Israel and Palestine- The permanent mess

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

they're bombing hospitals

As far as  I know, this has never actually happened. There's all sorts of claims of it, but the most common shown footage of air strike explosions allegedly at the Indonesian Hospital were taken from the grounds of the hospital and showed strikes hundred of meters away, not actually on the grounds.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and schools

Where militants were operating, and obviously school classes are not taking place.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

and refugee camps

Which are urban neighborhoods. Tel Aviv is a refugee camp, too, if we applied the same standard of "was once a refugee camp and then became a city", and Hamas has been lobbing rockets at it for decades.

I think there's a lot of lip service to "Hamas is bad", and very little grappling with what you do about "Hamas is bad", and indeed the fact that Israel is doing something about it leads to the focus on arbitrary numbers that don't consider how many of the dead are enemy militants, doesn't take into account the fact that the conditions the terrorists themselves created are a big part of the civilian toll, and doesn't have any answers other than "permanent ceasefire".

In what universe do we pretend that 8,000 or 10,000 dead terrorists, whatever number it stands at now, are people we need to cry over? Yet that's what we are being asked to do when the "230 deaths a day" figure is being lobbed about, knowing full-well that some substantial portion of that figure are militants who hide among the civilian population, launch attacks from civilian structures, and build defensive infrastructures beneath civilian structures, and then are simply considered "civilian casualties" and added to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry toll.

[Rippounet]

33 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But yet that's cool for the Israeli government?

Well, the assumption is that Hamas now has very little agency.
I'm even surprised it's still managing to launch a few rockets tbh (though the launches seem completely inefficient). And contrary to what was feared, Hamas has proved unable to fight IDF forces in an urban war ; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the IDF made sure that there would be no urban fighting, at the expense of Palestinian civilians.
And btw, this is really what is painfully obvious to most people here: that the IDF made choices that means one single Israeli life is worth dozens (if not hundreds) of Palestinians'. The opposition here ends up being between those who think this perfectly normal and understandable (to favor the lives of your family, your tribe, your nation) and those who think a modern nation should respect universal principles.
Now of course, in this case it's clear that waging a "moral" war, with a minimal amount of respect for all lives, would have a cost in Israeli lives - I'm keenly aware. But then, that's the thing about claiming to be a modern democratic state or about being aligned with the West, is that it's supposed to entail some kind of cost in the form of respect of universal principles and/or international law.
And honestly, while it's been said that Israel gets too much criticism because of anti-semitism, in my specific case, I'm starting to think my language would be far more incendiary if this wasn't Israel. All in all, I'm tempted to say criticism on this forum has actually been very reasonable and courteous.
So if we go back to Hamas and agency, what's left for Hamas to do? I doubt it has a lot of rockets left, so presumably, releasing the remaining hostages is the one thing that it could still do to try to put an end to the slaughter... But at this point one has to wonder if these hostages are still alive... It's reasonable to assume that a fair number of them have been burried in the tunnels with Hamas fighters, thus depriving Hamas of a means to do much. But I could be wrong...

At any rate, it seems the intensity of IDF operations is going to decrease now... Well, it should be said that it's difficult to know whether that is a genuine tactical choice, or whether this is a necessity, due to the simple fact that there isn't much left to destroy in Gaza...

 

[Jace, Extat]

Ripp, baby. Are you saying you expected Israel, because of democracy, to parity themselves to Hamas in an active combat zone?

Baby... no...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And btw, this is really what is painfully obvious to most people here: that the IDF made choices that means one single Israeli life is worth dozens

And you're okay with this? It's not like one side made all the choices. 

[Daeron the Daring]

"Guys, the civilian to combatant death ratio isn't that bad, it can easily be justified by WWII!"

"What's WWII? Oh, it's just the biggest, darkest stain on human history! You know, that armed conflict that gave humanity the precedent on how not to behave."

Edited January 16 by Daeron the Daring

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

As far as  I know, this has never actually happened. There's all sorts of claims of it, but the most common shown footage of air strike explosions allegedly at the Indonesian Hospital were taken from the grounds of the hospital and showed strikes hundred of meters away, not actually on the grounds.

