How Hot is Israel Gonna Get?

[Probus]

2 hours 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.

The IDF is trying its best to reduce IDF casualties.  If there is a sniper(s) in a building shooting at them, should they run in there and try to kill the sniper?  That could mean dozens of casualties for the IDF.  The Israelis are sick and tired of taking casualties.  Calling in an airstrike is the obvious thing to do.  Especially since it is a proven fact that Hamas is using tunnels.  Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties.  The more the better as this will continue to sway world opinion against Israel.  And since when do you ever want to make combat in war a fair fight?  In WWII they didn't hesitate to flatten a building if it had German soldiers putting up a strong defense.  I doubt anyone even asked if there were civilians in the building. 

At least Israel is trying to persuade the Palestinians to evacuate N. Gaza until they can clear out Hamas.  I wouldn't be surprised if they then ask the Palestinians in S. Gaza to move back to the North (or maybe to the West Bank) so they can clear out Hamas in the South.  They will have to provide refugee camps at that point because there won't be much left standing in N. Gaza.  Hopefully this will provide construction jobs to the Palestinian refugees that will allow them to rebuild and bring back some prosperity to the region.  Something like Germany or Japan. But I'm prolly just dreaming here.

On a side note, some of these liberal colleges that have been having pro-Hamas rallies are starting to get a taste of what it is they are supporting:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/6/chabad-screening-oct-7-hamas-attacks/

or this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

The world shouldn't forget what Hamas did to start all of this violence.  I think the IDF believe that using extreme force in the short term will save lives (Israeli and Palestinian) in the long run.

Anyways, Is there a way in SF2 to simulate civilians in a building with rebels, where you get points for not destroying the building?

Edited December 10, 2023 by Probus

[The_Capt]

56 minutes ago, Probus said:

The IDF is trying its best to reduce IDF casualties.  If there is a sniper(s) in a building shooting at them, should they run in there and try to kill the sniper?  That could mean dozens of casualties for the IDF.  The Israelis are sick and tired of taking casualties.  Calling in an airstrike is the obvious thing to do.  Especially since it is a proven fact that Hamas is using tunnels.  Hamas doesn't care about civilian casualties.  The more the better as this will continue to sway world opinion against Israel.  And since when do you ever want to make combat in war a fair fight?  In WWII they didn't hesitate to flatten a building if it had German soldiers putting up a strong defense.  I doubt anyone even asked if there were civilians in the building. 

At least Israel is trying to persuade the Palestinians to evacuate N. Gaza until they can clear out Hamas.  I wouldn't be surprised if they then ask the Palestinians in S. Gaza to move back to the North (or maybe to the West Bank) so they can clear out Hamas in the South.  They will have to provide refugee camps at that point because there won't be much left standing in N. Gaza.  Hopefully this will provide construction jobs to the Palestinian refugees that will allow them to rebuild and bring back some prosperity to the region.  Something like Germany or Japan. But I'm prolly just dreaming here.

On a side note, some of these liberal colleges that have been having pro-Hamas rallies are starting to get a taste of what it is they are supporting:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/6/chabad-screening-oct-7-hamas-attacks/

or this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

The world shouldn't forget what Hamas did to start all of this violence.  I think the IDF believe that using extreme force in the short term will save lives (Israeli and Palestinian) in the long run.

Anyways, Is there a way in SF2 to simulate civilians in a building with rebels, where you get points for not destroying the building?

Well this is the rub about the whole thing.  Proportionality is a core concept in the Law of Armed Conflict. There are no shortcuts to reduce your own casualties or for convenience.  Collateral damage is accepted but it must be demonstrated that every reasonable mitigation was taken to reduce it. 

So you get a sniper in a building firing at you.  And you know there are civilians either trapped or being held in that building.  Well you have a suit of options.  A counter-sniper program.  Use of a lower yield weapon such as an ATGM or PGM.  A tank HE round.  Or, yes even a ground assault and clearance.  Firing a 2000 pound JDAM into the base of the building to drop it knowing there may be a hundred civilians inside to take out a small group of militants would need a legal defence to show that no other options were available.  There is the tactical situation and other considerations of course.  

Now the IDF may even be cycling through these and have developed a reasonable mitigation approach.  What is suspicious is the level of destruction and its pace.  Based on the speed of damage and how widespread it is I am willing to bet we are seeing shortcuts being taken.  Now that should trigger an outside investigation - in fact UN offices are already calling for it.  Further, willful destruction of infrastructure with intent to make it uninhabitable is also a war crime (something the UN has also highlighted).

