How Hot is Israel Gonna Get?

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Within the context of a war the IDF is skirting lines here and the international community is getting uncomfortable.  The major issue appears to be proportionality.  It is a violation of the LOAC to employ over-kill particularly if it causes undue or reckless civilian casualties.  I have seen more than enough videos of IDF dropping JDAMs into buildings to kill a “Hamas Leader” to raise an eyebrow over proportionality.

There was an analysis of open source satellite imagery recently that showed that IDF damaged or destroyed about 56,000 buildings in Gaza during the first part of the invasion (before the temporary ceasefire).

Even if each of those strikes had only eliminated one single Hamas militant, there would be no Hamas left by now. But there are definitely still many of them. So it doesn't seem IDF is too concerned about where they strike or how many civilian casualties they cause.

In fact, there was an Israeli journalist who recently did a story on how the Israeli intelligence service is not even able to "produce" enough targets based on credible info in order to order in those numbers of strikes a day. So the intel they base their strikes seems to be quite extremely patchy.

I'm still wondering if the real aim of this war is to expel the civilian population from Gaza.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

There was an analysis of open source satellite imagery recently that showed that IDF damaged or destroyed about 56,000 buildings in Gaza during the first part of the invasion (before the temporary ceasefire).

Even if each of those strikes had only eliminated one single Hamas militant, there would be no Hamas left by now. But there are definitely still many of them. So it doesn't seem IDF is too concerned about where they strike or how many civilian casualties they cause.

In fact, there was an Israeli journalist who recently did a story on how the Israeli intelligence service is not even able to "produce" enough targets based on credible info in order to order in those numbers of strikes a day. So the intel they base their strikes seems to be quite extremely patchy.

I'm still wondering if the real aim of this war is to expel the civilian population from Gaza.

That is my sense as well.  It is not carpet bombing but the effect is the same.  A strategy could be to do so much infra damage as to make the area effectively uninhabitable.  The cost of reconstruction for these urban areas is going to be enormous and Israel is definitely not going to do it. 

The psychology of suicide actions is fascinating, and I believe entirely human.  There are arguments that whales and some other species do it but  these look more accidental than deliberate (post here please if you know of an example in the animal world).  Suicide is of course an extreme irrationality when done outside of mental health or dilemma crisis (eg people who jump from burning buildings).  Suicide bombers have no possible way of benefiting from the action or even knowing if it really is going to be successful.  What they do have is fiction frameworks.  Humans can make stuff up and believe it so hard that we are able to effectively “remember the future”.  So a suicide bomber believes in an afterlife or believes that it will somehow achieve something from which they will benefit.  Failing that they believe that who they leave behind will benefit.

Now for an individual or small groups these actions are still manageable.  But for an entire state to effectively commit suicide is rare.  A lot of states will do “hopeless” or “slightly less than zero chances” because we can convince ourselves of things through a drug called “hope”.  But what is happening in reaction to Oct 7th was almost a certainty,  Hamas knew they and Gaza itself was dead once they attacked.  But they were willing to believe so hard, hate so hard that somehow this action would make things better…even if they would never see it.  You cannot really negotiate with that.  

Israel has taken the gloves off and this looks more like a ghetto cleaning everyday.  As I said wars come in arguably 5 basic strategies: intimidation, subversion, annihilation, exhaustion and extermination.  That last one is a blast from the past - Genghis type stuff.  Without being inside the IDF command loop and seeing what the plan actually is, it is very hard to make a full determination.  But the results do point to an ethnic cleaning or at least give rise to it being a possibility.  Next question will be whether it was deliberate or simply was self-defence that “got out of hand”?

Either way, Israel’s high ground is slipping away as we watch Palestinian children being killed daily.  I honestly don’t think they care about “narratives” at this point but they do need to start thinking about how they plan to live in this world afterwards.  Right now they are making Assad look rational, which is pretty nuts.

[Bulletpoint]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is my sense as well.  It is not carpet bombing but the effect is the same.  A strategy could be to do so much infra damage as to make the area effectively uninhabitable.  The cost of reconstruction for these urban areas is going to be enormous and Israel is definitely not going to do it. 

The psychology of suicide actions is fascinating, and I believe entirely human.  There are arguments that whales and some other species do it but  these look more accidental than deliberate (post here please if you know of an example in the animal world).  Suicide is of course an extreme irrationality when done outside of mental health or dilemma crisis (eg people who jump from burning buildings).  Suicide bombers have no possible way of benefiting from the action or even knowing if it really is going to be successful.  What they do have is fiction frameworks.  Humans can make stuff up and believe it so hard that we are able to effectively “remember the future”.  So a suicide bomber believes in an afterlife or believes that it will somehow achieve something from which they will benefit.  Failing that they believe that who they leave behind will benefit.

Now for an individual or small groups these actions are still manageable.  But for an entire state to effectively commit suicide is rare.  A lot of states will do “hopeless” or “slightly less than zero chances” because we can convince ourselves of things through a drug called “hope”.  But what is happening in reaction to Oct 7th was almost a certainty,  Hamas knew they and Gaza itself was dead once they attacked.  But they were willing to believe so hard, hate so hard that somehow this action would make things better…even if they would never see it.  You cannot really negotiate with that.  

