Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Minsky Moment]

No one was ever deported from Kaliningrad, an ancient Russian city founded in the Middle Ages far from the then non-existent Russia but inexplicably named after a 20th century Bolsehvik in one the first known examples of time travel.  Ignore all other claims and explanations, especially from the philosopher in the corner, he is real pissant.

[Valmy]

Germany was left with a country for its people.  There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.

Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.

Only Russia and in Russian territories.  Afaik, not in Germany proper.  I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.

It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine...  C'mon,  Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times.  That's an argument for Raz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)

Dude. Three millions expelled from Czechoslovakia alone.

[The Minsky Moment]

Basically, you don't want to know if the IDF is violating the laws of war.

The podcast doesn't address that subject; it's a conversation with a Vox correspondent.

His comments are more to the "morality of war" which is different question:

So I think there's one really obviously indefensible component, which is the cut-off of electricity, fuel and water supplies to Gaza. This amounts to collective punishment of civilians. I mean, there's really no definition of the morality of war under which one can say you can do that to people . . .

Sieges are permissible military tactic according to a lot of ethicists when it's really just an enemy enclave. Ultimately if there's only fighters there, it's not very different to blow them up than to starve them out in moral terms. But when civilians are there, it's a whole different ballgame.

The reference to "collective punishment" while using a phrase that has meaning in a law of war context is - as in the last article - not being used to make an argument or draw a conclusion about a violation of the law of war but as a rhetorical device to signal moral disapproval.  That is confirmed by the later passage on sieges. 

Sieges are addressed by international law sources, but the Vox guy isn't analyzing it from that perspective, but from that of "ethicisits".  His distinction between "permissible" sieges of "enclaves" and the "different ballgame" of areas where civilians live may be coherent philosophically but doesn't make much sense in a real military context or the real law of war. Most opponents do not cooperate by conveniently concentrating military forces into vulnerable and easily besieged enclaves; it is quite common on the defense to use urban areas as blocking positions to detain and attrite attackers.  If war had to grind to a halt whenever an inhabited settlement was reached, that would give rise to pretty obvious exploits.  Indeed, that is just what Hamas is trying to exploit now.

If the Beauchamp rule were in effect, the Nazis would still be holding out in Berlin and Japanese imperial troops in Okinawa.  The Soviet offensive is perhaps not the best example, as there were indeed serious violations of the law of war.  But on Okinawa up to a third or more of prewar civilian population of 300,000 died.  The US force naturally blockaded food, water, or other supplies.  Under the Beauchamp rule, this was collective punishment and Nimitz and Buckner were war criminals.  I find that absurd.

[Admiral Yi]

Israel has made sure Gaza can't be governed, and as it is, the WB can't be either.

Gaza is and has been governed. 

[Threviel]

I think a lot of thinking is coloured by selective news reporting. With regards to the bombing in the refugee camp there are two possible headlines.

"IDF bombs refugees claiming to target Hamas leadership"
"Hamas endangers refugees by setting up military command post in refugee camp"

I'm no news paper man so the headlines can of course be snappied up a bit, but the point comes across. I never, or almost never, see the second headline even if that is the relevant one.

Sheilbhs discussion on the Metropolitan Police's recent efforts to explain why they are doing the things they are doing got me thinking. Perhaps they already do this, but IDF should publicize information on their targets, perhaps pay some osints or something so that no classified data leaks. I'm sure there are ways.

So for example Hamas setting upp their command center in and under a hospital makes that hospital a legal target. If I understand correctly the IDF has said that some hospitals should be evacuated. They should also, and perhaps they already do, explain why and also show data supporting that why.

[Josquius]

Sorry Josq, but your editorial bullshit calling IDF bombings "terror bombings" is entirely based on whatever leftist sewer you get your information from, reddit, bad leftist journalists, dunno. But there is no actual evidence the IDF is engaging in "terror bombing", they release specific claims that every target they strike was believed to have Hamas assets or infrastructure, and they are still broadly speaking, using the "warning" system before hitting such a target that also has civilians in it.

The BBC is a leftist sewer now? 
Look at the footage yourself and tell me that doesn't look more like strategic bombing than a targeted missile strike.