None of this has anything to do with the horrendous things Hamas did illegally to start this war.  In fact the LOAC was specifically put in place to avoid revenge escalations or unlawful retaliation. None of this is “pro-Israel” or “pro-Hamas”, that is frankly a distraction being exploited by both sides.  It is “pro-international law”.  Things have gotten so bad that the UNSC voted 13-1, with the UK abstaining.  To call for a slow down on this thing.  US vetoed and supplied more tank shells.  The optic now is that the rules apply to everyone but the US and its designated allies.

Imagine for a second of this was Russia or China doing the exact same thing?  Oh wait, we don’t have to imagine it, we have seen it in Ukraine for almost 2 years.  And we all shouted loudly (and correctly) that it was a warcrime.  But when Israel does that…and it is starting to look worse in some cases…”well that is just combat”?

Take the emotion out of it and try to apply a strictly legal lens.  I cannot even say definitely that what the IDF is doing has crossed the line.  I can say that is it suspicious and likely needs further investigation.  Has the IDF announced it will allow in military observers from the UN?  Has it demonstrated righteous shoots?  Have they announced a multi-billion dollar fund to rebuild Gaza once this is over?  Not that I have seen or heard.

We either apply the law universally or throw it out and we can go all Genghis.  But I am pretty sure no one is going to like that answer either.
 

[Probus]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We either apply the law universally or throw it out and we can go all Genghis.  But I am pretty sure no one is going to like that answer either

@The_Capt you are much, much more knowledgeable about the legalities of war than I am, but does the Geneva Convention even apply to this conflict?  According to what I'm hearing, it's ok for Hamas to use any methods available to them but for the IDF, it's a warcrime to:

• Flood Hamas' tunnels.
• Bomb buildings with Hamas fighters.
• Level a city that produces vicious terrorists by the 1000s.
• Attack sites launching rockets into Israel.
• On and on...

If you were the IDF general in charge of combat operations in Gaza what would you do? Risk warcrime accusations after the war or throw up your hands and say "I give up! - Cease fire"?

I don't think you can't put UN observers in there. That is just dangerous and counter productive.  Hamas, for one, would just kill or take them hostage whenever the situation presents itself.  And would the IDF have to ask UN permission each time they shoot?

I have no problem with folks disagreeing with some of the IDF's methods, it's a war, but they have to give alternative options for the IDF or it's all just pie in the sky.  Wouldn't you agree or am I completely off base?

Edited December 10, 2023 by Probus

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

 

On a side note, some of these liberal colleges that have been having pro-Hamas rallies are starting to get a taste of what it is they are supporting:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/6/chabad-screening-oct-7-hamas-attacks/

or this one:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181

The world shouldn't forget what Hamas did to start all of this violence.  I think the IDF believe that using extreme force in the short term will save lives (Israeli and Palestinian) in the long run.

Anyways, Is there a way in SF2 to simulate civilians in a building with rebels, where you get points for not destroying the building?

It's good that this is coming out.  Bizarre that Hamas is not concerned about the torture, beheading, burning alive etc.  But, very upset of being accused of raping.  Thank you for the links, Greg.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Erwin

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Probus said:

@The_Capt you are much, much more knowledgeable about the legalities of war than I am, but does the Geneva Convention even apply to this conflict?  According to what I'm hearing, it's ok for Hamas to use any methods available to them but for the IDF, it's a warcrime to:

• Flood Hamas' tunnels.
• Bomb buildings with Hamas fighters.
• Level a city that produces vicious terrorists by the 1000s.
• Attack sites launching rockets into Israel.
• On and on...

If you were the IDF general in charge of combat operations in Gaza what would you do? Risk warcrime accusations after the war or throw up your hands and say "I give up! - Cease fire"?

I don't think you can't put UN observers in there. That is just dangerous and counter productive.  Hamas, for one, would just kill or take them hostage whenever the situation presents itself.  And would the IDF have to ask UN permission each time they shoot?

I have no problem with folks disagreeing with some of the IDF's methods, it's a war, but they have to give alternative options for the IDF or it's all just pie in the sky.  Wouldn't you agree or am I completely off base?