Israel has taken the gloves off and this looks more like a ghetto cleaning everyday.  As I said wars come in arguably 5 basic strategies: intimidation, subversion, annihilation, exhaustion and extermination.  That last one is a blast from the past - Genghis type stuff.  Without being inside the IDF command loop and seeing what the plan actually is, it is very hard to make a full determination.  But the results do point to an ethnic cleaning or at least give rise to it being a possibility.  Next question will be whether it was deliberate or simply was self-defence that “got out of hand”?

Either way, Israel’s high ground is slipping away as we watch Palestinian children being killed daily.  I honestly don’t think they care about “narratives” at this point but they do need to start thinking about how they plan to live in this world afterwards.  Right now they are making Assad look rational, which is pretty nuts.

I don't want to come across as defending Hamas, but just for the sake of considering all options:

It could be that Oct 7 was an operation that actually failed. We all think it was intended to be a huge terror attack, and that it succeded beyond all expectations. But what if it was actually not intended to be a terror attack?

Maybe the purpose of it was not to kill as many civilians as possible, but primarily to kill IDF soldiers (and any civilians who resisted - many Israeli civilians and especially illegal settlers are very heavily armed and most Israelis have military training).

The real purpose might (and I want to stress again that this is speculative) have been to capture as many hostages as possible. And then to exchange them with the many thousands of Palestinian prisoners who sit in Israeli jails, sometimes for very flimsy reasons. So the aim might have been a hostage exchange. They previously managed to free more than a thousand prisoners for just one IDF soldier - Gilad Shalit.

The end result would then have been a massive prisoner release, which would have bolstered Hamas' reputation and authority as "the one true faction" among the Palestinians.

However, the operation then went wrong because the people they sent into Israel could not hold back their anger once they finally got the hated enemy in their sights. They had already shot several IDF troops, most of them unarmed and in some cases in their underpants. The infiltration squads went berserk.

If this scenario is true, then Hamas leadership never thought they would face this level of retribution. And Israel would find it more difficult to justify killing so many civilians in revenge for military losses.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't want to come across as defending Hamas, but just for the sake of considering all options:

It could be that Oct 7 was an operation that actually failed. We all think it was intended to be a huge terror attack, and that it succeded beyond all expectations. But what if it was actually not intended to be a terror attack?

Maybe the purpose of it was not to kill as many civilians as possible, but primarily to kill IDF soldiers (and any civilians who resisted - many Israeli civilians and especially illegal settlers are very heavily armed and most Israelis have military training).

The real purpose might (and I want to stress again that this is speculative) have been to capture as many hostages as possible. And then to exchange them with the many thousands of Palestinian prisoners who sit in Israeli jails, sometimes for very flimsy reasons. So the aim might have been a hostage exchange. They previously managed to free more than a thousand prisoners for just one IDF soldier - Gilad Shalit.

The end result would then have been a massive prisoner release, which would have bolstered Hamas' reputation and authority as "the one true faction" among the Palestinians.

However, the operation then went wrong because the people they sent into Israel could not hold back their anger once they finally got the hated enemy in their sights. They had already shot several IDF troops, most of them unarmed and in some cases in their underpants. The infiltration squads went berserk.

If this scenario is true, then Hamas leadership never thought they would face this level of retribution. And Israel would find it more difficult to justify killing so many civilians in revenge for military losses.

It is a possibility but I think it a lower one.  Hostage taking is actually a pretty complex operation to do it right.  At this scale we are talking crazy, so sending amateurs and then things getting out of hand is not totally out of the question.

But, the killing appeared pretty systemic.  House by house and deliberate.  This is not a sign of “getting out of hand” but pre-planned.  Further if the objective was to take a lot of hostages, where was the logistical support?  Trucks, buses, medical staff etc?  I saw people dumped on stolen trucks and freakin golf carts.  A massive sweep up also takes planning/support and I have not seen elements needed onto do it.

The level of brutality also speaks to deliberate.  When troops fall apart you see a spectrum of behaviour.  I have not seen a single video of Hamas commanders trying to restrain their troops.  If Hamas sees this thing coming back at them, you get it out quickly.  Finally, has Hamas ever demonstrated that sort of level of sophistication?  I mean to do a large scale scoop?

So “could be” but it really looked like a major terror attack from what a could see.  If so Hamas can count.  They may have upwards of 40k forces - all pretty lightly armed.  Against an IDF of what?  400k.  Fully equipped with western support?  It was pretty obvious how this was going to go down.  If it was a whoopsie, it makes Putin’s look minor by comparison.

[Bulletpoint]

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It is a possibility but I think it a lower one.  Hostage taking is actually a pretty complex operation to do it right.  At this scale we are talking crazy, so sending amateurs and then things getting out of hand is not totally out of the question.

But, the killing appeared pretty systemic.  House by house and deliberate.  This is not a sign of “getting out of hand” but pre-planned.  Further if the objective was to take a lot of hostages, where was the logistical support?  Trucks, buses, medical staff etc?  I saw people dumped on stolen trucks and freakin golf carts.  A massive sweep up also takes planning/support and I have not seen elements needed onto do it.

The level of brutality also speaks to deliberate.  When troops fall apart you see a spectrum of behaviour.  I have not seen a single video of Hamas commanders trying to restrain their troops.  If Hamas sees this thing coming back at them, you get it out quickly.  Finally, has Hamas ever demonstrated that sort of level of sophistication?  I mean to do a large scale scoop?

