Israel - Hamas War VI

[Craving Peaches]

4 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

This is cover for war crimes. This perpetuates war crime, since it prevents proper identification. This is criminal. Inhumane. Disproportionate, deliberate and disgusting. 

Especially combined with the historical and recent reports of targeting journalists...

[Relic]

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch says they believe that the numbers, in terms of casualties and injuries, coming out of Gaza are reliable. 

7000+dead, almost 3,000 children, in Gaza since Israel began bombing the densely populated region, and that number is rising with each hour that passes. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/26/can-we-trust-casualty-figures-from-the-hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry

Edited October 27, 2023 by Relic

[Ran]

Telecommunications infrastructure used by the enemy is a legitimate military target. It's harrowing, but it's clear that the cutting of internet was timed to make the expanding ground operation easier for  the IDF, as Hamas would be more disorganized. No doubt they have radios of various sorts for communication, but not every man, and that'll create communications bottle necks and slow down the passage of information/orders to respond to the attack, especially as there's doubtless thousands of dead militants right now that has probably disorganized their brigades.

Edited October 27, 2023 by Ran

[fionwe1987]

30 minutes ago, Relic said:

Watching news coming out of Gaza today...not sure there is currently a worse place to be, in the world. These poor folks are getting absolutely shit on. We are the worst species. 

We absolutely are. We seem to keep inventing ways to be ever more horrible. A race to the bottom we have no reason to engage in.

26 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Especially combined with the historical and recent reports of targeting journalists...

Yes, but even if we assume the Israeli government and the IDF have been white as the driven snow in the past, this would still be awful and wrong. 

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

Telecommunications infrastructure used by the enemy is a legitimate military target.

This is BS. We're not talking about communications infrastructure being hit. We're talking about Israel deliberately imposing a blackout. Both are happening. Stop picking the one you feel comfortable rebutting. The sheer dishonesty here, given what is being discussed, is unacceptable. 

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's harrowing, but it's clear that the cutting of internet was timed to make the expanding ground operation easier for  the IDF, as Hamas would be more disorganized. No doubt they have radios of various sorts for communication, but not every man, and that'll create communications bottle necks and slow down the passage of information/orders to respond to the attack, especially as there's doubtless thousands of dead militants right now that has probably disorganized their brigades.

Yeah these are all conveniences, not necessities, of war. And they're coming at the cost of civilian lives, and give the lie to the idea that the bombing is targeted.

I'd love to see one of the members of the "shrug, it's war" camp explain to me how you use cellphone signals to target bombs when you're blocking cellphone signals. 

Orwellian, the way everything Israel does is legitimate. It doesn't stand up to basic logical scrutiny.

Edited October 27, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Craving Peaches]

This is heartless and I hope such videos receive the scorn they deserve.

[Ran]

Yeah, fuck those people.

[Knight Of Winter]

Perversely enough, I think (current) Israeli government and Hamas are both mortal enemies and best friends in a way. They need each other. They leech of each other. Every Palestinian killed by IDF's bombings leaves behind enraged family members with "Fuck these assholes, I'm joining Hamas" mentality. And every Israeli civilian slaughtered by Hamas leaves behind other citizens with "Netanynahu says he'll obliterate these bastards? Well I'm all for it" voting attitude. They both need this atmosphere of radicalized conflict, for that's how they gain they support. And while I'm sure there are moderate and reasonable voices on both sides, they tend not to be prevalent in wartime era. Which Israeli wants to hear "Well, given how we've treated Palestinians, small wonder they're unhappy with us" with hundreds of their people slain by Hamas? Which Palestinian wishes to listen how "maybe Israelis don't fancy being constantly bombed by our Hamas government" after losing thousands of their children?

I don't know what needs to happen fro this situation to end. This is not me being obtuse; I honestly don't know and would welcome any suggestions by more knowledgeable posters. One thing I'll say that it's clear that conditio sine qua non is Hamas being toppled in some way - either by foreign military intervention or through domestic rebellion. Party that wishes to eradicate the other side and treats its own citizens as expendable human shields can't be part of any long-term peaceful solution - that much is obvious.

