Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true,

I don't follow.

Do you think the NSDAP did not represent all Germans?

I don't think any useful comparison could be made to a government duly elected under a liberal Democratic political system with a terrorist organization who rules through fear and coercion.

Do you have a compelling argument as to why I should equate the two?

So perhaps a better example would be the Communist party of the Soviet Union who came to power in a coup.

Or any other, honestly.

I was trying to find out if CC thinks a government only represents those that support it, because to me that is puzzling. I'm represented by PM Sánchez, whether I like it or not.

That would be strange, but that is not what you asked me.

[viper37]

The point you make is that you don't mind the sacrifice of thousands of Palestinians civilians if it let Israel be rid of Hamas leader.

You've divorced yourself from fact.

Let's see the statement:

I'm hard pressed to think what possible target is worth the amount of civilian deaths.

How many civilian deaths would Nasrallah be worth? Sinwar? A lieutenant? A weapons depot? a communications centre? A rocket launcher? A random militant?

How do you interpret it?

[Iormlund]

I didn't realize it was that hard to interpret. Let's try again.

If you were an Israeli commander and you were informed a target was just spotted, but has civilians around, what would be the numerical limit beyond which YOU (ie Viper37) would say the strike was not worth it. List of targets:

• Nasrallah.
• Sinwar.
• A lieutenant.
• A weapons depot.
• A comms center.
• A rocket launcher.
• A random militant.

We're looking for any integer from zero to a billion.

[Admiral Yi]

The point you make is that you don't mind the sacrifice of thousands of Palestinians civilians if it let Israel be rid of Hamas leader.

You've divorced yourself from fact.

Let's see the statement:

I'm hard pressed to think what possible target is worth the amount of civilian deaths.

How many civilian deaths would Nasrallah be worth? Sinwar? A lieutenant? A weapons depot? a communications centre? A rocket launcher? A random militant?

How do you interpret it?

He asked you a question which you chose not to answer.

[The Minsky Moment]

Process matters as much if not more than raw numbers.  The question is whether the IDF is using a process that places value on civilian lives and seeks to minimize civilian casualties.  Context matters. If it is possible to strike even a very high value target without killing civilians, then the answer is zero. If the adversary leaves the IDF literally no possible way to strike back without inadvertently harming civilians, the answer is larger.

[Barrister]

I didn't realize it was that hard to interpret. Let's try again.

If you were an Israeli commander and you were informed a target was just spotted, but has civilians around, what would be the numerical limit beyond which YOU (ie Viper37) would say the strike was not worth it. List of targets:

• Nasrallah.
• Sinwar.
• A lieutenant.
• A weapons depot.
• A comms center.
• A rocket launcher.
• A random militant.

We're looking for any integer from zero to a billion.

So there's a very old joke - often attributed to Churchill, but also to George Bernard Shaw, Groucho Marx, and others:

Man: Would you have sex with me for one million dollars?
Woman: Oh my... I guess I would.
Man: Would you have sex with me for $5?
Woman: What type of woman do you think I am?
Man: We've already established that.  Now we're just negotiating over price.

The thing is - I think it's perfectly defensible, if you're Israel, to think some risk of civilian casualties for killing Nasrullah would be acceptable.  Where one draws the line is hard.  It would be monstrous of Israel to nuke a city and kill one million people to kill Nasrullah.  If the risk is one otherwise innocent civilian I think Israel would be totally justified (Nasrullah had contributed to killing way more Israelis than that).

Where you draw the line inbetween?  Gosh, that's hard, isn't it.

So I'm not Viper, and I don't even think we particularly agree on the topic of Israel.

I'm just not quite sure what kind of "gotcha" you think this question is though.  Hamas clearly uses civilians as human shields.  At some level it is still going to be effective, but it can not provide blanket immunity to Hamas either.  Where you draw the line is a hard question.

[Admiral Yi]

Process matters as much if not more than raw numbers.  The question is whether the IDF is using a process that places value on civilian lives and seeks to minimize civilian casualties.  Context matters. If it is possible to strike even a very high value target without killing civilians, then the answer is zero. If the adversary leaves the IDF literally no possible way to strike back without inadvertently harming civilians, the answer is larger.

In the American system I described a raw number ex ante requires a process.  You need an estimate of the number of civilians and an estimate of the number of trigger men and high value targets before you give the go or no go command.

[Admiral Yi]

So there's a very old joke - often attributed to Churchill, but also to George Bernard Shaw, Groucho Marx, and others:

I've heard Oscar Wilde.

[Barrister]

So there's a very old joke - often attributed to Churchill, but also to George Bernard Shaw, Groucho Marx, and others:

I've heard Oscar Wilde.

Him too.

I googled it before posting (though I didn't get into the weeds) - apparently first attributed to Canadian Lord Beaverbrook, but even then it is probably just a witticism some writer came up with:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/

[Admiral Yi]

I'm just not quite sure what kind of "gotcha" you think this question is though.

Why do you think it's a gotcha question?

[Iormlund]

I'm just not quite sure what kind of "gotcha" you think this question is though.  Hamas clearly uses civilians as human shields.  At some level it is still going to be effective, but it can not provide blanket immunity to Hamas either.  Where you draw the line is a hard question.

It's not a gotcha thing. I genuinely want to know if we're just haggling over price (as per the aforementioned joke) or if he (or anyone else) thinks any non-zero answer is incorrect.

[viper37]

I didn't realize it was that hard to interpret. Let's try again.

If you were an Israeli commander and you were informed a target was just spotted, but has civilians around, what would be the numerical limit beyond which YOU (ie Viper37) would say the strike was not worth it. List of targets:

• Nasrallah.
• Sinwar.
• A lieutenant.
• A weapons depot.
• A comms center.
• A rocket launcher.
• A random militant.

We're looking for any integer from zero to a billion.

The problem is that am I not informed first hand as an Israeli commander.

An AI is informed of these targets and decides if they are worth it.
Then me as, as supervising officer, have a few seconds to decide if the risk is worth taking among the civilian casualties before the strike is a go.

The system is designed to kill as many Palestinian targets as possible, no matter the civilian count.

It's been documented and criticized by Israeli allies, and I've posted links before.  The system is working as designed, and it's no accident that civilians or humanitarian workers are so often hit by mistake.  Israel just doesn't care.  As long as there's a possibility that a target is assassinated, they will make the hit.  Doesn't matter if it there's no target, doesn't matter if the target is surrounded by 10 or 1000 civilians, the IDF will make the hit if the AI has determined there is a target of value there.

It's a flawed process, and Israel like it as it is but it let them achieve their objectives: instill terror in the heart of their enemies, the Palestinian people and force them to flee to their homes or risk being killed in the next strike.  It's the most efficient way to achieve the objective of clearing the territory of any non Israeli presence.

[Barrister]

The system is designed to kill as many Palestinian targets as possible, no matter the civilian count.

If that's what you think that kind of just ends any conversation.

[Admiral Yi]

OK Iormlund, viper failed the test.  Your turn.  What's your magic number?

[Iormlund]

OK Iormlund, viper failed the test.  Your turn.  What's your magic number?

In my extremely unpopular opinion, the IDF is generally doing a good job when it comes to these choices.