If a party signed onto the conventions then they apply to every conflict they will find themselves within.  This would be why even the IDF have not started using chemical weapons.  As to your list:

"Level a city that produces vicious terrorist by the 1000s"....well yes.  There are no provisions to wipe out an entire city just because it produces threats.  You can target legitimate military targets in that city but wholescale destruction is against the law.  This would be why the US did not simply carpet bomb Fallujah or any other Iraqi city in the 00's.  We also did not do the same in Afghanistan.  The law says we play be the rules even when the other side does not.  "It is a war", yes that is my point entirely.  WW2 was not a "good" example of how we wanted to fight wars.  I know we have a lot of WW2 fans on a wargaming site but the consensus at the end of that was was that things got way out of hand.  So the international community, the same one that created the state of Israel, elected to stand up the LOAC framework.

At this point if I was an IDF general I suspect I would be fired for moving far too slowly because I would be looking at very deliberate tactical operations that I could defend at The Hague.  I would remove and an all troops who could be considered emotionally compromised from a kill chain and then make damned sure I had a lawyer in the JOC for every major shoot.  I would not devolve authority for airstrikes below my level.  I would have some pretty strict interpretations on the ROEs and enforce them.  When engaged I would not simple throw HE at a problem.  I would try a scalable approach to prove I did everything I could to reduce civilian casualties.  None of this is "pie in the sky".  Hamas is not a conventional military.  It is very light and insurgency like. Hamas is not going to counter-attack.  We have been fighting insurgencies for 20 years and not once employed what we see in Gaza right now.  It is miserable and slow work but there we are.  A lot of terrorist base are also not suicidal.  So isolation and time can play.  If you take fire return it in kind.  Nothing wrong with overmatch, but it needs to be scaled.  Take fire from a floor, return it.  Even hit it with a tank round.  I may kill any civilians in the same room as the terrorist, but I do not drop the whole freakin building unless I know htere are no civilians inside.

Why I would care so much about this is because I know my country has to live in this world once this is over.  My code of ethics, beaten into me since basic, says I will be righteous in delivering violence and committing homicide on behalf of my people.  If I cannot do that, then I should not be in the job.  It may take longer and take risks.  If I have soldiers who would rather they live and 20 Palestinian children need to die to make that happen, I want them out of my outfit.  I would relentlessly pursue and kill Hamas fighters and anything supporting them, but I am not going to kill civilians indiscriminately.  It may take years of slow steady pressure.  The political crisis in Israel because the PM and cabinet completely sh#t the bed on security is not my problem.  Waging the war legally is.

Then I would be looking for the civilian agencies to support the humanitarian fight and ensure we get between the civilians and the fighters.  Again, long hard and thankless work. And it may even fail.  But that is better then waging a war of extermination on a bunch of innocent people in the long run. [Not saying that is what Israel is doing definitively, but as a senior IDF leader it would be my primary concern.]  I have fought in an insurgency war and this is the gig.  We did not slaughter people when we took casualties, we went after the bomb makers.  We went after the leadership and we tried to get in between them and the people.  We even failed in the long run (less tactics, more politics) but we came away about as righteous as we could.  I did not shame myself or my people - and we kept the bad guys busy for a few years, so saved some lives there...I will take that. 

So slow, painful and legal is the alternative.  There is no fast, painless and legal in a war like this. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by The_Capt

[Erwin]

The challenge is that this is a war between people, on one side at least, who do not think like we do, do not have similar beliefs to what we have in the west, nor share our cultural values re valuing human life, and probably welcome martyrdom.  This reflects a similar problem we repeatedly see in the Ukrainian thread.  (Ditto Vietnam.)  Unless one has traveled widely in those nations or come from that culture, it is hard, maybe impossible, to understand what makes people from a different culture "tick" and what their underlying motivations and aspirations are.  

In WW2 the Allies slid into carpet bombing and mass killing of civilians because lesser actions did not appear to be gaining the desired result.  It's like two fanatic fighters who refuse to yield hitting each other harder, and harder... and harder still... in order to get the desired result.  

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The challenge is that this is a war between people, on one side at least, who do not think like we do, do not have similar beliefs to what we have in the west, nor share our cultural values re valuing human life, and probably welcome martyrdom.  This reflects a similar problem we repeatedly see in the Ukrainian thread.  (Ditto Vietnam.)  Unless one has traveled widely in those nations or come from that culture, it is hard, maybe impossible, to understand what makes people from a different culture "tick" and what their underlying motivations and aspirations are.  