Israel, for their part, needs to ensure that peaceful cohabitation is actually a viable option that Palestinians would want to embrace. Because, the way that Israel currently behaves towards Palestinians in West Bank (where Hamas is not in power, mind you) borders between "treating them as second-class citizens" and "outright not caring about their lives" and really doesn't help their case. When faced with constant oppression from Israeli side, small wonder that some Palestinians turn to more radical solutions offered by Hamas and likewise groups. Perhaps more moderate approach would produce batter (and long-term safer) results for Israelis.

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This is heartless and I hope such videos receive the scorn they deserve.

This is gross beyond belief. And a good picture of how broken the world is.

Sadly there are too many people that would do something like this… because for a good chunk of humanity seeing their situation improve isn’t nearly as important or rewarding as seeing the people you don’t like for whatever reason hurt and suffer. And if that type of attitude doesn’t change drastically, we’re doomed and so we should be. Really. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by kissdbyfire

[fionwe1987]

15 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

This is heartless and I hope such videos receive the scorn they deserve.

Ugh. And looping in kids into this toxicity, too.

This kind of crass mockery is the inevitable result of dehumanizing the other. And feeds back on that dehumanization, allowing for more heartless actions to perpetuate the cycle of violence. 

We really are a fucked up species, aren't we?

[Tywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

This is gross beyond belief. And a good picture of how broken the world is.

The world has been broken forever. We just see it more now because of the 24/7 media and most of us have cameras in our pockets. Societies at any point in time throughout human history have been really shitty. It's actually sad to think these days are generally an improvement in some ways. 

Quote

because for a good chunk of humanity seeing their situation improve isn’t nearly as important or rewarding as seeing the people you don’t like for whatever reason hurt and suffer. And if that type of attitude doesn’t change drastically, we’re doomed and so we should be. Really. 

Pretty much. Just look at poor whites in the South in the US when slavery was legal. Slavery actively hurt their economic interests, but they either liked and/or got relief from knowing there were people lower on the social ladder than them. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Zorral]

 

Bret's Unmitigated Pedantry this week is on this crisis and the further crises it is spawning.

"... assessing the strategic priorities of a given state or non-state entity does not mean I am endorsing them."

 

https://acoup.blog/2023/10/27/fireside-friday-october-27-2023-on-politics-in-strategy/

Quote

 

... As I have reiterated several times now on multiple social media platforms, I have a few key priors here. The intentional or indiscriminate targeting of civilians is wrong, abhorrent and deserves criticism in all cases, but being mistreated or even being the target of a war crime does not give one party in a conflict a free pass to ‘war crime back.’ Instead, all parties ought to follow the laws of arms conflict and should be criticized when they fail to do so. 2 My sympathies are first and foremost with the innocent people caught in the middle of this conflict who may just want to live a peaceful life, free of falling bombs, exploding rockets and massacres. Unfortunately, I think this conflict resists simple solutions and even if the policy makers in question made the best decisions the results would often be very terrible. And I do not expect the best decisions. ....

The crux of Bret's piece:

 

Quote

 

.... I suspect the issue is the multiple-audiences communication problem.

Often individuals or organizations are put in a position where they need, with a single set of actions or statements, to communicate different, possibly conflicting, messages to difference audiences. Assuming Hezbollah does not currently want to find itself on the business end of the IDF and two American carrier groups (as President Biden has attempted to signal quite clearly that the United States would be quite upset if the war in Gaza widened), they have a tricky communication problem.

 

On the one hand, they want to avoid triggering a massive response from an opponent that enjoys escalation dominance; unlimited escalation is generally quite bad when your counter-parties are a global nuclear superior and a very prickly also nuclear highly militarized regional power. That means signalling to Israel and the United States that, whatever else you are doing, you don’t intend to become directly involved in the current conflict and if left out, will stay out. Now that sounds easy: just declare you aren’t a party to the conflict and then do nothing.

 

But. But you also have to communicate with members and supporters. And Hezbollah needs them to hear a very different message: ‘we are committed to the cause, we are effective and can achieve the cause, and we are actively moving towards that goal, inflicting pain on the enemy as we do.’ Doing nothing demoralizes their fighters and potentially costs them supporters as they are seen as impotent in the face of the enemy.

