Speaking of Israel...

[a completely inoffensive name]

This forum always depresses the shit out of me. I remember the Iraq war threads and the Afghan war threads. All the dehumanising of the enemy. The callousness and casual uninterest in civilian death. The blithe faith that the established media truth and the actions and decisions of our leaders were the natural and best course of action.

Iraq you have a point because the Iraqi's were innocent bystanders caught up in US foreign policy. This conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli's is perpetuated wholeheartedly by both sides. Decades of peace talks have only resulted in bribing Egypt and Israel with millions of foreign aid. If anyone really had such a bleeding heart over deaths in the Gaza, they would advocate for total withdraw of foreign aid and presence in the region and let either the Arab states or Israel fight until total hegemony is established by one side or the other.

[Papewaio]

Any serious military scholar would tell you that Israel is doing all of these things. Hamas hides rockets in schools, so... As Brenus so often likes to bring up, NATO bombed a hospital in Kosovo and that was considered acceptable, if tragic. And that wasn't even a military target, it was just error. We've seen both kinds of collateral damage from Israel so far in this one, and its not anything beyond the pale honestly. Your objections, while both valid and agreeable, are 100% political. That might seem nitpicky, but I don't see it that way. The problem is with political conduct, not military conduct.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So far... ya never know, ugh

My three points are essentially a summary of the Rome Statue which goes on to say what crimalises an act of war:
" Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Warfare in that part of the world is very old, as are attacks upon civilians. Massacres in Palestine ; massacres in Palestinian territories; massacres in Israel. Perhaps the acknowledged beauty of the area is due to its overly rich fertilization.

I study conflict. I have a degree in it. I have watched young Palestinians and Jews argue/attempt to resolve this conflict as part of a laboratory in Second Track (Burtonian) conflict resolution. The continuance of this conflict is such a cultural idee fixe for both parties that it beggars description. It makes Ireland during the Troubles look like a community with a few "issues."

For too many, on both sides, this conflict and their opposition to the "other" has ceased to be a part of what it means to be an Israeli or a Palestinian...it has become integral to their identity -- it is central to who they are. And none of us gives up readily on who we conceive ourselves to be.

Perhaps there will come an event some day in the future...like the two moms from different factions in Ireland who said "enough" and who were the catalyst for change...but I fear this will come only after a far longer series of horrors than any of us hope to see. For most in Israel/Palestine, I fear that only Plato's definition of peace will prove to be true.

[Papewaio]

You take a far more merciful interpretation of that and the laws of war in general than the Israeli or even Australian Army does, if you think civilians who happen to be near rockets that are actively being used for strategic warfare are totally off limits. The israelies have taken meaures to limit collateral damage, and are in accordance with international law so far.

Thats really important. Its cool to emotionally disagree with what Israel has historically done to the palestinians, but that is quite separate from what the Israeli military is doing now. So far.

It's not my opinion it is in quotes from the article:
"Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b)."

[Montmorency]

So you must be pro-Iraq War? Yet you're not...

What gives?

[Papewaio]

Its a vague article, and that is your opinion. Is it excessive to go after the missile sites, even if civilians are around? The Israel Army says no. Most western Armies say no. Either the Israelis haven't signed on to that article, in which case who cares? Or they take a radically different interpretation, which should not be surprising given how vague the writing is. Under the laws of war, when an enemy is raining rockets on your cities, what constitutes excessive retaliation, proportionality, and anticipated military advantage (that's a big one!) are very subjective. There's a reason most nations who actually use their Armies don't even sign on to half of these stupid declarations.

The Rome Statue has an interesting background. One of the interesting outcomes is that the ICC prosecuter cannot determine if Palestine is a State and therefore cannot sign it.

So Palestine which was once a functioning province of an Empire was take. Partially/fully over when the Zionists took it over to remake Israel.

Problem is most invaders by becomming the ruling class have an obligation to the ruled.

The Palestinians like the Lebonese are not a single ethnic/religious group. Their are Muslims and Christians of many different sects amongst them. Hamas doesn't have the backing of every single Palestinian.

Collective punishment is an extreme form of prejudice to say the least. Proportionality is settling/stealing people's lands in another country and then killing over a hundred to one when they fight back. This isn't 1950's stylised Cowboys vs Indians is Boer War/apartheid SA.

[Papewaio]

The latest invasion is in response to several escalations on both sides.

The most news worthy was the three youths who were murdered and the revenge murder of another.

Now Israel has launched a campaign to get back at the perpartrors of the first and have arrested the perpartrors of the second.

So given that this is essentially an attempt to right the wrongs of three murders is it proportional to kill a hundred civilians for each?

Are the homes of the second set of murderers bulldozed and their families evicted from their lands? The suspected ones of the first were. Surely the same punishment should be metered out to both?

Should policeman be counted as military for the purposes of death tolls?

Was Timothy McVeighs bombing therefore 100% military casualties and collateral damage as it was a Federal building? If not why not?

