Israel-Palestine escalation live: Gaza under bombardment after Hamas attack

[Randy]

I mean, confirmation there's any Hamas or military gear present would be a great start.

On Oct. 10, an air strike on the al-Najjar family home killed 24 people. On Oct. 22, an airstrike on the Abu Mu’eileq family home killed 19 people. Both strikes were in Deir al Balah. The city is south of Wadi Gaza, the area the Israeli military ordered civilians of Northern Gaza to flee to.
.....
Amnesty did not find any evidence of any military objectives at the sites of the strikes, nor any indication that the residents of the houses were affiliated with Hamas, leading the group to call for the air strikes to be investigated as possible war crimes

U.S. Munitions Traced to Possible War Crimes in Gaza: Report

Israel used U.S. military equipment to kill 43 civilians in Gaza—a possible war crime, Amnesty International says.

time.com

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Sure, and I similarly would have a hard time finding justification in so many deaths as this campaign lingers on. I just think it would be helpful to in some way acknowledge the actual decision process here. I want to know when people are here arguing about what is fair in war, what the actual numbers are. And I think it's unfair and unhelpful to shout "pro-genocide" from the rooftops at everyone who falls arbitrarily along some different point on that spectrum, without also putting forth essentially some equation of where that line should be drawn, or considering what factors are involved in getting them to that number.

Also a technical clarification -- as far as I'm aware from earlier this week, IDF has killed around 16,000 people. Which of these are civilians or hamas fighters remains to be seen. About half of these are women and children, so it is probably safe to consider them civilians and conclude that this has not been a very precise attack, but there are also estimated to be between 20-25,000 hamas fighters, so in a "success", you would also expect some high casualties regardless.

Alright, I'll play.

What is your figure? How many civilians per Hamas is your "not genocide number" and what's your "this is totally genocide number"?

 

[narad]

Alright, I'll play.

What is your figure? How many civilians per Hamas is your "not genocide number" and what's your "this is totally genocide number"?

I'll hash out my numbers/reasoning later but I'm not the one calling people pro-genocide, or really anything derogatory apart from unrealistic (for very low values of N), so I'd rather hear some answers to the question first.

 

[Randy]

More militants than civilians per incident.

That's the minimum threshold for looking like you're not deliberately fumigating the house so you can move in.

 

[ADADAD]

More militants than civilians per incident.

That's the minimum threshold for looking like you're not deliberately fumigating the house so you can move in.

Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Congratulations, pretty much every war is genocide by your standard. So by your logic being pro war against Hamas is being pro genocide.
Seeing as I think Hamas should be destroyed, you can keep calling me whatever you want

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Congratulations, pretty much every war is genocide by your standard. So by your logic being pro war against Hamas is being pro genocide.
Seeing as I think Hamas should be destroyed, you can keep calling me whatever you want

I mean, yeah, there was genocide in WWII. Not sure that's as cogent an argument as you think it is.

But for the record, in case it's not clear, the civil casualty ratio of an entire war and the proportionality of individual actions are not the same thing.

 

[ADADAD]

I mean, yeah, there was genocide in WWII. Not sure that's as cogent an argument as you think it is.

Oh look, more top-notch reading comprehension on display.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Oh look, more top-notch reading comprehension on display.

Says the guy who thinks overall civilian casualties in a given war are equal to the proportionality of single actions. Like do you have no idea what you're talking about or just trying to be cute?

Some real Poe's Law going on.

 

[Randy]

This guy "Oh so now you want us to kill more bad guys than innocent people when we level a building? C'mon!"

Narad carrying water for this guy, poses this thought experiment then ducks out when someone takes him up on it.

 

[Randy]

I mean, yeah, there was genocide in WWII. Not sure that's as cogent an argument as you think it is.

But for the record, in case it's not clear, the civil casualty ratio of an entire war and the proportionality of individual actions are not the same thing.

Some interesting stuff in there once you crack it open. Like that most of the high civilian deaths count military conflicts are somewhat old technology when you "needed" to attack with unsophisticated weaponry like mortars.