Human Rights Watch disagrees.

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

Where militants were operating, and obviously school classes are not taking place.

And Palestinians were advised to shelter in.

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

Which are urban neighborhoods. Tel Aviv is a refugee camp, too, if we applied the same standard of "was once a refugee camp and then became a city", and Hamas has been lobbing rockets at it for decades.

And that's really bad, and I definitely think that the US should not send any more arms to Hamas. 

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think there's a lot of lip service to "Hamas is bad", and very little grappling with what you do about "Hamas is bad", and indeed the fact that Israel is doing something about it leads to the focus on arbitrary numbers that don't consider how many of the dead are enemy militants, doesn't take into account the fact that the conditions the terrorists themselves created are a big part of the civilian toll, and doesn't have any answers other than "permanent ceasefire".

I think we've had hundreds of posts of what Israel should do differently, and almost none of them are 'permanent ceasefire'. To whit, we've talked about Israel not cutting off food and water, not using bombing at all or using it far more discriminately, Israel allowing significantly more aid in to Gaza, Israel to stop their illegal settlements in the West Bank and stop killing people there, Israel to plan significantly about the future, Israel to stop calling for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, Israel to establish refugee camps in Israel proper, to stop jailing Palestinians without trial or representation, to stop raiding villages and abducting people...

There is a lot that Israel could do differently if they wanted to. Even the US believes that to be so. 

38 minutes ago, Ran said:

In what universe do we pretend that 8,000 or 10,000 dead terrorists, whatever number it stands at now, are people we need to cry over? Yet that's what we are being asked to do when the "230 deaths a day" figure is being lobbed about, knowing full-well that some substantial portion of that figure are militants who hide among the civilian population, launch attacks from civilian structures, and build defensive infrastructures beneath civilian structures, and then are simply considered "civilian casualties" and added to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry toll.

10,000 children have been killed. What number of terrorist deaths is acceptable for that number to be okay? We only have the IDF's word about the number of Hamas combatants or terrorists killed - which we both agree are likely to be exaggerations or outright lies - and we know 70% of the 23000 killed are women and children, so 10000 is definitely not the right number. Maybe 8000 if you're being real charitable? 

Should we not be upset about 10000 kids dying? Especially when we see that Israel could have done more?

Also, once again the Gaza Health ministry makes no distinction between civilian and military casualties. It does not lump in with civilians. It reports deaths, period. 

Edited January 16 by Kalbear

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Ripp, baby. Are you saying you expected Israel, because of democracy, to parity themselves to Hamas in an active combat zone?

Baby... no...

Jace, boobalah, are you saying that all Palestinians are Hamas? Because Ripp isn't talking about Israel valuing Israeli lives over Hamas lives, he's talking about Palestinians and how Israel views those lives. 

[Kalbear]

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-16-24/h_55d17fa2dc09a1b053b36dbf4e42c783

Of the 24000+ deaths, 10600 were children. In addition 7200 were women and over 1000 were elderly. Based on that, either Hamas is using women and children for combatants (possible but not from previous data) or the maximum amount of Hamas combatants killed so far is roughly 5500 people.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

In what universe do we pretend that 8,000 or 10,000 dead terrorists, whatever number it stands at now, are people we need to cry over? Yet that's what we are being asked to do when the "230 deaths a day" figure is being lobbed about, knowing full-well that some substantial portion of that figure are militants who hide among the civilian population,

You are clearly conflating supporters ("militants") and fighters here, denying any Palestinian the status of civilian.
That is, quite factually, rejecting the principle of discrimination or distinction.

If an army reserves the right to kill "militants," i.e. people who are not active soldiers, then it's quite factually engaging in a form of genocide. Or cold-blooded slaughter, at the very least, if you want to avoid the big words.

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And you're okay with this? It's not like one side made all the choices. 

What do you mean by "okay" ? Obviously I didn't want the lives of Israeli soldiers to be needlessly endangered, but I also didn't want Israel to visibly abandon any respect for international law in front of the entire world! Seriously, the one thing that could be used to defend Israel is phone calls before dropping bombs? How dystopian is this getting, uh?