[Hooahguy]

This might be of interest to some: How Politics and Lies Triggered an Unintended War in Gaza.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Israeli operations constitute war crimes.

[Montmorency]

The position is simply that both, though distinct in the manner, are unacceptable. Nothing is being conflated except in your position.

You can't honestly think that people who consider the Iraq War to have been a crime against humanity due to its conduct would not recognize the current invasion as such...

Anyway, it's not even a moral position, necessarily. There's nothing ambiguous about these human rights, and if "not being signatory" is the best you can put up, well...

[Montmorency]

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

But, again, that's not the point...

based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actual go to war.

The fact that international laws and norms of war are outdated and apply best to national wars between national states is another topic entirely. The point is that according to the letter and spirit of these aforementioned, the Israelis are mucking things up.

[Papewaio]

That's far from the best I've come up with. I'm out, done with this one. My position is non-partisan, and based on the laws of war as practiced and understood by the nations that actually go to war. Invading Iraq could be a war crime, given that it was based on false evidence knowingly given--but even so, the president gets a pardon and the UN has absolutely no authority to enforce such a thing. If Bush is a war criminal, he will be convicted in an American court. Since that will never happen, its a moot point. The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

I think you are confalting a (hypothetical) war crime and its ability to be prosecuted. Just because a criminal could get away with a war crime does not extinguish the war crime. All it means is that justice/law cannot be served.

[Papewaio]

Also not true. The laws of war have been updated internally by the nations that still go to war. Under the US Laws of Land Warfare, (so far) the Israelis are doing nothing wrong strictly regarding the conduct of this invasion to control Hamas' ability to launch rockets. If you're trying to say that Israel is breaking international law as a few very stuffy European signatories understand it, then that's a very disingenuous and political argument. Your problem is with international law, and the ability of nations to opt in and opt out. So make that argument.

You realize the US, Israel and Sudan are still signatories to this set of laws even though they have said they are stepping away from them to join the likes of Russia and China.

Yeah might makes right.

[Papewaio]

The Israeli invasion is strictly to control the rockets, both presently and in the future. They have that right, under international law, no matter how much you don't like it.

Sure targeting missile platforms. But not everyone thinks these are the only things being targeted and some of them are not the norm for a military target.

Do police count as civilian or military casualties?

[Papewaio]

I could say literally anything and you'd find a way to make it political. Whatever.

Well stop making political rhetoric :p

Surely the Palestinians if they are a state can evict invaders too?

[Montmorency]

It's astounding that you would claim there is nothing political to the international adjudication of military laws, and that it is purely a military matter. Of course such disingenuous compartmentalization of literally the most political aspect of a military's existence makes our statements unacceptable to each other.

But you know, as they say, the truth of the crime lies not with the victim but with the witness...

[Montmorency]

I'm making the least controversial claims in this entire thread

Empirically the opposite.

and I have no idea what you're going on about.

I gathered.

[Montmorency]

The US State Department basically takes the exact same line I've been pushing for the last few pages.

Kim Jong Un could claim that his people are well-fed and happy. So? Perhaps might makes right, but does incest make right?

Israel has a right to defend itself. What part of that are you arguing with, and why?

As laid down by international bodies, the manner in which Israel is defending itself is criminal. Very simple.

Think of Martin and Zimmerman: let's say Martin sought Zimmerman out (even as Zimmerman was doing the same) and threw a punch. Florida law being much less "merciful" than international law tends to be, Martin's subsequent shooting death would be considered lawful. But if Martin had run off to his own house to throw rocks at Zimmerman from the windows, and Zimmerman had responded by setting Martin's house on fire, he would rightfully face a very long prison sentence, even in Florida.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The US State Department basically takes the exact same line I've been pushing for the last few pages. Its a humanitarian shame, but Israel has a right to defend itself. What part of that are you arguing with, and why?

Nobody believes they're just targeting missile sites.

The extent of the ground bombardment - against an enemy lacking serious AA capability - and the number of Palestinian dead make it look like a punitive campaign.

Aside from that - Hamas is part of the Palestinian Government, if Israel is going to invade it should have formally declared war - attacking another state without a formal declaration of war is a war crime.

Having said that, the US conducts illegal operations in Pakistan, so Israel's key ally has set the bar very low.

[Montmorency]

Can you give an example? Preferably one that doesn't just mention that the Israelis are indeed conducting military operations in Gaza?

Eyewitness reporting from the scene, or a source with a source in the IDF or Knesset?

Again, does incest make right?

[Montmorency]

You just did what I asked you not to do.

'They say they're trying to limit collateral damage'

'Civilian casualties are inevitable'

'Tunnels pose a threat'

Did you honestly think this added anything to the discussion?

[Montmorency]

The fact that you still have no idea what I'm even talking about makes me sad.

[Montmorency]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, the problem is that people believe rumors instead of what's reported by reliable sources? Like I said, I'm not speculating. I'm giving a simple analysis of what's been reported by reliable news sources so far, which is actually quite a lot. For example, the tunnels are apparently more extensive than previously thought, and much of the fighting is taking place in densely populated urban areas that house these tunnels, used by Hamas (allegedly). If true, that's legit for the IDF to attack, and you can expect a lot more civilian casualties, sadly. Hopefully 'ol Kerry can get them to agree to a humanitarian cease-fire or something.

