Israel - Hamas War VII

[Hmmm]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It comes from that previous article:

And sorry, I misquoted - it's number of children killed in conflict zones, not number of conflicts. 

Still seems extremely questionable. The Tigray war in Ethiopia might have caused as many as half a million civilian deaths between 2020-2022. And that in a country where the median age is 18. Granted, the casualty estimates are uncertain since Ethiopia seems to be attempting to keep that information secret. But that war alone could potentially have accounted for like 30-100 Gaza wars in terms of the number of children killed. It is also interesting to compare the amount of international publicity and political debate that conflict generated compared to the Gaza war...

Edited November 1, 2023 by Hmmm

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They empower each other with their violent actions.

They do. And it is well documented how much bibi&cohorts have done to empower Hamas in order to weaken two-state movement.  It's been discussed here, sources linked and cited. What up with you?

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, that is insane IMO, but I am aware of such claims. 

And you wonder why peace is hard to achieve? You can't negotiate with an entity that doesn't believe you have a right to exist. 

[Ran]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you wonder why peace is hard to achieve? You can't negotiate with an entity that doesn't believe you have a right to exist. 

Case in point:

 

[JGP]

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Case in point:

 

I give that dude less than a year. Hiding in Qatar or Lebanon, probably. 

[kissdbyfire]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you wonder why peace is hard to achieve?

I don’t so much wonder, it’s more a feeling of hopelessness that we don’t seem to have learned much for our own past, distant and not so distant. I mean, you said it yourself in one of these threads, remember? How it should be totally doable and yet it feels like it’s impossible. 

 

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You can't negotiate with an entity that doesn't believe you have a right to exist. 

True. And that can be said for some in Israel’s government in relation to Palestinians as well. And know what is even worse? It’s not anywhere near unanimous on either side, and still, here we are. 

[kissdbyfire]

That video is disgusting. Same as the one I linked w/ a woman in the Knesset saying Gazan children “brought this upon themselves”. Nothing new, there are truly horrible people all over the world, though I think and hope they’re not the majority. 

[Zorral]

As we all know it goes the other way too, equally, there are so many who don't want not only a Palestinian state to exist, or Palestinians either.

It was asked why the atrocities to people and children that took place in the Ethiopian Tigray War didn't get this kind of discussion here or elsewhere.  It seems to me it's because, not just here, but everywhere, we have friends, relatives, professional collogues, caught in this war.  Far more people we all know have been to Israel and Palestine.  Far more of us spend time every day with a variety of Jews and Muslims, secular and not, than we ever have / had with people from Ethiopia.  Which is pretty simple to figure out, that these people are why this horror is personal to so many of us.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Zorral

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you wonder why peace is hard to achieve? You can't negotiate with an entity that doesn't believe you have a right to exist. 

Sure, you can. I was told that this happens all the time - countries negotiate with non-governments, make deals, etc. That was the literal basis to starting the negotiations with the PLO in the 90s - that they recognize that you exist. 

Or are you now saying that you cannot declare war on Hamas either? 

[Kalbear]

31 minutes ago, Hmmm said:

Still seems extremely questionable. The Tigray war in Ethiopia might have caused as many as half a million civilian deaths between 2020-2022. And that in a country where the median age is 18. Granted, the casualty estimates are uncertain since Ethiopia seems to be attempting to keep that information secret. But that war alone could potentially have accounted for like 30-100 Gaza wars in terms of the number of children killed. It is also interesting to compare the amount of international publicity and political debate that conflict generated compared to the Gaza war...

I think that one big difference is that the very large majority of civilian deaths were due to famine - an intentional one, but not the same thing as being in an active bombing area. 

Quote

Applying a similar correction on our earlier calculations for Tigray (starvation adjusted to 38% of the calculations) results in an estimate of 96k to 218k famine-related deaths by December 2022. Adding 30k-100k deaths due to lack of healthcare (hence, halving our earlier estimate) and 36k-60k deaths due to direct killings of civilians (massacres, bombardments, …), ends up with a total estimated civilian death rate in Tigray of 162k to 378k people.

I think that's kind of bullshit though; I doubt those people cared that much that they died due to lack of basic human needs or because they were bombed. I think another thing that isn't super awesome about this is that the Hamas war is shaping up to be as lethal in that warzone as a 2-year war that is widely recognized as a genocide. 

[Ran]

14 minutes ago, JGP said:

I give that dude less than a year. Hiding in Qatar or Lebanon, probably. 

Yeah. Think he's in Doha.

Real Baghdad Bob energy.