So “could be” but it really looked like a major terror attack from what a could see.  If so Hamas can count.  They may have upwards of 40k forces - all pretty lightly armed.  Against an IDF of what?  400k.  Fully equipped with western support?  It was pretty obvious how this was going to go down.  If it was a whoopsie, it makes Putin’s look minor by comparison.

I'm also in the "could be, maybe, but not likely" camp. However, there was much more to the attack than just cutting down the fence and letting loose some crazy terrorists. The operation was very well planned and rehearsed for months. They built mockups of IDF positions and specifically rehearsed urban combat and hostage taking etc.

Also, for all the bloodshed, the Iraeli casualty count seems quite low when you consider that it was an attack by about 1200 terrorists that managed to take the country completely by surprise. This is not to downplay the tragedy in any way, but when I woke up to the news that morning that much of southern Israel had been overrun by Hamas death squads, I was afraid there would be tens of thousands of people killed. But the toll was about 860 civilian deaths plus the 240 hostages.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[The_Capt]

Follow up to discussion yesterday:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67565872

I am not sure that the LOAC says about deliberately making an area uninhabitable.

Edit:  The answer is “yes”

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means: 

1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: 
   1. -Wilful killing
   2. -Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; 
   3. -Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health; 
   4. -Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; 
   5. -Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power; 
   6. -Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial; 
   7. -Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement; 
   8. -Taking of hostages.

Edited December 7, 2023 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

And the UN is openly calling it such:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/11/gaza-destroying-civilian-housing-and-infrastructure-international-crime#:~:text=“Carrying out hostilities with the,the right to adequate housing.

[Holien]

17 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Israel has taken the gloves off and this looks more like a ghetto cleaning everyday.  As I said wars come in arguably 5 basic strategies: intimidation, subversion, annihilation, exhaustion and extermination.  That last one is a blast from the past - Genghis type stuff.  Without being inside the IDF command loop and seeing what the plan actually is, it is very hard to make a full determination.  But the results do point to an ethnic cleaning or at least give rise to it being a possibility.  Next question will be whether it was deliberate or simply was self-defence that “got out of hand”?

I have been following this elsewhere and I did some digging today for some stats..

The number of attacks made by the IDF between October the 7^th to November the 1^st is reported at 12,000 individual targets.

That’s 24 days to unleash the equivalent of 25,000 tonnes

Quote

“According to the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Israel has dropped more than 25,000 tonnes of explosives on the Gaza Strip since October 7,”

 

Or 500 targets a day…

 

Or slightly over 20 an hour

 

So now think about the ISR (Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) required to plan and carefully select each of those targets and the logistics behind the scenes to agree it is a valid target and provide notification (if done) to those living at the intended target area.

 

I have been concerned all along that there is no way in hell that with such a bombing campaign that it is being done in a careful manner that those supporting the IDF say it is done. I.e. We alert targets, we only hit valid military targets etc.…

 

The proof is in the sheer number of civilian deaths and the sheer wanton destruction of the whole of Gaza.

 

The IDF has pretty good ISR after all the area is slightly smaller than the size of the Isle of White but with a population density of roughly 21,000 people per square mile and an overall population of nearly 2 million people. Those people have no other place to go and the IDF control all the borders and sea and even in effect controls the crossing with Egypt as they have the right to stop it from opening and monitor everything using it.

 

Yet I seriously question that any military has enough ISR to accurately select and initiate attacks 20 every hour.

 So the following gives an idea of how it is being managed back at the IDF HQ

Some investigative work by Israeli citizens who are appalled at what is going on we are now getting an insight to what is really happening…

We are now finding out that to undertake such a feat the IDF are using AI and the parameters are not great…

 

Owen Jones is doing a good job of exposing this and he interviews an Israeli investigative journalist who has been working with IDF whistle blowers.

 

https://youtu.be/mIbxF7GXfHs?si=IDXi5eQpEMpyP8y7

 

The more detailed article he is talking about and published, worth reading in full I think to understand the AI generation of targets.

https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

 

Some of the key points if you don’t want to watch the interview or read the article written by an Israeli citizen.

 

Quote

 

“has seen the army significantly expand its bombing of targets that are not distinctly military in nature. These include private residences as well as public buildings, infrastructure, and high-rise blocks, which sources say the army defines as “power targets” (“matarot otzem”).

 

The bombing of power targets, according to intelligence sources who had first-hand experience with its application in Gaza in the past, is mainly intended to harm Palestinian civil society: to “create a shock” that, among other things, will reverberate powerfully and “lead civilians to put pressure on Hamas,” as one source put it.

 

 

Quote

Several of the sources, who spoke to +972 and Local Call on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the Israeli army has files on the vast majority of potential targets in Gaza — including homes — which stipulate the number of civilians who are likely to be killed in an attack on a particular target. This number is calculated and known in advance to the army’s intelligence units, who also know shortly before carrying out an attack roughly how many civilians are certain to be killed.”

 

Quote

“Another source said that a senior intelligence officer told his officers after October 7 that the goal was to “kill as many Hamas operatives as possible,” for which the criteria around harming Palestinian civilians were significantly relaxed. As such, there are “cases in which we shell based on a wide cellular pinpointing of where the target is, killing civilians. This is often done to save time, instead of doing a little more work to get a more accurate pinpointing,” said the source.”