Here is the relevant exchange.  I find Squeeze not guilty of the indictment.  It's quite clear to me that what he is saying is he saw some footage on BBC of bomb strikes and drew the conclusion from that footage that Israel is engaged in terror bombing, not that the BBC used terror bombing in its report.

Maybe. I think he was attempting to use the BBC as an imprimatur of legitimacy for his views.

As I suspect you're well aware given you chose the attack line you did, I was actually just being my straight up honest self, I'm not actively seeking out footage of this conflict and all the footage I'm seeing is what pops up on BBC News.
Though there was of course a slight hint of "Yeah, the only reason anyone could come to this conclusion is fringe nuts brainwashing them, couldn't possibly be from watching a super mainstream conservative source could it. Part funny part just sad that he would think so. The truth will slap him in the face.".

Whether that is true or not, Jihadi Josq appears to continue to assert Israel is conducting a campaign of terror sans any evidence.

Except. You know. Mainstream news sources and  non-profits operating in the region (plus of course Palestinian authorities themselves, but understandable you'd totally disregard anything they say). The amount of civilian casualties are huge and things are a near tipping point of being far more dire.

Great.  So Hiroshima has an irreducible essence, who's meaning does not change depending on whether you like them or not. 

Now you are proposing an irreducible essence of terror bombing.  That's great too.  Have the details you mentioned to support your use of terror bombing been entered into evidence, or are you assuming they are true?  How do you know the civilian areas which are being flattened have no military value?

The burden of proof rests on the one bombing what pretty clearly looks to be civilian streets.
If Israel can prove there was military value to those blocks of flats that was so huge as to make destroying a few dozen families worthwhile then lets see it.

Which facts did you assess to come to the conclusion that what Israel is doing is not self defense?

Civilian residential areas even in a hostile country are no threat to Israel.

I think the correct response to a bunch of innocent children being murdered is to kill the people who did it, and if it is impossible to do that without killing innocents because of factors outside your control, then I am willing to accept some level of civilian casualties.

I find it hard to believe with all of Israel's capabilities that levelling neighbourhoods full of innocent civilians is the only method they have to kill terrorists.
How they're acting is so bad the US drone assassination campaign with all of its mis-identifications and collateral damage actually looks good.

The part about being right because everyone says you're wrong frankly sounds bonkers.  Like Unabomber thinking.

Its not the disagreement which reaffirms my position. Its the manner of the disagreement.
Not "Terror bombing is over the top language" or anything like that. Its "Don't you dare say anything bad about Israel you Islamic extremist you!"

[Admiral Yi]

Except. You know. Mainstream news sources and  non-profits operating in the region (plus of course Palestinian authorities themselves, but understandable you'd totally disregard anything they say). The amount of civilian casualties are huge and things are a near tipping point of being far more dire.

I put my neck on the line to get you off the hook and this is what I get. 

This line exactly fits what DGuller and Otto were saying: you are claiming mainstream news sources are calling the strikes "terror bombing."

The burden of proof rests on the one bombing what pretty clearly looks to be civilian streets.
If Israel can prove there was military value to those blocks of flats that was so huge as to make destroying a few dozen families worthwhile then lets see it.

I disagree.  There is no burden of proof either way.  No one has demonstrated conclusively that at least one Israeli bomb has landed on a target that is 100% devoid of military value, but that doesn't mean I'm free to assert that every single bomb is landing on a high value military target.  The only reasonable conclusions to reach right now have to be highly qualified, acknowledge the uncertainty, and subject to revision.  You calling it terror bombing is none of those things.  You are expressing certainty.

I find it hard to believe with all of Israel's capabilities that levelling neighbourhoods full of innocent civilians is the only method they have to kill terrorists.
How they're acting is so bad the US drone assassination campaign with all of its mis-identifications and collateral damage actually looks good.

How should they be doing it?  What military capabilities do they have that would still kill terrorists but leave the civilians alone?

Its not the disagreement which reaffirms my position. Its the manner of the disagreement.
Not "Terror bombing is over the top language" or anything like that. Its "Don't you dare say anything bad about Israel you Islamic extremist you!"