[Varysblackfyre321]

The measure to censure Tialib  for “anti semitism” put forward by white nationalist MTG has been defeated.

This is why democrats will get my vote

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Found this from a researcher, a Hamas-made video compiling some attacks on the IDF. Nothing gruesome, and the first attack actually looks like the TROPHY defensive system stopped it... but the main thing that caught my eye is how utterly innocuously dressed one of the perpetrators is: Adidas track pants, t-shirt, sneakers. No apparent bandoliers, headbands, etc. that might mark them out as a militant.

Once he dumps that rocket launcher and pops out of a tunnel in Gaza again, he's just one of the crowd:

 

This is why I think it will be extremely difficult to completely destroy Hamas.  If they make the strategic decision at some point to live to fight another day, they can just all blend back in with the civilian population.  I don't think Israel knows the identity of all 30000 Hamas terrorists.  The only way to guarantee that no Hamas remains in Gaza is either to kill everyone or kick everyone out.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t so much wonder, it’s more a feeling of hopelessness that we don’t seem to have learned much for our own past, distant and not so distant. I mean, you said it yourself in one of these threads, remember? How it should be totally doable and yet it feels like it’s impossible. 

It's hopeless for now, but you never know, maybe a few decades from now things will be better. I just see no reason to believe better times are right around the corner.

Quote

True. And that can be said for some in Israel’s government in relation to Palestinians as well. And know what is even worse? It’s not anywhere near unanimous on either side, and still, here we are. 

Yep. Like I've said several times, the leaders on both sides are assholes taking actions that hurt their people which turns everyday people against each other. Nothing will change until new people are in charge. 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, you can. I was told that this happens all the time - countries negotiate with non-governments, make deals, etc. That was the literal basis to starting the negotiations with the PLO in the 90s - that they recognize that you exist. 

That's the point, they probably never will.

Quote

Or are you now saying that you cannot declare war on Hamas either? 

Huh? 

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

This is why I think it will be extremely difficult to completely destroy Hamas.  If they make the strategic decision at some point to live to fight another day, they can just all blend back in with the civilian population.  I don't think Israel knows the identity of all 30000 Hamas terrorists.  The only way to guarantee that no Hamas remains in Gaza is either to kill everyone or kick everyone out.

Eh. I don't think that that is as concerning. The goal should be to depose Hamas as a governing power. Any other goals are as vague as 'the war on drugs' and will be as effective. But having the goal of removing Hamas from governing is relatively clear. And fighting insurgents is very complicated, but it is not particularly unique or special with Hamas compared to any of the other insurgencies. Combatants not wearing clear uniforms or indications that they are combatants is something that the US military has been dealing with for 30 years now. It sucks, but it isn't anything special compared to ISIS or various insurgencies in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. The US had a whole ROE based on gender, age, behaviors, clothing, perceived weapons or munitions. It is very hard to do on a daily basis but that is the nature of war, and has been since the 60s in a whole lot of places in the world. 

I mean, we've been calling Hamas terrorists for a while now. Did anyone think that the terrorists were going to wear a big scarlet T on their chest?

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's the point, they probably never will.

Right now Israel doesn't recognize Hamas' right to exist. Is that important for dealing with them? Are you saying that Hamas should not surrender? 

Rhetoric is just that. It changes. Heck, it changed in 2017 with Hamas' stated goals. I wouldn't put the random angry spokesperson from Hamas up as a sign that no one ever can change no matter what, any more than I would put one or two random Israeli ministers saying that all of them are animals as what the actual policy is. Go look up what we called the Japanese in WW2 (or what they called the US) and see how it tracks. 

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Huh? 

You can't declare war on a random group of people or an idea or a substance. You only can legally declare war on nation-states. 

[Rippounet]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

That said, what you take from those quotes is actually not the same as what I take from it, and it is especially bizarre to be told that the hugely complex arena of war and the often-debated application of laws and customs  is in fact, "not in debate that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes."

Cutting the electricity and water to the entire strip, or demanding that over 1 million people evacuate in 24 hours, including patients in hospitals, are war crimes. As is hindering humanitarian aid.

7 hours ago, Ran said:

For me, what Conricus and the IDF have articulated, given the context of an immediate ground operation in the area, it seems defensible and within the lines of what the laws of armed combat allows. Others can, of course, disagree, but I'm not going to be told there's "no debate" on any of this. A Le Monde article, however well-written and researched, is going to be drawing its views from subject-experts... and subject experts don't all agree on these questions, they have different views.