 

Quote

“All of this is happening contrary to the protocol used by the IDF in the past,” a source explained. “There is a feeling that senior officials in the army are aware of their failure on October 7, and are busy with the question of how to provide the Israeli public with an image [of victory] that will salvage their reputation.”

 

There are 4 categories of target the first two are absolutely right and valid targets IMO. and the last two are IMO not valid targets and being used to collectively punish Gaza.

Quote

 

The first is “tactical targets,” which include standard military targets such as armed militant cells, weapon warehouses, rocket launchers, anti-tank missile launchers, launch pits, mortar bombs, military headquarters, observation posts, and so on.

The second is “underground targets” — mainly tunnels that Hamas has dug under Gaza’s neighborhoods, including under civilian homes. Aerial strikes on these targets could lead to the collapse of the homes above or near the tunnels.

The third is “power targets,” which includes high-rises and residential towers in the heart of cities, and public buildings such as universities, banks, and government offices. The idea behind hitting such targets, say three intelligence sources who were involved in planning or conducting strikes on power targets in the past, is that a deliberate attack on Palestinian society will exert “civil pressure” on Hamas.

The final category consists of “family homes” or “operatives’ homes.” The stated purpose of these attacks is to destroy private residences in order to assassinate a single resident suspected of being a Hamas or Islamic Jihad operative.

 

 

Quote

 

“In the early stages of the current war, the Israeli army appears to have given particular attention to the third and fourth categories of targets. According to statements on Oct. 11 by the IDF Spokesperson, during the first five days of fighting, half of the targets bombed — 1,329 out of a total 2,687 — were deemed power targets.”

 

 

So these targets to be valid for the IDF could just be a junior member of Hamas living in the tower block, they might give an order to evacuate the tower block then they level it. For all the other families living in the Tower block it is Hamas fault because they had an apartment there. For people who could not flee as there is nowhere safe to go they end up dead and I would say that is not a valid target because it is more about collective punishment.

If Russia targetted a tower accomedation block because 1 member of the Ukraine military lived in it, would we be happy with that?

Or a war crime....

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

-Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; 

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

I wonder if there is anything Israel could do to the Palestinians that would make the USA withdraw their unconditional support.

[Probus]

22 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It has happened before but it is rare - Hamas/Gaza may have just done a suicide-state action.

Watch out guys.  You may be starting to echo chamber yourselves into saying that the Oct 7 attacks were not terrorism when CLEARLY, CLEARLY they were.

If what Israel is doing now is considered a War Crime, just as Hamas knew it would be. Then I ask you this:

What, in your opinion should Israel do strategically to fix the situation in Gaza after being brutally attacked?

 

[The_Capt]

5 hours ago, Holien said:

I have been following this elsewhere and I did some digging today for some stats..

The number of attacks made by the IDF between October the 7^th to November the 1^st is reported at 12,000 individual targets.

 

That’s 24 days to unleash the equivalent of 25,000 tonnes

 

 

Or 500 targets a day…

 

 

 

Or slightly over 20 an hour

 

 

 

So now think about the ISR (Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) required to plan and carefully select each of those targets and the logistics behind the scenes to agree it is a valid target and provide notification (if done) to those living at the intended target area.

 

 

 

I have been concerned all along that there is no way in hell that with such a bombing campaign that it is being done in a careful manner that those supporting the IDF say it is done. I.e. We alert targets, we only hit valid military targets etc.…

 

 

 

The proof is in the sheer number of civilian deaths and the sheer wanton destruction of the whole of Gaza.

 

 

 

The IDF has pretty good ISR after all the area is slightly smaller than the size of the Isle of White but with a population density of roughly 21,000 people per square mile and an overall population of nearly 2 million people. Those people have no other place to go and the IDF control all the borders and sea and even in effect controls the crossing with Egypt as they have the right to stop it from opening and monitor everything using it.

 

 

 

Yet I seriously question that any military has enough ISR to accurately select and initiate attacks 20 every hour.

 

 

 So the following gives an idea of how it is being managed back at the IDF HQ

Some investigative work by Israeli citizens who are appalled at what is going on we are now getting an insight to what is really happening…

 

We are now finding out that to undertake such a feat the IDF are using AI and the parameters are not great…

 

 

 

Owen Jones is doing a good job of exposing this and he interviews an Israeli investigative journalist who has been working with IDF whistle blowers.

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/mIbxF7GXfHs?si=IDXi5eQpEMpyP8y7

 

 

 

 

 

The more detailed article he is talking about and published, worth reading in full I think to understand the AI generation of targets.

https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/

 

 

 

Some of the key points if you don’t want to watch the interview or read the article written by an Israeli citizen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are 4 categories of target the first two are absolutely right and valid targets IMO. and the last two are IMO not valid targets and being used to collectively punish Gaza.

 

 

 

 

 

So these targets to be valid for the IDF could just be a junior member of Hamas living in the tower block, they might give an order to evacuate the tower block then they level it. For all the other families living in the Tower block it is Hamas fault because they had an apartment there. For people who could not flee as there is nowhere safe to go they end up dead and I would say that is not a valid target because it is more about collective punishment.

If Russia targetted a tower accomedation block because 1 member of the Ukraine military lived in it, would we be happy with that?

Or a war crime....