In WW2 the Allies slid into carpet bombing and mass killing of civilians because lesser actions did not appear to be gaining the desired result.  It's like two fanatic fighters who refuse to yield hitting each other harder, and harder... and harder still... in order to get the desired result.  

I may buy this for the Hamas fighters and some true supporters.  But I am sure the daily stream of bloody children being hauled into barely functioning ERs are not ready to “welcome martyrdom”.  Their parents don’t seem on board with the idea either.  We have roughly 2 million Palestinians in Gaza and high estimates had Hamas at around 40k - those ranks may have swelled as people get on board with self-defence angles (frankly if I was on the receiving end of what the IDF has been throwing and my family was being pushed into a smaller and smaller area along with the other 2 million, I would likely pick up a gun too).

Hamas is a very small minority.  Now it may have had broad public support but even active support of a terror group is not a capital crime.  I am pretty sure the vast majority of Palestinians want to live, and live better than they have.  What and how that could be is well beyond me.  My comments are directed at the IDFs prosecution of this war and the LOAC.  Regardless of cultural norms (and in reality they really are not that different) the LOAC applies.  

Like AQ and ISIL, Hamas needs to die.  To do that they need to be pulled from the people and their idea needs to die - that is how terror organizations are destroyed.  That is a long term campaign heavy on intelligence, inter-agency spaces and SOF military actions.  Doing it with a heavy conventional force is not the normal way to go about this.  Doing it through deliberate systemic destruction on civilian homes and infrastructure with the intent that they never come back is a war crime under international law.

[OBJ]

I have been struggling to understand the concept of proportionality in the context of the current conflict in Gaza. This article was helpful to me. Apologies if it was previously shared. I did a search on the thread and didn't find it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillgoldenziel/2023/10/31/proportionality-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means-in-gaza/?sh=522a0e59345b

This was also helpful, current case study of IDF strike on Jabalia Camp with background on US/NATO practice in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza

Edited December 11, 2023 by OBJ

[Erwin]

We hopefully all agree that war is horrible and what is happening in West Bank is horrible.  But, HAMAS was elected by the citizens of the West Bank and... according to Google:  "A poll conducted after October 7 by a research organization known as the Arab World for Research and Development found that 62 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank have a “very positive” view of Hamas and 68 percent “extremely support” the attacks of October 7.Nov 29, 2023" 

It's easy to pontificate from the safety of our western lives.  But, we have to bear in mind how we would feel if our own spouses had been cut to pieces, raped and our children been burned alive in the Oct 7 attacks.  I certainly do not feel able to judge their extreme reactions.  

 

 

[The_Capt]

12 hours ago, OBJ said:

I have been struggling to understand the concept of proportionality in the context of the current conflict in Gaza. This article was helpful to me. Apologies if it was previously shared. I did a search on the thread and didn't find it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillgoldenziel/2023/10/31/proportionality-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-means-in-gaza/?sh=522a0e59345b

This was also helpful, current case study of IDF strike on Jabalia Camp with background on US/NATO practice in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza

That is an excellent article from Forbes.  Proportionally is a tricky and slippery concept.  It is also highly subjective.  For example, if an IDF CO has intel that a Hamas commander is in a building with civilians.  What is the real military advantage of taking out a Hamas commander and a few fighters?  Now if that same Hamas commander is in a C4ISR node within that building the equation changes.  If that C4ISR node is critical to Hamas’ rocket program it changes again.  There will be a point where taking out that entire building and accepting civilian casualties is a righteous (and legal) shoot.

My concern at this point is that is IDF appears to be taking out around 10-20 building per hour.  Hamas does not have that many high military value targets to begin with.  The idea that these are all righteous begins to strain with every passing day.  It brings into question whether Israel is applying the principle legally.

[The_Capt]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

We hopefully all agree that war is horrible and what is happening in West Bank is horrible.  But, HAMAS was elected by the citizens of the West Bank and... according to Google:  "A poll conducted after October 7 by a research organization known as the Arab World for Research and Development found that 62 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank have a “very positive” view of Hamas and 68 percent “extremely support” the attacks of October 7.Nov 29, 2023" 

It's easy to pontificate from the safety of our western lives.  But, we have to bear in mind how we would feel if our own spouses had been cut to pieces, raped and our children been burned alive in the Oct 7 attacks.  I certainly do not feel able to judge their extreme reactions.  

 

 

First off, nowhere in international law does voting for a violent extremist organization or even supporting them negate the law of armed conflict.  The fact that Hamas is a terror organization immediately brings into question the validity of both their election processes and any polling of support.