You look at the US Drone conflict tab, and they say:

An ongoing study by the New America Foundation finds non-militant casualty rates started high but have declined steeply over time, from about 60% (3 out of 5) in 2004–2007 to less than 2% (1 out of 50) in 2012. The study puts the overall non-militant casualty rate since 2004 at 15–16%, or a 1:5 ratio,

Which I think would be more apples-to-apples with a modern conflict of high value targets embedded with civilians in urban settings.

 

[Randy]

More interesting stuff even when you crack open those World War II numbers...

World War II casualties - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Check out the proportion of Axis Civilian deaths to Axis Military deaths, and the proportion of Allied Civilian deaths to Allied Military deaths.

The obvious correlation would be that the "bad guys" are intent on invading/occupying space, so they don't care where their artillery lands and the "good guys" are trying to either expel the invaders or specifically targeting military assets once they push them back.

You'd likely see a similar dynamic if you look at the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, as you have what's essentially an invading force (under the guise if a "special operation" to defeat "Nazis") launching bombs and missiles everywhere indiscriminately, and the local forces trying to repel them. So you get a HIGH civilian death count among the people being invaded, and a low (or non existent) civilian death count of the invading country.

Israel are supposed to be the "good guys" here, but coming down on the wrong side of this dynamic based on history.

Thank you for pointing me to this!

 

[Randy]

War in Afghanistan:

Civilians:
47,319

Combined Military, Police and Opposition:
121,988

Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–2021) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[narad]

Narad carrying water for this guy, poses this thought experiment then ducks out when someone takes him up on it.

Still waiting for some answers here.

 

[Randy]

Still waiting for some answers here.

See my previous 4 posts. Or you won't answer because I didn't plug it into your arbitrary equation? I even made it simpler than you did.

I'm not kissing your ass just to get you to answer your own question.

I actually stopped responding to you or reading your posts because it was zero value excuse making for how bad you made yourself look for 48 pages. I only waded in because you decided to carry on a proxy argument with me because of my disagreements with that other guy.

If you want to play this game like no answers are intellectually sufficient for you to bother formulating a response (which you claim you already have?) then you can go right back to my ignore list. So far I haven't missed out on much, so no big loss.

 

[narad]

See my previous 4 posts. Or you won't answer because I didn't plug it into your arbitrary equation? I even made it simpler than you did.

I'm not kissing your ass just to get you to answer your own question.

I actually stopped responding to you or reading your posts because it was zero value excuse making for how bad you made yourself look for 48 pages. I only waded in because you decided to carry on a proxy argument with me because of my disagreements with that other guy.

If you want to play this game like no answers are intellectually sufficient for you to bother formulating a response (which you claim you already have?) then you can go right back to my ignore list. So far I haven't missed out on much, so no big loss.

I'm waiting for answers from other people. Sorry if it wasn't clear that there are more people than just you here, and I would like to hear where at least a few of the other people are falling.

But frankly look at your post. Not sure when the stick got up your ass in this thread, but there's zero reason to get bent out of shape over a pretty simple and straightforward question. Add that to the hair trigger on calling people islamophobes or genocidal that everyone not on your side had to tolerate, and you can put me back on your ignore list for all I care.

 

[Randy]

I'm waiting for answers from other people. Sorry if it wasn't clear that there are more people than just you here, and I would like to hear where at least a few of the other people are falling.

My apologies.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Still waiting for some answers here.

IDF says 2 civilians for every terrorist.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officials-2-civilian-deaths-for-every-1-hamas-fighter-killed-in-gaza/amp/

So, if you take those numbers at face value, it's 2:1.

I feel like that's not so great.

 

[tedtan]

I see they don't teach reading comprehension in Never Neverland. But hey let's make it an exercise, explain how these posts indicate me being racist or genocidal.

Ad hominem. You can do better - up your game or stop wasting my time.

