Israel-Hamas Thread II

[Landon Caeli]

As I wrote in a prior thread:

"To destroy Hamas, Isreal is aiming to destroy the underground tunnel network that covers the entirety of Gaza. Given how extensive the network is and Hamas' propensity to locate their high value military targets near mosque, hospitals etc, Israel is faced with the challenge of how to destroy the tunnels while minimizing human life. It also appears Israel has no inention of sending it's troops into the tunnels given the high risk factor. In the case of the Jabaliya neighborhood, at least two 2,000-pound bombs were used in a densely populated area. The human toll from such a decion would be obvious to the Israeli government.

Israel state's it was targetting a high level Hamas commander as well as tunnel infrastrcure.

Is killing so many civilians justfified? I'm not convinced it is.

Once more, given the situation, we'll see many more Jabaliya like bombings in the days and weeks ahead. Thousands of civilians will die as a result."

The law of armed conflict says the incidental killing of and harm to civilians and damage to objects must not exceed the direct military advantage to be gained. The Geneva Conventions, the widely accepted basis for international humanitarian law and codes of warfare, were adopted in 1949 with the aim of preventing governments from inflicting the level of mass casualties of World War II.

But wait, wasn't the Jabalia neighborhood where the mastermind of the Oct. 7 attack was located, and killed?

If so, that would have been the most essential target of all, leaving me to believe no such further use of the big bombs should be expected.

 

[wing2000]

But wait, wasn't the Jabalia neighborhood where the mastermind of the Oct. 7 attack was located, and killed?

If so, that would have been the most essential target of all, leaving me to believe no such further use of the big bombs should be expected.

I expect there will be more "high value" military targets in the days to come. And the fact remains, in order to destroy the underground Hamas infrastructure in population centers, Israeli bombs will have to detroy the buildings above....

Here's another take on the question I posed:

"....before we can decide whether an airstrike was proportional or not, we would need much more information than we are actually privy to. To begin with, there’s the information on which the Israeli targeters who planned the strike based their decisions, relating to not only the risk of civilian casualties (which in many cases are more or less guaranteed) but also the steps they took to minimise them (such as selection of munitions type, attack timing and approach). The newly appointed UN special representative for human rights and counterterrorism, Australia’s own Ben Saul noted this challenge in categorising an airstrike as breaching international law in a recent interview.

The recent attacks on targets in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza provide a case in point. The first strike was alleged to have killed 50 Palestinians and wounded 150 more. The Israelis claim that the first strike killed Ibrahim Biari, a key planner of the 7 October attacks and allegedly commander of the northern Gaza sector, while the second strike killed the commander of Hamas’s anti-armoured forces. It also claimed that other Hamas fighters were killed in the strike because it destroyed a Hamas command post built underneath the refugee camp. This reflects the nature of decisions that need to be made in conflicts such as this.

Assuming that both parties’ claims about casualties in Jabalia are true, Hamas clearly breached international law by deliberately building a militarily key target among the civilian population. The military necessity of the target—the headquarters of Hamas’s northern Gaza defence—is readily apparent. But was the loss of 50 Palestinian lives proportional to the military advantage Israel gained in conducting the strike? Were there other ways of disabling Biari’s ability to coordinate Hamas’s defence without killing him, other Hamas fighters and 50 Palestinians? Or was the opportunity to kill Biari a fleeting one, where firm intelligence placed him at that precise point but for only a limited time, precluding other methods of disabling his command? That is the type of information needed to make an informed judgement on the legality of strikes.

Civilian deaths and proportionality in the Israel–Hamas war | The Strategist

Since the Israeli response to the 7 October terrorist attack by Hamas began, the world’s focus has shifted onto Israel’s prosecution of its military campaign. But in an era where information (and misinformation) can be ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Landon Caeli]

I expect there will be more "high value" military targets in the days to come. And the fact remains, in order to destroy the underground Hamas infrastructure in population centers, Israeli bombs will have to detroy the buildings above....

Here's another take on the question I posed:

"....before we can decide whether an airstrike was proportional or not, we would need much more information than we are actually privy to. To begin with, there’s the information on which the Israeli targeters who planned the strike based their decisions, relating to not only the risk of civilian casualties (which in many cases are more or less guaranteed) but also the steps they took to minimise them (such as selection of munitions type, attack timing and approach). The newly appointed UN special representative for human rights and counterterrorism, Australia’s own Ben Saul noted this challenge in categorising an airstrike as breaching international law in a recent interview.