It is not for you, or I, to judge the IDF actions.  That will be the job of the international criminal justice system to decide.  All I can do as a professional military officer is look at the situation and comment that an investigation will likely be needed.  There is suspicion here, not assigned guilt.  As to “pontificating” well we in the west have been blessed with a level of objectivity that Israel does not currently have.  So it is really our job to say “hey wait a minute”.  The UN tried that and the champion of the Rules Based International order just vetoed it…so we may have a larger problem.

As to brutality.  Well indiscriminate and illegal strikes that result in innocent Palestinian lives being lost are not solving, nor are they justice for, what Hamas did on 7 Oct.  In fact they are likely to make things much worse.  Even more perverse, Israel’s reaction to 7 Oct is likely playing into exactly what Hamas wanted out of that attack in the first place.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

We hopefully all agree that war is horrible and what is happening in West Bank is horrible.  But, HAMAS was elected by the citizens of the West Bank and... according to Google:  "A poll conducted after October 7 by a research organization known as the Arab World for Research and Development found that 62 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank have a “very positive” view of Hamas and 68 percent “extremely support” the attacks of October 7.Nov 29, 2023" 

It's easy to pontificate from the safety of our western lives.  But, we have to bear in mind how we would feel if our own spouses had been cut to pieces, raped and our children been burned alive in the Oct 7 attacks.  I certainly do not feel able to judge their extreme reactions. 

That logic goes two ways though. I think most of us here on this forum would also support Hamas, if we happened to have been born in Gaza. Who are we to judge their extreme reactions?

And by the same logic, terror attacks on US citizens would also be ok, because after all, the USA killed X number of civilians in Y country under president Z, and since that president was democratically elected by a majority of Americans, well, they are all fair game.

[The_Capt]

58 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

That logic goes two ways though. I think most of us here on this forum would also support Hamas, if we happened to have been born in Gaza. Who are we to judge their extreme reactions?

And by the same logic, terror attacks on US citizens would also be ok, because after all, the USA killed X number of civilians in Y country under president Z, and since that president was democratically elected by a majority of Americans, well, they are all fair game.

That is why that sort of logic is factored out of international law.  People in a democracy who support poor government decisions end up paying for it in the end.  However, there are no provisions in international law to punish them directly with violence.  In fact that would be extremely corrosive to the promotion of democracy worldwide - why support a system whereby I can be killed for what my elected government does?  At least if we have a dictator, I have some excuse and perhaps they won’t bomb me.  

I have no doubt Hamas did/does have Palestinian support.  The problem now is that they are likely to get more support, not less.  Hamas may even be destroyed but there will be another organization that looks just like it coming after.  It will be dining out on this entire war for generations.  Israel is going to remain regionally isolated.  And at this rate may very well be globally isolated - a NK of the Middle East.  If the winds shift in the US, Israel could looking at a Syria in envy in a few years at the current trajectory.

To be brutally cynical, I think the pace and intensity of the IDF actions are less about Israeli national security at this point and more about Netanyahu and his administration trying to save their own @sses.  The security failure of 7 Oct was so egregious that there are people in positions of power that could be facing charges of criminal negligence.  Politically Netanyahu is so badly burned that his legacy is basically over.  But so long as they can show “progress” in Gaza there is a chance they can keep the whole goose from being cooked.  While I support the destruction of Hamas, Israeli security integrity and the use of military power under the definitions of international law to make those first two happen; I do not support violations of the LOAC in order to try and save an Israeli PM his job after he threw up all over himself.

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Who are we to judge their extreme reactions?

I don't want to beat a dead horse here as I can understand what you are trying to say.  But, burning people alive, beheading babies, cutting off breasts, mutilating, raping and then killing females...  We haven't seen anything like that since ISIS, and before that medieval atrocities...  Whatever Hamas was hoping to achieve, at this point it is understandable why Israel wants and needs to eliminate Hamas by any means possible - like we did with ISIS with no public outrage.  

What has also been an ugly development is the antisemitism and denial of the Oct 7 attacks being demonstrated at (some of) our elite universities.  That is also shocking.  

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

I don't want to beat a dead horse here as I can understand what you are trying to say.  But, burning people alive, beheading babies, cutting off breasts, mutilating, raping and then killing females...  We haven't seen anything like that since ISIS, and before that medieval atrocities...  Whatever Hamas was hoping to achieve, at this point it is understandable why Israel wants and needs to eliminate Hamas by any means possible - like we did with ISIS with no public outrage.  