You're claiming you can conduct war in Gaza with no casualties with no reasoning or evidence to back it up, which is unsurprising since it's blatantly false. The fact is that the ratio of Hamas casualties to civilian casualties is better than comparable (as much as possible) wars e.g. by the U.S. in the middle east, and that's the most advanced military in the world. Obviously fewer is better, but to what extent is it feasible? And on that topic, claiming that striking an entire building is "genocide" without the intel that informed that strike is talking out your ass. You can watch footage with plenty of secondary explosions which is a sign that there were rockets and ammo stockpiles there, or buildings collapsing lower than they should indicating tunnels. It is also extensively documented that Hamas stores stockpiles and has launch sites in/near civilian buildings and infrastructure, so there's hardly a leap there. Also, Israel informs civilians (and therefore Hamas knows as well) when a building is about to be hit.

An Israeli spokesperson just claimed over the past few days that their killing [only] two civilians for each Hamas fighter would be a good ratio. Don’t try to equate that with the US’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (not that those wars are a benchmark for the right way to do things, either).

Meanwhile, Hamas could release more hostages and negotiate additional ceasefire and humanitarian aid, but are not doing so. Speaking of, none of you are discussing the hostages and new information regarding them, e.g. them being raped, abused, denied medical attention, dying in captivity, and being held in homes of UNRWA employees.

This whataboutism doesn’t work.

Hamas is shit and should be destroyed (along with Hezbollah and the rest of these terrorist organizations). But neither that, nor the fact that they operate amongst civilians, gives the IDF justification to kill civilians or destroy civilian infrastructure. Especially after trapping them in Gaza, telling them to go south, and then destroying the south.

That is a short sighted, task oriented way of operating (e.g., destroy Hamas regardless of cost). This may work for the specific short term goal of eliminating Hamas, but it will bite Israel in the ass in terms of the overall hatred towards Israel it generates in the region and the number of new, even worse, terrorist organizations it spawns in the wake of Hamas.

 

[tedtan]

Something I think the "pro-palestine" guys here have yet to actually wrestle with: let's say you have a building with 10 hamas terrorists on the ground floor that you are planning to destroy. Despite the call for all civilians to evacuate the area, there are N civilians known to be elsewhere in the building. You decide you're going to go ahead with the operation only if there are less than:
N = 0
N = 1
...
N = Inf

As N increases, so does the degree to which this act could be considered genocide -- in the limit it is genocide. What values of N is it acceptable to carry this out this attack, what values of N are typical in other conflicts in a comparable situation, and what values of N is it genocide?

That’s not the correct framework or perspective from which to view this IMO. When the IDF has sent all civilians to the south while simultaneously preventing them from leaving Gaza, do they need to bomb the building in the first place? What if instead, since the IDF is already on the ground, they secured the building, sent in troops to clear it, searched it to ensure that it actually holds the weapons/control centers/etc. that IDF intelligence claims it holds, kept civilians back at a safe distance, then surgically destroyed the relevant portions of the building and/or tunnels as necessary minimizing damage to civilian infrastructure as well as to the civilians themselves?

Would that approach take longer? Yes, without question.

Would that put more Israeli soldiers at risk? Yes, but they are combatants, not civilians, so they should be the ones taking on that risk (alongside the Hamas fighters), not the civilians. It comes with the job.

Would it cost more? Yeah, it probably would.

Would it be worthwhile given the above? Absolutely, as Israel has a duty to protect its citizens, including those Palestinian civilians not affiliated with Hamas.

Why is this last point so difficult for you and ADADAD to comprehend?

 

[Randy]

I won't speak for narad on this one but the other guy and the general subtext is that:

1.) Palestinian lives don't matter,

2.) Palestinians = Hamas,

3.) As long as there's a Palestine (or Gaza, or West Bank), violence against Israel will continue,

4.) The only solution is extermination and/or annexation


So you're going to keep getting counterintuitive explanations as to why civilians HAVE to die, and in large numbers, to "stop" the smaller number of unsophisticated terrorists.