The recent attacks on targets in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza provide a case in point. The first strike was alleged to have killed 50 Palestinians and wounded 150 more. The Israelis claim that the first strike killed Ibrahim Biari, a key planner of the 7 October attacks and allegedly commander of the northern Gaza sector, while the second strike killed the commander of Hamas’s anti-armoured forces. It also claimed that other Hamas fighters were killed in the strike because it destroyed a Hamas command post built underneath the refugee camp. This reflects the nature of decisions that need to be made in conflicts such as this.

Assuming that both parties’ claims about casualties in Jabalia are true, Hamas clearly breached international law by deliberately building a militarily key target among the civilian population. The military necessity of the target—the headquarters of Hamas’s northern Gaza defence—is readily apparent. But was the loss of 50 Palestinian lives proportional to the military advantage Israel gained in conducting the strike? Were there other ways of disabling Biari’s ability to coordinate Hamas’s defence without killing him, other Hamas fighters and 50 Palestinians? Or was the opportunity to kill Biari a fleeting one, where firm intelligence placed him at that precise point but for only a limited time, precluding other methods of disabling his command? That is the type of information needed to make an informed judgement on the legality of strikes.

Civilian deaths and proportionality in the Israel–Hamas war | The Strategist

Since the Israeli response to the 7 October terrorist attack by Hamas began, the world’s focus has shifted onto Israel’s prosecution of its military campaign. But in an era where information (and misinformation) can be ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I'm curious what the legality is when factoring in that rockets are still being fired from Gaza into Israel.

I would assume, that if Hamas was at a cease-fire, and was simply running away, that it would be more inappropriate for Israel to bomb as they do.

...But if Israel is still actively under attack, where their own citizens are in danger, I don't know what international law expects them to do with Hamas hiding among civilians - seems more like an emergency situation to defend themselves.

 

[Landon Caeli]

There is no inconsistency. Palestinian views of homosexuality and women's rights doesn't justify Israeli war crimes. Palestinians are made in the image of God, too.

Is it a war crime though? If your country is actively under attack, being bombarded with missiles from various directions, from a multitude of countries?

What level of responsibility does the international community expect them to uphold in such a situation?

 

[FireDragon76]

Is it a war crime though? If your country is actively under attack, being bombarded with missiles from various directions?

Military action that harms civilians must be proportional to military objectives. Hamas' actions cannot justify slaughtering civilians.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Military action that harms civilians must be proportional to military objectives. Hamas' actions cannot justify slaughtering civilians.

Even if they're being bombarded from 3 different countries? We're going to say that we expect perfect behavior from Israel?

I'm not sure that's a realistic expectation, considering human error/ decision-making tendencies.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Even if they're being bombarded from 3 different countries?

How do you justify killing Gazan civilians due to rocket attacks from Hezbollah and the Houthis from other countries? Shouldn't the Israelis at least be killing random Lebanese and Yemeni citizens?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Military action that harms civilians must be proportional to military objectives. Hamas' actions cannot justify slaughtering civilians.

The question is, in a practical sense, how can Israel avoid collateral damage to any significant degree when the entire MO of Hamas is to violate the the Geneva Conventions, while simultaneously setting unavoidable "Geneva Convention booby traps" with regards to military objectives because they know all of the blame will go on Israel.

If you have an entity where they go out of their way to put the entrances to the tunnels either in or next to residential homes, use Mosques as armories, use decoy ambulances as troop transporters, and force the neighborhood kids to either stand on the leaders' roofs, or stand 3 feet away from Hamas fighters when they're operating launchers. How do you do anything at that point within that framework?

Constraining Israel to the framework of "Either avoid civilian casualties or you're committing war crimes"...that leaves them only with the option of staying with the status quo, which is where Hamas gets to keep doing whatever they want, and Israel has to rely solely on iron dome.

And it's not as if Israel can just back down. A Hamas leader had this to say (in the aftermath of the initial attack)
A Hamas official has vowed to repeat the horrific terror attacks on Israel “again and again” until the country is completely destroyed, insisting it has “no place on our land.”

“The al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time and there will be a second, a third, a fourth because we have the determination, the resolve and the capabilities to fight,” Hamad said in a television interview republished by British outlets Wednesday.

“We are called a nation of martyrs and are proud to sacrifice martyrs,”

“We are not ashamed to say this, with full force. We must teach Israel a lesson and we will do this again and again.”

 

[FireDragon76]

The question is, in a practical sense, how can Israel avoid collateral damage to any significant degree when the entire MO of Hamas is to violate the the Geneva Conventions, while simultaneously setting unavoidable "Geneva Convention booby traps" with regards to military objectives because they know all of the blame will go on Israel.