What has also been an ugly development is the antisemitism and denial of the Oct 7 attacks being demonstrated at (some of) our elite universities.  That is also shocking.  

It is clear that Hamas murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians on Oct. 7. Including some children. But cutting heads off babies.. I have not seen any credible evidence of that.

But it does bring to mind the old story that "Iraqi soldiers ripped babies from incubators" story. Which was later found to be a complete fabrication in order to stoke anger and support for the Iraq war.

[Erwin]

We all understand that the first casualty of war is the truth.  However this link seems to be pretty explicit about what Hamas did on Oct 7:  

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shows-foreign-press-raw-hamas-bodycam-videos-of-murder-torture-decapitation/

eg: "...some 43 minutes of harrowing scenes of murder, torture and decapitation from Hamas’s October 7 onslaught on southern Israel, in which over 1,400 people were killed, including raw videos from the terrorists’ bodycams...  ...included in the raw footage reel were those of a decapitated soldier, several charred human remains including those of young children..."

One can claim, as many Palestinian supporters do, that it's all fake news.  To your point...  In these days of "deep fakes", anything is possible I suppose...  

 

[Anthony P.]

It's a bit "genocide Olympics": is there some kind of moral red line which Hamas didn't cross by not beheading babies (instead of "just" brutally murdering them) or which Saddam's soldiers didn't cross by not killing babies in incubators (as opposed to the many, many innocent civilians whom they gladly murdered)?

What they can be proven beyond a doubt to have done places them at the bottom of morality's cesspool, frantically digging to reach deeper still.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Anthony P.

[Centurian52]

There is a fallacy that I think it would be helpful for people to understand for this discussion. Unfortunately logicians (really all academics) prior to the 21st century had an unhealthy obsession with Latin, so it goes by the difficult to pronounce (and harder to remember) name "Tu Quoque", which apparently translates as "you also". This fallacy is committed anytime someone asserts "they broke the rules, therefore I am allowed to break the rules". If you want a more memorable name, I believe people started calling this "Whataboutism" sometime within the last decade or so. 

https://www.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/Tu Quoque.html

The rules being broken does not invalidate the rules. Because Hamas broke the rules does not give the IDF, or anyone else, license to break the rules. If the question is "is the IDF following the rules", it is entirely irrelevant to reply with a list of all the rules Hamas has broken. We all know that Hamas has broken the rules. But how is that relevant to whether or not the IDF has broken the rules? 

There is no grading on a curve. It is not necessary, or even relevant, to ask which side was worse when considering whether or not one side conducted their actions legally.

[Probus]

Unconventional warfare sure does bring up a lot of good questions.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Unconventional warfare sure does bring up a lot of good questions.

Shoulda been here after 9/11…now that was intense.  

Edit:  what a terrible mess:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-seeks-sustainable-ceasefire-in-gaza-alongside-australia-new-zealand-pms-1.6684164

Edited December 13, 2023 by The_Capt

[Holien]

9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Shoulda been here after 9/11…now that was intense

Hmmm I wonder if mistakes were made after that where folk used the incident for their own political ends which then had / continue to have impacts today.

Pity we don't learn from our past. 

BTW I predict further forced migration to Europe, the Russian playbook being used by others...

Maybe some folk do learn?

Anyway thanks @The_Capt for trying to explain that there is another way of doing things which would be legal and still deal with the scum of Hamas.

[Bulletpoint]

Even Biden now calls Israel's bombing of Gaza "indiscriminate", something which has been pretty obvious for a long time, yet vehemently denied by Israel's supporters.

 

Only 10 countries voted against a UN General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire:

 

"Israel voted against Tuesday's resolution along with the US, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Austria, the Czech Republic, Guatemala, Liberia, Micronesia and Nauru"

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/12/middleeast/ceasefire-vote-gaza-israel-un-intl/index.html

[Erwin]

12 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Because Hamas broke the rules does not give the IDF, or anyone else, license to break the rules. If the question is "is the IDF following the rules",