 

So the question becomes: how do you signal capability and commitment without jumping in front of the freight train currently heading towards Gaza? The answer may well be a search for a ‘minimum acceptable response‘ – leaders looking for the smallest strike they can make which will display resolve to their own supporters, while still being sufficiently small that outsiders interpret it correctly as a sign the group does not intend to intervene. And if that was Hezbollah’s intended message, Washington, at least, appears to have heard it quite clearly.

 

But of course that ‘minimum acceptable response’ puts Israeli leaders in the same bind. They also do not want a full-on second front with Hezbollah or a wider conflict. But they also need to show their own supporters – voters, in this case – that they are doing something. So they need to make a minimal acceptable response to the original minimum acceptable response. Ideally, both sides hope, the whole thing flames out after a while with everyone having the sense they ‘did something.’ But of course the risk is that escalating responses back one or both parties into a situation in which internal political demands come to require escalation. States and non-state organizations can thus be backed into strategically unwise conflicts by their own internal politics – often internal politics they have intentionally produced in order to generate enthusiasm for military operations or militarism generally.

 

Leaders all over this conflict are caught in similar binds. ...

 

 

[Werthead]

Israeli aircraft have engaged and destroyed an unidentified aerial vehicle over the Red Sea, probably a drone. Unclear where they launched from.

The UN General Assembly has voted in favour of an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza. The resolution condemns all acts of violence against Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all terror and indiscriminate attacks. There were 120 votes in favour, 14 against and 45 abstentions. The resolution also calls for the immediate release of all civilians being held as captives and to allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip.

The US has said it will support humanitarian "pauses" to allow the hostages to be released.

Meanwhile, Hamas has launched several rounds of additional missile attacks on Israel today. One missile penetrated the Iron Dome defences and damaged an apartment block in Tel Aviv.

Israel has said it will "expand operations" from its ground forces tonight. Unclear what that means precisely, an increase in raids or the full ground offensive.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, fionwe1987 said:

Can someone explain how signals intelligence works when there are no signals?

If there were truly no signals at all, then of course it's impossible to intercept them. However, no military force can operate without any signals at all and Hamas will undoubtedly have other forms of communication. Disrupting the dual-use networks actually makes such intelligence work a lot easier since much more of the communication traffic that is left will be military in nature.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Craving Peaches said:

This is heartless and I hope such videos receive the scorn they deserve.

That is terrible.

On the other hand, when Hamas invaded Israel on the 7th, they kidnapped two small boys from a house and showed pictures of at least one of them on Arab media to show they don’t kill children. I can’t remember if CNN said it was a video of the little boy or not. Of  course, they didn’t mention they killed their mother in front of them, and then they hid her body under a bed (or clothing) and booby-trapped her body with grenades. Nice touch, the grenades. Her family came into the house and called out for them and searched every room, but fortunately didn’t find her body, later searchers did.

A neighbor was kidnapped at the same time and was told to take care of the children, and she managed to escape with them. That’s how the killing in front of the boys is known.

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

when Hamas invaded Israel on the 7th, they kidnapped two small boys from a house and showed pictures of at least one of them on Arab media to show they don’t kill children. I can’t remember if CNN said it was a video of the little boy or not. Of  course, they didn’t mention they killed their mother in front of them, and then they hid her body under a bed (or clothing) and booby-trapped her body with grenades. Nice touch, the grenades. Her family came into the house and called out for them and searched every room, but fortunately didn’t find her body, later searchers did.

From what I’ve seen and read, Hamas did much more than that. Worse, they’ve committed atrocities so vile as to make this example tame in comparison. 
Of course, none of that changes the disgusting nature of the video above. 

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If there were truly no signals at all, then of course it's impossible to intercept them. However, no military force can operate without any signals at all and Hamas will undoubtedly have other forms of communication. Disrupting the dual-use networks actually makes such intelligence work a lot easier since much more of the communication traffic that is left will be military in nature.

Yeah, this really isn't accurate. It might be true in like the 1960s, but it's not true now.