Yes, you can take the cynical position that no individual or nation truly cares for "others," and that in the end we will always choose one member of our family over ten (or more) strangers or foreigners. But to stop pretending is fucking dangerous, because you never get to appeal to forms of universal morality ever again.
Who will bat an eyelid next time Jews are killed in cold-blooded murder? It's not like we can rely on power to protect us everywhere at all times. The same indifference that some are showing to Palestinians being killed will be weaponised against us for decades now. And holy fuck, did I not want to be dragged in others' bullshit clash of civilizations...

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Jace, boobalah, are you saying that all Palestinians are Hamas? Because Ripp isn't talking about Israel valuing Israeli lives over Hamas lives, he's talking about Palestinians and how Israel views those lives. 

Kal, dollface, he's talking about Israel moderating its rules of engagement at point of contact in order to spare Palestinian lives... That's... nuts. It's just nuts. The entire point of things like air superiority and indirect fire is to avoid putting your infantry into situations like fighting block-to-block or house-to-house.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Jace, Extat said:

Kal, dollface, he's talking about Israel moderating its rules of engagement at point of contact in order to spare Palestinian lives... That's... nuts. It's just nuts. The entire point of things like air superiority and indirect fire is to avoid putting your infantry into situations like fighting block-to-block or house-to-house.

Huh. I thought it was to win a war without wiping out the civilians there. 

Ya know, like all modern militaries have done to various degrees of success for the last 30 years. Including things like the Iraqi army when taking Mosul. 

As the joke goes, we're just haggling over the ROE. It's clear that militaries can and do change ROE to spare civilian lives, and as @Ran points out most militaries other than Denmark have a far more stringent viewpoint on what is acceptable to bomb. Are you saying that this is not accurate, and all militaries have a duty to bomb any structure if it has any likelihood of a target in it? 

[Ran]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Hamas is using women and children for combatants

Yes? A recent strike killed a woman who held a rank equivalent to captain in Hamas, and there are many 16 and 17-year-old militants in Hamas, PIJ, and other militant organizations. Plenty of footage out there of "Hamas summer camps" with young members of the organization practicing with weapons and even training CQC tactics.

This of course assumes broad accuracy of the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry numbers, which until the war is done are unlikely to be verifiable.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Kal, dollface, he's talking about Israel moderating its rules of engagement at point of contact in order to spare Palestinian lives... That's... nuts. It's just nuts.

That's funny because not only do Western militaries routinely pretend to do just that, but even the IDF is still pretending to do this kind of thing.

Are you saying we really shouldn't trust anything the IDF is saying about "moderating its rules of engagement" to prevent unnecessary casualties?

8 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

The entire point of things like air superiority and indirect fire is to avoid putting your infantry into situations like fighting block-to-block or house-to-house.

That's crazy, I recall dozens of movies and TV shows in which the US military was doing just that! Are you saying that this is ridiculous and that, in the future, the US should use its military to not put its soldiers at risk?

PS: ha ha, ninja'd. Damn, I need to stop procrastinating and get back to actual work...

 

Edited January 16 by Rippounet

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Yes? A recent strike killed a woman who held a rank equivalent to captain in Hamas, and there are many 16 and 17-year-old militants in Hamas, PIJ, and other militant organizations. Plenty of footage out there of "Hamas summer camps" with young members of the organization practicing with weapons and even training CQC tactics.

This of course assumes broad accuracy of the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry numbers, which until the war is done are unlikely to be verifiable.

I'd love to see that Hamas captain news. The best I can find is this 60 year old Hamas political leader that was killed. Do you have a link? 

And as Ripp points out above, just because someone trained doesn't make them an active combatant. 

As to the accuracy I think that it's been consistently accurate and is done simply by counting bodies. It's hard to mess that up. That's one of the reasons that they don't differentiate between civilian and military casualties or don't even bother; they're just counting the bodies. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-16-24/h_55d17fa2dc09a1b053b36dbf4e42c783

Of the 24000+ deaths, 10600 were children. In addition 7200 were women and over 1000 were elderly. Based on that, either Hamas is using women and children for combatants (possible but not from previous data) or the maximum amount of Hamas combatants killed so far is roughly 5500 people.