 

 

 

 

Those are some powerful stats.  The targeting categories are suspect.  #s 1 and 2 would constitute legitimate military targets.  "Power targets" really do not have a legal definition.  A nation can strike another nations infrastructure so long as a solid case can be made that the infrastructure is directly supporting the enemy war effort - so stuff like electric power generation, rail/road and even financial institutions.  However, such targeting will also come under scrutiny for proportionality and collateral damage.  How much human suffering and loss of life is an integral component of any infrastructure targeting process.  "High rises and residential" building are right off the list unless one can literally show that the enemy is dug into them as a defensive position (i.e. in an Urban Warfare scenario).  Even then targeting them is a tricky business.

The other issue is that Gaza and Hamas are not technically a state (kinda part of the issue).  So applying state based conventional warfare metrics to a non-state terror/insurgent/guerilla organization is also trickier with respect to targeting.  Everyone remembers the US drone strikes all over the Middle East, those took a lot of targeting effort and higher level authorities...and even then we still had major errors that blewback.

As to ISR/Targeting (ISTAR was an older term), in order to sustain those sorts of engagement rates the IDF has decentralized their targeting complex.  Authorities are likely being held at tactical levels.  What ROEs those tactical commanders have been given will be critical in the post-analysis.  We likely have Bn commanders with their own ISR feeds making the call for operational level strikes.  This is not necessarily bad but it is an approach normally used in a large conventional war such as Ukraine.  It accelerates the projection of fires to really high levels, normally needed to overwhelm a conventional opponent.  The rub here being that Hamas is already operationally overwhelmed.  

It once again raises the specter of war criminality if an ISR/TA process was put in place without adequate controls in place that fit the context of the situation.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

Watch out guys.  You may be starting to echo chamber yourselves into saying that the Oct 7 attacks were not terrorism when CLEARLY, CLEARLY they were.

If what Israel is doing now is considered a War Crime, just as Hamas knew it would be. Then I ask you this:

What, in your opinion should Israel do strategically to fix the situation in Gaza after being brutally attacked?

 

Who on earth is claiming what Hamas did was not a terrorist action?!  It absolutely was, meeting just about every version of the definition out there.  Why they conducted the attacks as part of a larger strategy is the point of discussion.  To my mind it looks more and more like they did so to induce the Israeli response we are currently seeing.  A suicidal action at its core to achieve larger strategic objectives.  The most primary is the isolation of the state of Israel - regionally is low hanging fruit, globally is a possibility.  I do not think Hamas "knew" the IDF would commit war crimes, but it was very likely in the calculus.  In the end it does not matter.  No where in international law - the governing legal framework for warfare in almost every state, including Israel- is there room for "stepping off the bus".  A nation will not and cannot be given license to commit war crimes just because the other side "does it".  In fact, legally, I am not even sure Hamas can be held accountable for "war crimes" as no state of war existed between the two parties and Hamas is a non-state organization.  As a terrorist group they fall under criminality under most frameworks, which entitles Israel to pursuit and prosecution, not full scale war. 

That all said, given the size and capability of Hamas, we are in an ISIL situation where conventional warfare can be applied; however, it must follow the LOAC.  The warcrime in question here, with respect to Israel is not even the broad civilian casualties - they may even be able to justify all of these targets (I doubt it, but "innocent until proven guilty" etc).  The war crime in question here is the massive destruction of civilian infrastructure, well beyond what would reasonably be needed to pursue and engage Hamas.  As has been noted more buildings have been destroyed than the high-water mark estimates of actual Hamas forces.  More simply there could have been a single Hamas fighter in every building targeted and, depending on which estimate employed, would have killed Hamas twice over already.

The crime here is essentially making Gaza uninhabitable.  This (according to the UN) crosses the line to ethnic cleansing.  Palestinians won't be going back to large areas of Gaza because humans can no longer live there in numbers, because all of the human supporting infrastructure has been destroyed.   Israel can hand out fuel, food and diapers all day long but until someone turns the power, water and internet back on, 2 million people cannot really live there.  Making that happen is a war crime by international law definitions.  Israel will have to make one helluva case to prove these actions were 1) required and 2) proportional under the LOAC.  More bluntly put...these actions look and feel unrighteous but full judgement will have to await investigation.

As to "What could Israel do strategically?"  Good lord that is a loaded question.  I am not even going to touch the political (2 state) options.  All I can say is that with respect to Defence and Security, this failure is catastrophic on a historic scale.  The IDF and Israeli security forces are some of the best in the world within their region.  They very likely had assets in Gaza, within Hamas itself - no self-respecting intelligence service would not.  They had all the ISR pointed at Gaza.  They owned the fence-line on the buffer zone.  They owned the communities that were attacked.  This attack, on this scale and low level of sophistication should not have been possible.  So "what could Israel do?"  Well not get complacent and leave holes Hamas could literally drive a battalion through while ignoring intelligence signals.  They could ensure that a clear and present threat to their nation and people was not lost sight of.  The after action on Oct 7th is going to get bloody and likely cost a lot of people their jobs and legacies.  

As to the rest of the "Palestinian problem", I am sure books will be written about this for years.  The only thing I will say is that Israel had exactly one job with respect to that problem...do not let what is happening now, happen.  Do not put yourself in a position where the only way to re-establish security of Israel is dependent upon the removal of all Palestinians.  It puts you in dilemma spaces from hell, and carries a very real risk of Israel being accused of genocide - and we all see the absolute tragic irony. 