The death toll of Civilians has passed 500 in a few days - that looks punitive against the number of Israeli dead - compare to the (relatively) low civilian casualties in Ukraine and the much higher casualties among the Ukrainian army.

Lets just reflect on how sad it is for a moment that we have those two to compare.

Now, even assuming that the fact the tunnels are in Urban areas is the reason for higher casualties it still begs the question of why this is so. Given the low Israeli casualties we know they aren't fighting in them, which suggests they might (for example) be using Ground Penetrating RADAR to map the tunnels and then using bombs to flatten them.

That's not OK, nor is any variation of that strategy.

If this was genuinely a Police Action targeting Hamas then the IDF would sweep through the area, stopping up tunnel entrances as they go and hope to flush the Hamas fighters out, then pour concrete into all the tunnels.

I realise America uses it's fire-power to suppress local resistance in a big way but in Europe and the West that's not usually considered a legitimate use of resources. One of the biggest criticisms of British Forces in Iraq was that they had started adopting these "American tactics" due to a lack of manpower.

[Hooahguy]

Where are you getting the 600 civilian deaths number from?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its an important distinction to make, between Israeli policy towards Gaza, and Israeli conduct during this invasion. I've said it as thoroughly and in as many ways as I can, so whatever. Go on confusing the two if you want, I'm just trying to steer the discussion in a direction that's less painful to read.

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you.

I do not.

Earlier I noted that war in its most basic form -- at least past symbolic/ritual conflict -- was ghastly and makes no distinction between civilian and military.

While saddened, I am not surprised when I read of incidents involving brutality/civilian targeting -- I am surprised that it does not happen more than it now does.

[Pannonian]

was American policy in Iraq for the last two years, despite the fact that far more (up to what the Israelis are currently doing) would have been legal under our own laws of warfare. The cost and manpower required to do it that way is prohibitive, and nobody should be expecting Israel to do it that way from a practical and realistic military (or even legal) point of view. Would I like to see them try? Absolutely. But I don't expect it, and neither should you.

Militarily, the cleanest way for Israel to sort out Gaza and Hamas would be to remove all settlements from the West Bank so as to bolster Fatah's position, do whatever else to strengthen Fatah's position, eg. giving it economic aid to be spent on the West Bank (Europe and the US would probably be glad to contribute to this), give them some form of military aid that would never put them within a million miles of threatening Israel's existence, but would be enough to sustain them through a small scale civil war, then let them loose on Hamas in Gaza. All the losses and atrocities would be the business of other Palestinians, not the Israeli state, whose only contribution in this is the benign support of the legitimate Palestinian government.

No chance of that happening though. Rabin demonstrated that Israeli leaders who make peace with Palestinians are killed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gelcube:

You are operating with a different frame of reference in mind regarding legitimacy in military targeting.

They view the use of any weapons that could harm non-combatants as a war crime. Artillery, rockets, crew-served weaponry of any kind...all of these have margins of error during normal use that virtually guarantee civilian casualties in densely populated areas such as Gaza (which is, of course, exacerbated by the positioning of equipment near or within civilian concentrations). As such, your "opposition" would view ANY such weapons use as wrong and would argue that the Israelis should refrain from counterfire.

They would probably -- in terms of the morality of the specific act, NOT the implied policy -- accept the deployment of military personnel to effect a direct response using small arms after specific identification of the militancy of the target has been confirmed using mark one eyeballs. Even then, I suspect they would expect these soldiers to show the same restraint a police force would for the potential of collateral casualties during such a "shoot."

Please note, even if they accept that such a military response would be moral in its limitation of civilian casualties, they view the policies and behavior of Israel within Gaza as inherently criminal and tyrannical.

I hope I am summarizing this clearly -- that is my read of things based on the above.

I won't speak for the others, but my problem is the huge number of casualties.

What is the end goal here?

If it was to neutralise the rocket launchers, surely that could have been done with counter-battery fire - there would have been collateral damage but it would have been localised. What we have seen, though, are punitive strikes against the homes of Hamas "commanders", intel we mostly have to rely on Israel for, and strikes on populated areas.

The 2006 War in Lebanon and previous strikes into gaza have been primarily punitive - the local populace are ground into the dust to drive home the fact that opposing Israel is worse than opposing the militants.

[Hooahguy]

Quick question for you all, so I was having a debate with an acquaintance on Facebook about this conflict, and she kept bringing up how the rest of the world isnt paying nearly enough attention to "(insert crisis here)" and saying how it was antisemitism how much everyone was concentrating on Israel. I said she was practicing a classic case of Whataboutism, to which she denies the claim, saying that can only be leveled at the USSR (ignoring how she was appealing to hypocrisy). Is that a valid claim or not? I think that its perfectly valid to say its Whataboutism.