And yet they're always included. 

29 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Seriously, the one thing that could be used to defend Israel is phone calls before dropping bombs? How dystopian is this getting, uh?

That literally happened. Problem is they cut the lines in places they thought Hamas were regrouping, but they did try. Do you think Hamas would have done the same?

Quote

Who will bat an eyelid next time Jews are killed in cold-blooded murder? 

Who ever did in the first place?

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

That literally happened. Problem is they cut the lines in places they thought Hamas were regrouping, but they did try. Do you think Hamas would have done the same?

Why would it matter? Hamas is a bunch of brainless thugs, and I don't want them to influence my thoughts in any way.

8 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Who ever did in the first place?

Quite a few people actually, or these threads would feel very different.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And yet they're always included. 

...yes? It's total deaths. Like, people dead. Do you expect them not to be?

 

[TheKitttenGuard]

@Rippounet

Quote

And holy fuck, did I not want to be dragged in others' bullshit clash of civilizations...

That is one of the most maddening. All the same rhetoric and the enthusiastic support of the forthcoming action after 10/7. The sense unencumbered righteousness and that we have been restrained, too nice, and have we been held back but no more. Truely frightening that the consensus among many of Western Elitee is that we did not do enough bombing.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

As far as  I know, this has never actually happened. There's all sorts of claims of it, but the most common shown footage of air strike explosions allegedly at the Indonesian Hospital were taken from the grounds of the hospital and showed strikes hundred of meters away, not actually on the grounds.

Kal showed you that HRW "disagreed" with your horrible take. But why even bring it up, you dont care if they do it, they have done it but you question it, the reallity is that if they did it (and they did) you dont care, in your mind it is justified, same as all the dead children, you will find i way to justify it. Bombing refugee camps (that israel told them to go)? You justify. Schools bombed? You justify. 70% of infraestructure leveled, you and other here simply dont care about it.  What you seem to know doesnt matter, cuz in reality you dont care. Neither jace or chatywin. Just admit that you think all those crimes against humanity are justified in your views, it will be easier for all of us when we discuss this things.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Huh. I thought it was to win a war without wiping out the civilians there. 

 

 

No. I'm sorry, but no. Air power and missiles and mortars and heavy guns exist to degrade the fighting capacity of the enemy. No other purpose for them exists. 

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

Ya know, like all modern militaries have done to various degrees of success for the last 30 years. Including things like the Iraqi army when taking Mosul. 

 

Didn't the Iraqi president say that 40,000 people died in Mosul? And there were a million people driven out of the city. The problem in Gaza is that the civilians have no place to go that Hamas cannot embed themselves in.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

 

As the joke goes, we're just haggling over the ROE. It's clear that militaries can and do change ROE to spare civilian lives, and as @Ran points out most militaries other than Denmark have a far more stringent viewpoint on what is acceptable to bomb...

Yeah, of course they do. Israel has their rules of engagement and I'm sure most of their soldiers do their best to abide by them. What I am shocked by is Ripp's suggestion that Israel do more to cap their offensive abilities and, presumably, meet Hamas on some kind of equal footing. 

That's a "no" from me, Dawg. You have asymmetrical capabilities for a reason - to preserve combat strength and save lives. Opting against using them to fight Hamas at a similar capacity is tantamount to murdering your own soldiers for the sake of public relations. 

 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

That's funny because not only do Western militaries routinely pretend to do just that, but even the IDF is still pretending to do this kind of thing.

Are you saying we really shouldn't trust anything the IDF is saying about "moderating its rules of engagement" to prevent unnecessary casualties?

As I said to Kal, my concern was you advocating for further moderation. That's my bad, I should have been more careful in my response.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

 

That's crazy, I recall dozens of movies and TV shows in which the US military was doing just that! 

 

 

Yeah, and they're all bloodbaths. I mean, have you seen Black Hawk Down? 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Are you saying that this is ridiculous and that, in the future, the US should use its military to not put its soldiers at risk?

 

 

... Yes. 

The airforce and combined arms soften targets (blows them up) then infantry takes the ground. Rinse, repeat.