I am not sure what it will take for the US to withdraw support.  The US appears mostly interested in keeping this thing in a box and widening into a full-on Arab Israeli war.  What I am surprised has not happened is a UNSC resolution for an international intervention into the region, backed by China and Russia.  This would put the US in a position where they will have to veto that resolution...essentially ensuring the sh#t sprays on them as well. 

Are we having fun yet? 

Edited December 7, 2023 by The_Capt

[Probus]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Who on earth is claiming what Hamas did was not a terrorist action?!  It absolutely was, meeting just about every version of the definition out there. 

I stand corrected.  It sounded like Israel was being blamed for war crimes in a situation that does not lend itself to the Geneva Conventions.  I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but, when you have combatants hiding behind and under civilians, it makes it hard to fight them and not kill civilians.  High civilian Palestinian death tolls seem to have been part of Hamas' plan all along.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As to "What could Israel do strategically?"  Good lord that is a loaded question.  I am not even going to touch the political (2 state) options.

I couldn't agree with you more.  But truly, what options does Israel have left to them now?  You know that one of the reasons the attacks on Israel were so bad is that they were trying to make life better for the Palestinians in hopes that it would ease tensions.  Opening doors that had been closed to the Palestinians.  Hamas couldn't allow that.  That's one of the reasons Hamas attacked.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Do not put yourself in a position where the only way to re-establish security of Israel is dependent upon the removal of all Palestinians.  It puts you in dilemma spaces from hell, and carries a very real risk of Israel being accused of genocide - and we all see the absolute tragic irony.

Removal of Palestinians - no.  Removal of Hamas - must be a yes.  

You really are very eloquent @The_Capt.  I can't disagree with anything you said. 

I need to go back to quasi-lurking with my tail between my legs.  I just hope Elvis doesn't shut us down for getting too political and not discussing how this war translates into a wargame simulation.

[The_Capt]

48 minutes ago, Probus said:

I stand corrected.  It sounded like Israel was being blamed for war crimes in a situation that does not lend itself to the Geneva Conventions.  I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir but, when you have combatants hiding behind and under civilians, it makes it hard to fight them and not kill civilians.  High civilian Palestinian death tolls seem to have been part of Hamas' plan all along.

I couldn't agree with you more.  But truly, what options does Israel have left to them now?  You know that one of the reasons the attacks on Israel were so bad is that they were trying to make life better for the Palestinians in hopes that it would ease tensions.  Opening doors that had been closed to the Palestinians.  Hamas couldn't allow that.  That's one of the reasons Hamas attacked.

Removal of Palestinians - no.  Removal of Hamas - must be a yes.  

You really are very eloquent @The_Capt.  I can't disagree with anything you said. 

I need to go back to quasi-lurking with my tail between my legs.  I just hope Elvis doesn't shut us down for getting too political and not discussing how this war translates into a wargame simulation.

No need to tuck tails.  It was a solid point/question.  This is a highly charged subject.

“What does Israel do now?”  Well an immediate response was required, no getting past that.  But CT/CVEO work when done with precision takes time and resources.  So the trick would have been a balancing act between overt high profile strikes to keep the public feeling safe.  And a rapid acceleration in a deliberate CT campaign to dig out Hamas from the Palestinian people.

Or if one is going to go all full conventional, then demonstrate restraint and precision wherever you can.  If terrorist go into a building…raid the building by hand, don’t drop a JDAMs on it.  There are munitions and systems that can kill with much less collateral.  It will be slower and you will take casualties but you may avoid the pitfalls of the situation they are stuck in.  One must have an air of righteousness even if the war itself is dirty.

Beyond that, I honestly think Israel was screwed the second the attack came off.  Arming everyone in the communities around the Gaza Strip (eg local militias).  Making each home a fortress Afghan style.  Redundant manning along the fence line with ready forces.  It all costs, but compared to where they are now it would have been a pittance.  I do not for a second blame Israel for the 7 Oct attacks - that is a narrative being picked up by some.  Nothing Israel had done with respect to Gaza deserved the horror stories coming out of that. 

There may have been a political solution to the Palestinian Problem but that is over now.  Israel is off the hook and losing control of the larger strategic narratives.  It is in effect risking doing more damage to itself than Hamas ever could.  The real answer would be to get the Palestinian people to reject Hamas itself - I am no expert on what that would look like.  But now that ship has sailed.  My sense is that Israel needs to define an endstate in this war that does not look like 2 million Palestinians being driven into the desert to die.

[chuckdyke]

My sense is that Israel needs to define an endstate in this war that does not look like 2 million Palestinians being driven into the desert to die.

[Anthony P.]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:44 PM, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think any of those acts are terrorism though, even though they are bad crimes in themselves.

...

In my view, "terrorist" is a specific adjective just like "murderer". It talks about a specific crime. You cannot apply it to a group without proving that all the members of that group are guilty of that crime.

Organisations such as Hamas operate on many different levels, and we cannot just call everybody working for Hamas a terrorist, even though the organisation as a whole is heavily involved in terrorist activities.

Well, what if we were to take more violent examples? E.g. Polish resistance fighters attacking German settlers in occupied Poland, or unarmed political functionaries. Those acts would certainly be classed as terrorism, but the consensus isn't that they were terrorists.

