hamas tunnel complexes, then the proportionality discussion necessarily revolves around what kind of military force reasonable to obtain those objectives and provide security for the attacking force. 

If the military objective were simply to prevent physical incursions into Israel by armed militants and nothing more, the proportionality analysis looks different.

IMO the discussion in the media has been a lot of talking past each other as it involves assuming that something like the latter is the only legitimate or proper Israeli military objective.  Under that assumption, the IDF assault certainly looks out of proportion.   But if it is appropriate for Israeli to have broader military objectives, the analysis is more complicated.  Under the law of war, the kinds of objectives listed above are appropriate; I can't speak to their advisability.

[Admiral Yi]

That's true but it is subjective judgment tied to an objective reality as opposed to just a free form subjectivity.

To make it more concrete in context, if Israel is pursuing the military objectives of: (a) denying Hamas access to supplies and materials they need to make and maintain more weapons, (b) targeted raids by ground forces to locate and rescue hostages and draw militants into firefights, and (c) search and destroy raids into Hamas tunnel complexes, then the proportionality discussion necessarily revolves around what kind of military force reasonable to obtain those objectives and provide security for the attacking force. 

If the military objective were simply to prevent physical incursions into Israel by armed militants and nothing more, the proportionality analysis looks different.

That makes sense.

So the law doesn't define what the allowable number of civilians to kill for each member of the military is, but it does say that depending on the nature of the operation that undefined number should be higher and others it should be lower.

Jah?

[The Minsky Moment]

Somewhat of a simplification as I understand it, but basically right.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't remember you asking questions like this during the 2 year ISIS campaign that involved many bombings targeting ISIS leaders with nearby civilians being killed. Why is that?

Did anyone here defend the actions of ISIS?

When the few, limited actions to bomb ISIS leaders by occidental countries occurred, where they in the tune of 50-60 civilians killed to 1 ISIS leader?

I remember occidental countries mostly sitting on their arse and volunteers going to fight by themselves with Kurdish troops.

But you must have been overjoyed to see Russia's intervention in Syria.

I'm specifically talking about the 40,000 Iraqi civilians that died during the Battle of Mosul, in large part this would not have occurred if coalition forces hadn't insisted on invading and taking Mosul away from ISIS.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know how clear that is.  The military manuals of the two countries say similar things.  The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now.  I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate.  But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.

Again, I think this may be right. But this is astonishingly tepid for the US describing a friendly nation who it is supplying with arms:

Alex Marquardt
@MarquardtA
On Israeli efforts to minimize civilian casualties, NSC's John Kirby says: "We have seen some indications that there are there are efforts being applied in certain scenarios to try to minimize, but I don't want to overstate that."

[Admiral Yi]

You call it tepid, I call it a measured statement by a country that is invested in maintaining credilbity..