If you have an entity where they go out of their way to put the entrances to the tunnels either in or next to residential homes, use Mosques as armories, use decoy ambulances as troop transporters, and force the neighborhood kids to either stand on the leaders' roofs, or stand 3 feet away from Hamas fighters when they're operating launchers. How do you do anything at that point within that framework?

Constraining Israel to the framework of "Either avoid civilian casualties or you're committing war crimes"...that leaves them only with the option of staying with the status quo, which is where Hamas gets to keep doing whatever they want, and Israel has to rely solely on iron dome.

And it's not as if Israel can just back down. A Hamas leader had this to say (in the aftermath of the initial attack)
A Hamas official has vowed to repeat the horrific terror attacks on Israel “again and again” until the country is completely destroyed, insisting it has “no place on our land.”

“The al-Aqsa Flood is just the first time and there will be a second, a third, a fourth because we have the determination, the resolve and the capabilities to fight,” Hamad said in a television interview republished by British outlets Wednesday.

“We are called a nation of martyrs and are proud to sacrifice martyrs,”

“We are not ashamed to say this, with full force. We must teach Israel a lesson and we will do this again and again.”

The bigger issue is what are the strategic goals of Israel in Gaza to lend credibility to the notion that Israel is acting lawfully? Blockading, starving and bombarding a dense urban area in a vain act of retaliation is not the behavior of a civilized country that respects human dignity, nor will it bring long-term peace in the region. Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders can be easily replaced, and if Israel continues its war on these terms, it won't be hard to get many aggrevied Palestinians to join the cause.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The bigger issue is what are the strategic goals of Israel in Gaza to lend credibility to the notion that Israel is acting lawfully? Blockading, starving and bombarding a dense urban area in a vain act of retaliation is not the behavior of a civilized country that respects human dignity, nor will it bring long-term peace in the region. Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders can be easily replaced, and if Israel continues its war on these terms, it won't be hard to get many aggrevied Palestinians to join the cause.

But can it really be called a vain act of retaliation given what the Hamas leader/spokesman said?

"We're going to do this a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time...we'll keep doing this until Israel no longer exists"


For instance, if I just tried to burn your house down, and in the aftermath, I said "and I'm going to come back a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time, until your house is no longer in our development", but the neighbors made some rules saying "well, you can take action, but can't proactively pursue Rob as long as he's standing in the community park" (and you knew all of the police in the area have a bias in my favor and had every interest in making you look bad, and the fire department was 45 minutes away).

How many times are you going play minimally reactive defense with the fire extinguisher after I set a fire and then sprint back to the park and yell "Base...you can't touch me" before you eventually just say "to heck with the stupid park rule...everyone in the park, you've been warned, get out because I'm going in there to end this nonsense"

 

[FireDragon76]

But can it really be called a vain act of retaliation given what the Hamas leader/spokesman said?

"We're going to do this a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time...we'll keep doing this until Israel no longer exists"


For instance, if I just tried to burn your house down, and in the aftermath, I said "and I'm going to come back a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time, until your house is no longer in our development", but the neighbors made some rules saying "well, you can take action, but can't proactively pursue Rob as long as he's standing in the community park" (and you knew all of the police in the area have a bias in my favor and had every interest in making you look bad, and the fire department was 45 minutes away).

If one country attacks another country, that doesn't justify destroying the other country in an act of revenge. The laws of war permit a defending nation to eliminate the capacity of the aggressor nation to pose a military threat (something Netenyahu could have easily done with more border security instead of using the Israeli military to bully Palestinians near illegal settlements on the West Bank), it doesn't justify any act of aggression in the name of retaliation.

 

[Landon Caeli]

How do you justify killing Gazan civilians due to rocket attacks from Hezbollah and the Houthis from other countries? Shouldn't the Israelis at least be killing random Lebanese and Yemeni citizens?

"Shouldn't the Israelis at least be killing random Lebanese and Yemeni citizens?"... That's illogical thinking. It's also illogical to keep quiet about Hezbollah and Hamas firing rockets randomly into Iarael, targeting civilians, but then complain about Israel.

...People act like the terrorists get a free pass because it's expected, while Israel is held to the standard of Right Hand of God.

I think it's anti-semitic to hold Jews to a higher standard, as if they're more culpable than regular people because of their status as Jews. But no, they're normal people.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The laws of war permit a defending nation to eliminate the capacity of the aggressor nation to pose a military threat (something Netenyahu could have easily done with more border security instead of using the Israeli military to bully Palestinians.....

How can tighter border security guarantee that the rockets being fired on Israel will stop? Seems like they can fly them clear over the border.

...Seems like people *want* Israel citizens to have to live in a state of constant fear of terrorist attacks.