It's a legal trick I've learned the hard way. Even when the intent and meaning of a text are perfectly clear, and when the consequences of an given action clearly go against this intent, you can endlessly debate the applicability of the text in the given situation by going into details, and thus make it extremely difficult to prove that the act was in fact unlawful. You can even use the jurisprudence to argue that the text's actual enforcement is quite limited in the first place - and that the text does not adequately cover the situation at hand.
It's bad faith made professional. You're not exactly denying a "crime" was committed (and quite often, when pressed, lawyers will admit that what happened was in fact wrong on some level), you're really saying that the intent of the text is not applicable, because the prosecutor would have to prove that this specific act deliberately went against that intent. That way you can argue that it was ignorance, negligence, or incompetence that led to the act's consequences, rather than criminal intent. As long as the text is not too specific, and as long as the defendant themselves hasn't expressed criminal intent, you have a way to claim that the act that was committed was not actually unlawful.
Lawyers probably have better ways to explain this. The trick is to take the focus away from the consequences onto the intent of the defendant. If you can argue that the defendant did not wish for the consequences, then it falls to the prosecution to prove that there was criminal negligence or incompetence, which are way more difficult to prove then the crime in itself. Of course, if you can cast doubt on the victim(s) themselves, it's even easier to argue there was no crime.
I guess in a nutshell, it's about proving someone is responsible for the consequences of their actions. When it's an organization, responsibility can become impossible to demonstrate, because the criminal intent might be spread against multiple individuals each having limited agency. Because you can't prove that several individuals were implictly coordinating to bring about a specific outcome, you end up arguing that the consequences are obviously criminal in nature, but without proof of intent you'll find it difficult to prove that it was anyone's fault.
That's quite the word salad, uh? But to make it clear:

Quote

One super obvious one is the extensive efforts to warn people. Leaflets are dropping daily. Phone calls are being made. These are not things other countries do. 

International law clearly puts the responsibility of efficiency on the attacker. The civilian casualties are the responsibility of the IDF. That's how it's written, and that's why many of the bombings are clearly criminal.
Unless you are saying that thousands of Palestinian civilians are deliberately refusing to heed the warnings and thus sacrificing themselves? That would be odd.

Anyway, brainwanking aside, I would agree that the problem is pace. I highly doubt the intense pace has much military value for the operation itself though: it might kill a few more Hamas fighters in the short-term, but at the cost of providing them countless volunteers for the foreseeable future. It's more of a political choice, deciding that having a shorter campaign with high civilian casualties was preferable. It gives less time for other enemies (like Hezbollah) to coordinate attacks of their own, or for observers to successfully criticize the operation and get a significant reaction from the international community (assuming that iseven possible). It's also a great advantage on the domestic front, as a longer operation would leave the time for political opponents to focus on Netanyahu's own responsibilities/incompetence and get him removed him from power before the end of the operation, whereas a shorter, more intense campaign makes him close to untouchable for the time being.
So yes, I can rationalize it too. I can even see we have to be careful about not overestimating the diplomatic cost. So what? At the end of the day, violence is explicit. The death toll is a message too, one that we all understand, and one I disagree with, because it means neither side cares for human life in general. Though on this front, I do agree with Ty that this is only the beginning. Assuming there was a time not long ago when at least some states did have great care for lofty humanist values, these days are over. The values are still correct though, and we'd better hold to them as much as possible.

[House Balstroko]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And you wonder why peace is hard to achieve? You can't negotiate with an entity that doesn't believe you have a right to exist. 

All of that is very much true, yet there is another point worth mentioning. Israel needs to do it’s own homework, by answering the ultimate question: “What can I do on my end to mitigate the rise of such organisations”.

By actively providing cover for the activities of settlers in the West Bank, Israel is indirectly saying that it too shares many of the vile tendencies of groups like Hamas. One way of doing that might be to proactively discourage settlements and take a hard stance against their actions. 
 

Israel needs to realise that while it has a formidable military, it cannot compete with its neighbours demographically. It’s in its best interests to develop a positive relationship with the countries in its vicinity, like it did with Egypt and Jordan. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

One way of doing that might be to proactively discourage settlements and take a hard stance against their actions.

Actions being things like lynchings and just kinda stealing Palestinians when they’re like out getting groceries.

[Relic]

10 hours ago, Ran said:

Case in point:

 

Well, this guy obviously needs to die. I would suggest a single bullet to the back of the head. That usually works. What i dont suggest is bombing his entire apartment building. Cuz that's wrong, and morally reprehensible. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by Relic

[Ran]

Israel appears to be back to roof knocking:

One of the tallest buildings in Gaza, and has a sizable antenna, so likely being targeted as communications infrastructure for Hamas.