Israeli intelligence almost certainly has very clear ideas of who owns and operates every single cell phone in Gaza. The cell towers allow them to pinpoint these locations very well too. They have easy ways to mark cell phones as not of interest too - so they can simply ignore a whole lot of traffic from a whole lot of cell phones (and do). Plus they have very quick ways of identifying and marking known voices, speech patterns, etc. What you're describing wasn't even accurate when The Wire was filming, and Israel has a much better set of tech than Baltimore PD. 

By comparison, intercepting comm signals via radio - especially if those are encrypted assets - is harder. Hamas knows about the above as well and used land lines hand-laid in tunnels to communicate and bypass Israeli surveillance. Cutting cell reception does nothing for that. Israel, by comparison, has spyware they've used to infect and monitor enemy phones - and sometimes journalists and human rights advocates. 

My suspicion is that the services being down is much more a factor of the infrastructure failing due to repeated bombings and redundant systems dropping over; it is not intended. If Israel intended to cut internet services to Gaza or cell services to Gaza they could do so completely. That it is incomplete and sporadic makes me believe this isn't intentional. 

[Bael's Bastard]

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

And every Israeli civilian slaughtered by Hamas leaves behind other citizens with "Netanynahu says he'll obliterate these bastards? Well I'm all for it" voting attitude. They both need this atmosphere of radicalized conflict, for that's how they gain they support.

No. Last year Likud won 32 seats and its most far right coalition partners won 14. In the month before Oct 7, polls already showed Likud dropping to between 31-25 seats and Netanyahu's most far right coalition partners dropping to 10-9. Since the Hamas attacks and gov responses Likud is now polling at 19-18 seats, and his most right wing coalition partners continue to poll at 10-9. The Hamas attacks and gov response have not helped Netanyahu at all, nor have Israelis slid any further to the far right, on the contrary. The opposition has gone from 54 seats in the last election to polling at 78-77 (admittedly including one Arab party that would probably never join even a left or center gov making up 5 of those seats).

Edited October 27, 2023 by Bael's Bastard

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

No. Last year Likud won 32 seats and its most far right coalition partners won 14. In the month before Oct 7, polls already showed Likud dropping to between 31-25 seats and Netanyahu's most far right coalition partners dropping to 10-9. Since the Hamas attacks and gov responses Likud is now polling at 19-18 seats, and his most right wing coalition partners continue to poll at 10-9. The Hamas attacks and gov response have not helped Netanyahu at all, nor have Israelis slid any further to the far right, on the contrary. The opposition has gone from 54 seats in the last election to polling at 78-77 (admittedly including one Arab party that would probably never join even a left or center gov making up 5 of those seats).

I suspect Netanyahu won't remain in power, though he'll be gone significantly after the current war ends. 

That said, there's no reason to believe that Israelis will not vote in someone similarly inclined to Netanyahu in dealing with Palestine, or worse. Being progressive or left does not mean being less warlike or more inclined to go for peace. Netanyahu, famously, doesn't like doing big military conflicts and prefers spec ops and intel over hard power; the ones who are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that part right now are not members of Likud. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The world has been broken forever. We just see it more now because of the 24/7 media and most of us have cameras in our pockets. Societies at any point in time throughout human history have been really shitty. It's actually sad to think these days are generally an improvement in some ways. 

Pretty much. Just look at poor whites in the South in the US when slavery was legal. Slavery actively hurt their economic interests, but they either liked and/or got relief from knowing there were people lower on the social ladder than them. 

I don’t know… I mean, it’s definitely true that we see how broken everything is more because of where we are w/ media, social media, etc. And I also agree that there’s always been shitty people and people who’d get some satisfaction from seeing others were worse off than they. But my feeling is that it has never been this bad… Both in terms of numbers but also the sheer malignancy. Where now at a point where 30-40% of people are nasty. They don’t just get a kick knowing there are people below them on the social totem, they actively want to harm people, they enjoy seeing the suffering of others. 
How’s that quote again? The more I know people, the more I love the many, many four-legged members of my family.

 

[Mudguard]

People have been way worse in the past.  Mass slavery comes to mind.  The mass butchery in the World Wars is just crazy, where tens of millions died.  Things like genocide were practiced all over the world in the older days.  Countries could get away with doing a lot more back then.  We generally just chalk it up to it being different times.