 

[DaisyDay]

Wait it's illegal to detain people who are in Israel illegally? I find that hard to believe.

It would definitely be wrong to abuse those taken into custody though.

I'm sure Qatar knows exactly what Hamas has and has not done and where they've put all the tunnels.

Why are people so quick to believe supporters of terrorists?

The workers were there legally with work permits - with a 16 year long blockade by land, air and sea, unemployment has skyrocketed. Their permits were revoked without warning and the people arrested. Kind of a dirty trick, imo.

 

[FireDragon76]

How can tighter border security guarantee that the rockets being fired on Israel will stop? Seems like they can fly them clear over the border.

Israel has the Iron Dome. Hardly any of the rockets actually hit anything important in Israel, if they hit anything at all.

Likud got caught with their pants down and now Netenyahu is using the war as a political distraction from his own governments lack of any realistic handling of the Palestinian question short of slow-motion genocide. I am doubtful he has any real strategic aims long term except that. Remember your Catholic moral theology, in order for a war to be just it has to have a realistic and achievable conclusion.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Maybe the UN should formally declare that terrorism is okay and acceptable for certain groups, but certain other groups must be held to higher standards, to as to equalize the impact of war.

...Does anyone think that's a good idea for equality? I know you do!

 

[Landon Caeli]

Israel has the Iron Dome. Hardly any of the rockets actually hit anything important in Israel, if they hit anything at all.

Likud got caught with their pants down and now Netenyahu is using the war as a political distraction from his own governments lack of any realistic handling of the Palestinian question short of genocide. I am doubtful he has any real strategic aims long term except that. Remember your Catholic moral theology, in order for a war to be just it has to have a realistic and achievable conclusion.

The iron Dome does not make targeting civilians okay, second of all, the end goal is to remove Hamas - which is a justified and worthy goal... Right? Or not..?

...Let's agree that eliminating Hamas is not genocide.

 

[DaisyDay]

As I wrote in a prior thread:

"To destroy Hamas, Isreal is aiming to destroy the underground tunnel network that covers the entirety of Gaza. Given how extensive the network is and Hamas' propensity to locate their high value military targets near mosque, hospitals etc, Israel is faced with the challenge of how to destroy the tunnels while minimizing human life. It also appears Israel has no inention of sending it's troops into the tunnels given the high risk factor. In the case of the Jabaliya neighborhood, at least two 2,000-pound bombs were used in a densely populated area. The human toll from such a decion would be obvious to the Israeli government.

Israel state's it was targetting a high level Hamas commander as well as tunnel infrastrcure.

Is killing so many civilians justfified? I'm not convinced it is.

Once more, given the situation, we'll see many more Jabaliya like bombings in the days and weeks ahead. Thousands of civilians will die as a result."

The law of armed conflict says the incidental killing of and harm to civilians and damage to objects must not exceed the direct military advantage to be gained. The Geneva Conventions, the widely accepted basis for international humanitarian law and codes of warfare, were adopted in 1949 with the aim of preventing governments from inflicting the level of mass casualties of World War II.

Perspective - When war goes underground: Understanding Hamas's tunnel network

An author whose book has become a reference for those trying to understand Hamas's tunnel network and its impact on the current war has told FRANCE 24 that Israel must eventually enter them to ensure…

www.france24.com

An author whose book has become a reference for those trying to understand Hamas's tunnel network and its impact on the current war has told FRANCE 24 that Israel must eventually enter them to ensure their destruction. Daphné Richemond-Barak started her book "Underground Warfare" 10 years ago, when one of the first large Hamas tunnels into Israel was discovered. Her book documents the use of tunnels in many conflicts, including Vietnam and even World War I. She spoke to us [FRANCE 24] in Perspective. ​

I don't comprehend how extensive the tunnel system in Gaza is but they've had 56 years to build it and improve on it. If the Israelis collapse the tunnels, they may very well kill the hostages in them.

 

[FireDragon76]

The iron Dome does not make targeting civilians okay

That works both ways. A few hamas lieutenants hiding among civilians doesn't make leveling city blocks OK, either.

, second of all, the end goal is to remove Hamas - a justified and worthy goal.

That's not an achievable goal. The US tried to destroy the Taliban and that didn't work out, either. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are ideologies that persist as long as the conditions are right. Israel playing whack-a-mole with JDAM's in Gaza at the civilians' expense isn't just.

 

[DaisyDay]

The iron Dome does not make targeting civilians okay, second of all, the end goal is to remove Hamas - which is a justified and worthy goal... Right? Or not..?

...Let's agree that eliminating Hamas is not genocide.

Let's agree that eliminating the resident Palestinians would be genocide.