That would be lovely.  But it sounds akin to a Napoleonic era sense of "gentlemen's rules" and rather 19th century.  War has no rules - if you want to win.  We didn't have to drop nukes on Japan.  It was estimated it would cost over 100,000 US lives to conduct an invasion, and Japan still wouldn't surrender until after the 2nd nuke AND Soviet invasion of the N. Islands.  Hamas opened up a can of worms by committing atrocities, and a violent reaction is only human.  When someone hits you you should be able to hit back much harder.  Weak nations use mines and threaten biological/chemical war as those are great equalizers vs the tech superiority of industrialized nations - almost entirely (until recently), "the west".  So, natch... rules are created that ban mines and chem/bio etc.  Have always considered that we live in a dangerous and insecure world with a thin and fragile veneer of "civilization" covering up our very violent human natures.  A long period of relative peace has made our younger (snowflake?) generation(s) think that life can be made totally safe and rules-based.  War is horribly ugly and the only rule is to win as fast as possible - and that means permanently removing the enemy threat.  

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

That would be lovely.  But it sounds akin to a Napoleonic era sense of "gentlemen's rules" and rather 19th century.  War has no rules - if you want to win.  We didn't have to drop nukes on Japan.  It was estimated it would cost over 100,000 US lives to conduct an invasion, and Japan still wouldn't surrender until after the 2nd nuke AND Soviet invasion of the N. Islands.  Hamas opened up a can of worms by committing atrocities, and a violent reaction is only human.  When someone hits you you should be able to hit back much harder.  Weak nations use mines and threaten biological/chemical war as those are great equalizers vs the tech superiority of industrialized nations - almost entirely (until recently), "the west".  So, natch... rules are created that ban mines and chem/bio etc.  Have always considered that we live in a dangerous and insecure world with a thin and fragile veneer of "civilization" covering up our very violent human natures.  A long period of relative peace has made our younger (snowflake?) generation(s) think that life can be made totally safe and rules-based.  War is horribly ugly and the only rule is to win as fast as possible - and that means permanently removing the enemy threat.  

You do realize that the laws of armed conflict were written because all of the unconstrained warfare of the 19th and early 20th century?  They started with The Hague conventions in 1899 - and in fact the Lieber Code in the 1860 kicked things off.  The main purpose is to try and remember that there is a world states need to live in after the war.

But ok, let’s buy into your framework for a second.  So the Russian massacres in Ukraine in places like Bucha, deportation of children, along with the civilian terror missile strikes they have been waging…where do we sit in those?  Because in your framework we will be unable to prosecute or hold to account because Russia is only trying “to win as fast as possible”?

As to chemical or even nuclear weapons.  Well Hamas would now live under the same framework.  First off, we could not even prosecute for all the horrors they committed.  Second there would be zero legal restraint in Russia or Iran supplying Hamas with chemical or even nuclear weapons.  In fact under the framework you describe Hamas could legally employ them to “hit harder”.

The problem with “only one rule of war” thinking is that people forget that it applies universally.  What they more often mean is “the opponent has to follow the rules but we don’t”. Or they really mean “well let’s ditch these ‘rules’ but keep those ones”.

Lastly, the Rule of Might led directly to both WW1 & 2, the fact that the US had to “nuke Japan” is a bad thing you realize?  Both those wars were not “good news” and sparked a lot of our attempts to reign in warfare.  Legal restraint is designed to curtail the escalations we saw in both World Wars because they were bad for humanity.  

We do live with a thin veneer of civilization, that much is true.  But why would we abandoned the laws that hold that veneer together.  I mean, how does that make things better?

 

[Bulletpoint]

It's easy to get tangled up in all the details about what "they" did and what "we" did and how of course we are justified because X, Y, and Z while they are definitely not. Exact same arguments on both sides, and the discussion never ends.

But I think there's a bigger thing at stake here. The entire Western culture is built on the ideas that we adhere to higher principles, rule of law, human rights, equality etc.

This soft power is what makes people in small countries like my own believe that we are not mere vassals of the US, as the Russians call us, but allies fighting for the same cause.

This is also why we rally behind the US when it comes to Ukraine. We don't want to live in a world dominated by Russia, because that's not a world based on those principles.

If the only difference between living under the US or Russia is whether I get sent to Siberia or Guantanamo if the government decides it doesn't like me, or whether I get assassinated by poison tea or a reaper drone, then why should I care who rules the world?

We're still not in a world where the US and Russia are equally bad. But I feel the US is moving in that direction with this support for Israeli war crimes, which is of course exactly what Russia wants.

Russia wants to leave people in the West confused, divided, indifferent and cynical about everything. If the Hamas attack was somehow orchestrated by the Kremlin, then that was a very effective move.