How can you possibly defend yourself by making up a quote and putting it in quotation marks?  Dude.  I've been reading this thread.  That line is a fabrication.

[Tamas]

Assuming the translation is legit, here is Hamas policy explained by Hamas on a TV interview: https://twitter.com/i/status/1719665420955770937

Let's have another massive protest and if we can then implode the Labour party to make sure these guys get their cease fire to regroup and reinforce!

[viper37]

And yet you claimed that you did know their targeting data because you stated as a fact that "They sure ain't targeting only Hamas sites though."  I don't think that you are playing dumb here.

You are playing dumb, and acting in bad faith, as usual.

Israel's intent is to wipe out a good portion of the Gaza strip, clear out the Palestinians and reoccupy it.

Future will tell.  It's what they did with the West Bank, I told you 20 years ago and I was right.

It seems to you that "they don't care about civilian casualties at all.  Your emotional take doesn't make it fact, it just makes it your emotional take.

I care about facts.  I care about what I see.

And you know goddam well that the Israelis did NOT say that "they don't make a distinction between civilians and Hamas combatants."  That statement was made by a hack pretending to be a reporter and deliberately trying to fool people with poor reading skills into believing that it was the Israelis saying it.  I've pointed this out before.

That statement was made by Herzog.  No one has bothered contradicting him.  No one denied it wasn't true.  We're not saying it's some schmuck, it's the President of Israel.  Despite not having any real military authority, it's a high level position in the government.  Did Netanyahu come out and say it wasn't so?  Did the defense minister come out and say it wasn't true?

You don't raise doubts and express skepticism.  You announce as fact things that are not true and other things that you would not possibly know, and then try to wrap yourself in the flag of "raising doubts."  There are still a lot of unknowns here, and the rush to judgement of people like you and Jos don't add signal, just noise.

[/quote]

We know that facts: Close to 10 000 deads, 5% of the buildings destroyeds.  You insist on saying these were all military targets.  You are playing dumb.

[Tamas]

We know that facts: Close to 10 000 deads, 5% of the buildings destroyeds. 

I guess this is where there would be no point in me joining the debate with you. Nothing Hamas says I can treat as fact.

[Threviel]

Yeah "We're a nation of martyrs and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs".

It's quite clear what their strategy is, ensure maximum global exposure of dead Palestinians to paint Israel bad, to do that they ensure maximum number of dead Palestinians. The leadership hides in Qatar, there are thousands and thousands of possible fighters in Gaza so any deaths can be replaced and any civilian death is a bonus to them. The global public forces the global politicians to try and force Israel to back down. It works much better outside the west and since the UN is run by non-westerners they got the UN in their pocket. That way their actions have very little consequences and they can try again and again. If Israel perseveres without external political support they might become pariah eventually and that's a win.

As I pointed out earlier, only the Israeli side is actually trying to keep civilian deaths down, the Gazans are trying to maximize them to ensure external political support. It's like a cheat code and like clockwork the useful idiots go around and play into Hamas's hands.

The government of Gaza is a plague that needs to be erased, almost no matter the cost, otherwise these events will just go on repeat until the Gazans manage to eradicate the Israelis or themselves.

For Israel they don't have the option of backing down now. They are never ever going to have more external support than now, they have a valid casus belli and the possibility of taking back control of Gaza. If they back down now the war will never end and Hamas will presumably eventually take control of the West Bank also due to their increased legitimacy.

[viper37]

Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.

Only Russia and in Russian territories.  Afaik, not in Germany proper.  I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.

   Tel me that you are joking.

I'm aware of many ethnic Germans killed and deported from Eastern Europe by the Russians, but I'm not aware of any ethnic Germans deported from Canada and the US toward Europe to create colonies of pure English settlers.
I'm not aware of Germans neighbourhoods in Munich being razed to the ground in the middle of the night to make room for new French or British quarters, no.

Care to enlighten me?

[viper37]

Germany was left with a country for its people.  There were no talks of relocating Germans elsewhere, or splitting the country in zones where there would be British colonies, American colonies, Russian colonies, French colonies, etc where Germans could not live.