An even better example would be Viet Cong fighters. They frequently murdered village chiefs and sometimes even their relatives if they deemed them collaborators, and carried out fairly indiscriminate bombings against mostly civilians in urban centers, but even the US military during the war mostly referred to them as guerrillas.

One of the reasons is that there's really no useful disctinction between guerrillas/insurgents and terrorists. Metrics such as e.g. "x% of the organisation's members have to be guilty of individual acts of terrorism" would be a vey awkward tool to employ since we'll hardly ever be able to reliably list the members and expect to find any noteworthy number of them actually convicted in a court of law.

[Centurian52]

23 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

One of the reasons is that there's really no useful disctinction between guerrillas/insurgents and terrorists. 

We just went over how there very clearly is a distinction between guerrillas and terrorists. I did my best to lay out what guerrilla warfare is (and a guerilla fighter is just someone who engages in guerilla warfare). And @The_Capt did an excellent job of laying out what terrorism is (and a terrorist is just someone who has committed an act of terrorism). Guerrilla warfare and terrorism (and, by extension, guerrillas and terrorists) are distinct things.

There is certainly plenty of room for overlap. A single action can very easily be both an act of guerrilla warfare AND an act of terrorism (it is very common for things to be more than one thing at a time (a reservist who's day job is to be an accountant would be both a soldier and an accountant)), but the features that qualify it as guerrilla warfare (it is an act of resistance, which does not attempt to control ground, against an occupying military force in the context of a war) are distinct from the features that qualify it as terrorism (it is an act of illegal violence meant to intimidate/instill terror in service of an ideological cause (political, religious, etc)). There is no need for an act to be either terrorism or guerrilla warfare and not both (it does not need to be an XOR, if you are familiar with Boolean logic or programming).

To further illustrate how these are different, but can overlap, I'll try to offer a few examples.

1. An ambush on military forces, in territory that is controlled by those forces, in which the attackers attempt to inflict a few casualties and then withdraw without trying to take or hold ground would be an act of guerrilla warfare, but not an act of terrorism.

2. An attack on a populated area which is not in a war zone, in which the attackers are motivated by an ideological cause and their goal is to intimidate the population of the country in which the attack took place, would be an act of terrorism, but not an act of guerrilla warfare.

3. Extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators in an area that is under military occupation and is an active war zone, carried out by people with an ideological commitment to fighting the occupation forces, for the purpose of terrorizing/intimidating other potential collaborators, would be both an act of guerrilla warfare AND an act of terrorism.

Someone who did 1, but not 2 or 3, would be a guerrilla, but not a terrorist. Someone who did 2, but not 1 or 3, would be a terrorist, but not a guerrilla. Someone who did 3, or who did both 1 and 2, would be both a guerrilla and a terrorist.

As for terrorist organizations, I don't think that it's necessary to prove that every last member of the organization is a terrorist. Only that one of the functions of the organization is to engage in terrorism.

[Anthony P.]

There is a clear distinction between guerrilla warfare and terrorism, agreed.

But among experts, there exists no "border" where an actor goes from being a guerrilla fighter to becoming a terrorist. The issue is that (according to Wikipedia), there exists in excess of 109 different definitions of terrorism, and many of those would encompass a large share of current and historical guerrilla organisations. If engaging in terrorism is sufficient for an organisation to be classed as a terrorist organisation, then almost all resistance organisations throughout history would have to be considered terrorist organisations.

[Bulletpoint]

US vetoes the resolution for immediate ceasefire in Gaza

The final vote is 13 members for, one abstention and one against.

The US, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is the sole nation to vote against. Its ally, the UK, abstained in the vote.

This means that the resolution has failed.

 

(BBC)

[Probus]

Just as expected. 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

US vetoes the resolution for immediate ceasefire in Gaza

The final vote is 13 members for, one abstention and one against.

The US, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is the sole nation to vote against. Its ally, the UK, abstained in the vote.

This means that the resolution has failed.

 

(BBC)

Just what China and Russia wanted.  Now what comes nexts gets to splash ol Uncle Sam too.  The US may have just voted to keep warcrimes going - pending investigations etc.  Which technically may make the US complicit in the commission of these crimes.  Of course Putin did the same thing.  But that was the entire point of the resolution.  The narrative will be “Oh when Russia does it we have a warcrime.  When the US does it, we have collateral damage.”

Yeesh what a mess.

[The_Capt]

On 12/8/2023 at 12:29 PM, Centurian52 said:

We just went over how there very clearly is a distinction between guerrillas and terrorists. I did my best to lay out what guerrilla warfare is (and a guerilla fighter is just someone who engages in guerilla warfare). And @The_Capt did an excellent job of laying out what terrorism is (and a terrorist is just someone who has committed an act of terrorism). Guerrilla warfare and terrorism (and, by extension, guerrillas and terrorists) are distinct things.

There is certainly plenty of room for overlap. A single action can very easily be both an act of guerrilla warfare AND an act of terrorism (it is very common for things to be more than one thing at a time (a reservist who's day job is to be an accountant would be both a soldier and an accountant)), but the features that qualify it as guerrilla warfare (it is an act of resistance, which does not attempt to control ground, against an occupying military force in the context of a war) are distinct from the features that qualify it as terrorism (it is an act of illegal violence meant to intimidate/instill terror in service of an ideological cause (political, religious, etc)). There is no need for an act to be either terrorism or guerrilla warfare and not both (it does not need to be an XOR, if you are familiar with Boolean logic or programming).

To further illustrate how these are different, but can overlap, I'll try to offer a few examples.

1. An ambush on military forces, in territory that is controlled by those forces, in which the attackers attempt to inflict a few casualties and then withdraw without trying to take or hold ground would be an act of guerrilla warfare, but not an act of terrorism.

2. An attack on a populated area which is not in a war zone, in which the attackers are motivated by an ideological cause and their goal is to intimidate the population of the country in which the attack took place, would be an act of terrorism, but not an act of guerrilla warfare.

3. Extrajudicial executions of suspected collaborators in an area that is under military occupation and is an active war zone, carried out by people with an ideological commitment to fighting the occupation forces, for the purpose of terrorizing/intimidating other potential collaborators, would be both an act of guerrilla warfare AND an act of terrorism.

Someone who did 1, but not 2 or 3, would be a guerrilla, but not a terrorist. Someone who did 2, but not 1 or 3, would be a terrorist, but not a guerrilla. Someone who did 3, or who did both 1 and 2, would be both a guerrilla and a terrorist.

As for terrorist organizations, I don't think that it's necessary to prove that every last member of the organization is a terrorist. Only that one of the functions of the organization is to engage in terrorism.

Just to follow up a bit on a very good post.  They also use fundamentally different strategies. Guerrilla warfare normally employs a strategy of exhaustion.  They will attrit an opponent over time until the opponent becomes tired.  A Death of a Thousand cuts.  Then once the opponent begins to weaken they actually tend to switch to more conventional approaches to defeat decisively.  

Terrorism employs a strategy of intimidation (and possibly subversion).  They employ a strategy designed to intimidate an opponent into action, while at the same time very often looking to exploit political or social divisions within a society.

Those are two fundamentally different “Hows”.  They require different Means mechanisms as well.  They may even share the same Ends, but they come at them from very different directions.  One area they do have in common is with respect to Decision.  Both employ negative decision pressure.  Guerrilla warfare aims to project null decisions - to make undecided over time.  While Terrorism aims to project anti-decision - to undecided that which we though was decided, this induces tremendous uncertainty in the form of “terror” to trigger a political reaction.  Both guerrilla warfare and terrorism may employ the other ways but we are talking primacy of approach not absolutes.  Each approach to decision spaces fits their over all Ways.

So Hamas employed a strategy of intimidation that projected anti-decision upon Israel in order to 1) get an overreaction, which we are seeing and 2) exploit regional - now global, divisions on entire issue.  Hamas has not demonstrated any real guerrilla warfare strategy, they simply are not setup for a 10 year war in Gaza to slowly make Israel and the US walk away in frustration.  They are employing some elements of guerrilla warfare but still are acting like terrorist (eg hostages, use of civilian shields etc) to further their overall strategy.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Hamas has not demonstrated any real guerrilla warfare strategy, they simply are not setup for a 10 year war in Gaza to slowly make Israel and the US walk away in frustration.  They are employing some elements of guerrilla warfare but still are acting like terrorist (eg hostages, use of civilian shields etc) to further their overall strategy.

Hostages, yes. But I am not convinced of the Israeli talking point that Hamas is using "human shields". A Hamas fighter having a family and living in an apartment block is not using human shields.

If Hamas bombed an Israeli apartment block, killing 100 civilians in order to (maybe) kill one IDF commander, and then used the same argument, that IDF used human shields, we would probably find it ridiculous.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Hostages, yes. But I am not convinced of the Israeli talking point that Hamas is using "human shields". A Hamas fighter having a family and living in an apartment block is not using human shields.

If Hamas bombed an Israeli apartment block, killing 100 civilians in order to (maybe) kill one IDF commander, and then used the same argument, that IDF used human shields, we would probably find it ridiculous.

True, but even the use of a civilian occupied building, religious or medical site for military purposes is technically also a war crime.  But you make a solid point.  At what point do Palestinian fighters stop being Hamas and just locals trying to defend themselves?  We could see this thing morph into a general resistance, much like we saw in Iraq in '03.  At that point one is biting off a complex CT/COIN operation which we lived through twice in the last 20 years and neither worked out very well.  Complex situations like that are just ticking time bombs for a civilian massacre as soldiers tend to get pretty jumpy.

So while I have no doubt that Hamas does employ human shields, we are really at a point where that is very hard to determine who is a shield and who is engaged in the universal human right of self-defence.  Further, I seriously doubt Israel is being that judicial on targeting based on the levels and rates of destruction being applied.  This looks a lot more like - "take a few shots from a building = level the building with a JDAMs" but all the evidence is being held by Israel and the US at the moment.

[Bulletpoint]

7 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This looks a lot more like - "take a few shots from a building = level the building with a JDAMs" but all the evidence is being held by Israel and the US at the moment.

We live in a time where everything the military does is filmed in high detail from drones and gun cams. So I think the reason they are withholding the evidence is probably because there is not a lot of evidence for most of those strikes.

As you said, it's a war crime to use buildings occupied by civilians for military purposes, but as I understand it, this has to be positively determined before you flatten the building. It's not enough to just have a suspicion.