Um the Germans were subjected to one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history.

Only Russia and in Russian territories.  Afaik, not in Germany proper.  I'm not aware of mass deportation from Berlin or Lepzig.

It's like telling me the Russians are cleansing Ukraine so it's ok for Israel to cleanse Palestine...  C'mon,  Russia has never been an example to follow, even in Tsarist times.  That's an argument for Raz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)

Dude. Three millions expelled from Czechoslovakia alone.

That's not Germany.

[Threviel]

Königsberg at the very least was core German territory...

Weirdly it seems that every forum member trying to argue against Israel (although they wouldn't phrase it like that) just makes shit up. Weird that they all seem to not know their facts from their delusions.

Edit: They also seem to obsess over some singular thing that supports them. CC with that weirdly knowledgeable Canadian politician and Viper with a Herzog quote.

Edit2: Would be interesting to do a comparable quiz on the history of the conflict to compare and contrast knowledge and see if there really is a knowledge gulf or if all the made up shit is some other psychological thingy.

[viper37]

The podcast doesn't address that subject; it's a conversation with a Vox correspondent.

His comments are more to the "morality of war" which is different question:

So I think there's one really obviously indefensible component, which is the cut-off of electricity, fuel and water supplies to Gaza. This amounts to collective punishment of civilians. I mean, there's really no definition of the morality of war under which one can say you can do that to people . . .

Sieges are permissible military tactic according to a lot of ethicists when it's really just an enemy enclave. Ultimately if there's only fighters there, it's not very different to blow them up than to starve them out in moral terms. But when civilians are there, it's a whole different ballgame.

The reference to "collective punishment" while using a phrase that has meaning in a law of war context is - as in the last article - not being used to make an argument or draw a conclusion about a violation of the law of war but as a rhetorical device to signal moral disapproval.  That is confirmed by the later passage on sieges. 

Sieges are addressed by international law sources, but the Vox guy isn't analyzing it from that perspective, but from that of "ethicisits".  His distinction between "permissible" sieges of "enclaves" and the "different ballgame" of areas where civilians live may be coherent philosophically but doesn't make much sense in a real military context or the real law of war. Most opponents do not cooperate by conveniently concentrating military forces into vulnerable and easily besieged enclaves; it is quite common on the defense to use urban areas as blocking positions to detain and attrite attackers.  If war had to grind to a halt whenever an inhabited settlement was reached, that would give rise to pretty obvious exploits.  Indeed, that is just what Hamas is trying to exploit now.

If the Beauchamp rule were in effect, the Nazis would still be holding out in Berlin and Japanese imperial troops in Okinawa.  The Soviet offensive is perhaps not the best example, as there were indeed serious violations of the law of war.  But on Okinawa up to a third or more of prewar civilian population of 300,000 died.  The US force naturally blockaded food, water, or other supplies.  Under the Beauchamp rule, this was collective punishment and Nimitz and Buckner were war criminals.  I find that absurd.

I've quoted Herzog before.
Verbatim.  He does not recognize such a thing as a Palestinian civilian because they never rebelled against Hamas, apparently.  Which is rich, since Israel never helped them rebel against Hamas.

You have another link here:
https://thewire.in/world/northern-gaza-israel-palestine-conflict

Another less detailed answer here:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israeli-president-enraged-by-questions-on-civilian-deaths-in-gaza-at-press-conference/3017253

It's clear the high level Israeli leadership does not recognize the definition of Palestinian civilian in Gaza.  They are all enemy combatants, supporters of Hamas.  Despite the fact many of them were opposed to Hamas before the latest war.

Should the Palestinians consider all Israeli supporters of the Likud?  Civilians, armed or not?  We know the answer to that.  Any moron who suggest that is a terrorist.  Yet, this is what the Israeli leadership is suggesting about Palestinians: there are no innocents, they are all fair targets.

And when the dust settles, the population will have been reduced to a manageable level and the rest will be relocated elsewhere, wherever that might be.

They did it over 20 years for the West Bank, they'll do it in 2 for Gaza.  And no one will care.