# airstrikes on Gaza **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856 "2014-07-11T14:55:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/61 "2014-07-11T17:44:50Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I don’t really think that’s a better analogy in terms of capturing the relative scale of the two actions. The Israeli response has been to kill 100 people (so far). Hamas doesn’t appear to have a gun that big. > > Again, Hamas being in the wrong doesn’t necessarily make Israel in the right. > > I certainly agree that that’s _more_ disproportionate. And of course we can find even worse examples than that. Well I suppose to some, an unguided rocket could be more similar to a shove than an bullet but I’m not in that camp. But you keep saying things like “Israeli response has been to kill 100 people”. You’ve gone and mixed consequence with intent. The Israeli response has not been to kill civilians (Hamas’ is by the way) it has been to attack rocket launch sites deliberately placed amongst civilians and consequently some of those civilians have died. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/62 "2014-07-11T17:45:00Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ though, right? > > Isn’t it possible that the reason that Hamas has so far succeeded in killing 0 Israeli civilians is a) their (Hamas’) equipment sucks, b) their training sucks, c) Iron Dome works, or d) some combination of the above? > > Is there any reason to believe that the airstrikes themselves are the reason Hamas haven’t managed to kill any Israeli civilians? It’s a reasonable assumption that having their crew and equipment constantly blown up (and the constant threat of same) has _something_ to do with the fact that their success rate is very low. It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine that (a) success in rocket attacks depends on experienced crew and careful ranging and other preparations and (b) the constant threat of being targeted and destroyed screws up careful preparations, and a high death rate among crew limits their overall level of experience. These conclusions do not discount that all the factors you mention are also operating. Again, these are all assumptions - we know (or at least, I know) very little about Hamas rocket crews. However, they are not, I think, unreasonable assumptions. I do not think that this is a post hoc fallacy, as there is a reasonable mechanism of causation at work here. It isn’t like saying ‘the rooster crows and then the sun rises, so the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise’. On the reasonable assumptions above - just taking them for granted for the moment, for the sake of argument - that Israeli airstrikes are causally connected to Hamas lack of success, then it makes no sense to take Hamas lack of success as proof of Israeli “brutality”. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/63 "2014-07-11T17:46:46Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > When South Africa eliminated apartheid, all the white folks were afraid that there was going to be a white genocide and it didn’t happen. Had black South Africans sworn to wipe out the whites? To drive them into the sea? Had there been a fifty-year history of black terrorism against whites? Great analogy. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/64 "2014-07-11T17:48:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What is Hamas demanding? Specifically now, I mean, not “drive the Jews into the sea,” which might be the sort of general policy-goal they pretty much always have to say in their political context. I don’t know what you can do about Hamas but the other arab nations (including Mahmoud Abbas but not the representative from Hamas) have offered peace terms ([Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/65 "2014-07-11T17:57:10Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t know what you can do about Hamas but the other arab nations (including Mahmoud Abbas but not the representative from Hamas) have offered peace terms ([Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)). But what’s the point of making peace with guys who are not the guys you’re at war with? For that price, why bother with any of these Arab nations? I’ll offer to make peace with the Israelis at far better terms. Point is that making “peace” is only relevant if all the parties actually at war make peace. Otherwise you get nothing, and any concessions at all are pointless. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/66 "2014-07-11T17:58:58Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why do you feel this is a key point? Is Israel only allowed to respond with deadly force to an attack on their sovereign territory if it’s citizens are killed? Otherwise it’s no harm, no foul?? What other country in the world would restrain itself if it came under external/outside direct attack? Do you feel the number of people killed makes no difference? If, say, China were to sink a South Korean merchant ship, would the same response be appropriate as would be if they nuked Seoul? (That’s a way more extreme example, but my point is just that not all attacks are equivalent, nor do they justify an equivalent response.) > [@](#): > > Others have already done so, with the usual results. Would you, instead, care to defend Hamas here? They decided to attack Israel from within the shelter of their own people, knowing what the response would be and knowing that it would be their own people who would take the brunt of the retaliation. Would you care to defend this action from a moral standpoint? No, I wouldn’t. I think Hamas’s actions here are morally wrong. As I’ve said, it does not necessarily follow from that that Israel’s response is either morally justified or in their own best interest, which are the questions I’d like to debate in this thread. > [@](#): > > They could send in troops I guess. Or use artillery. Or basically do nothing. That’s about all the options available. Doing nothing doesn’t seem a viable option What do you think would be the consequences of doing nothing militarily? > [@](#): > > They didn’t initiate hostilities, so this entire thing wasn’t supposed to be in their interests…it’s a reaction to an attack. Of course Israel would rather not be attacked at all, but still, some responses to an attack are more likely to serve their interests than others. > [@](#): > > Again…would you care to tackle justifying Hamas actions in moral terms? Again…no I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/67 "2014-07-11T18:00:41Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I’m surprised there isn’t already a thread on this (or maybe I just missed it). Now up to 100 Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli airstrikes, and hundreds more injured. [Gaza crisis: Death toll from Israeli strikes 'hits 100' - BBC News](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28263669) > > So far as I understand, the Palestinian rocket fire hasn’t killed any Israelis, but has caused some injuries and property damage. > > Anyone care to defend Israel here? I’m not sure what the right thing for Israel to do here is, but airstrikes against civilian areas can’t be it. Even just in terms of Israeli interests, I don’t see how they’re helping themselves. Having images of dead Palestinian children on the news just alienates their allies and encourages further attacks. All I know is that it seems pretty damn stupid to fire home-built unguided rockets at an enemy who has 21st century weaponry and little compunction about using it on you. What I don’t quite understand is why the Israelis don’t just park some counter-battery radar and some 155 batteries around Gaza, and just do counter-battery fire when they pick up a missile coming their direction. Gaza’s so small, that they could probably nearly park a howitzer battery at the north end and hit the southern end. Of course, if the rocket crews are firing from within population centers, that’ll get a bunch of civilians killed, which may be exactly what’s happening with the air-strikes. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/68 "2014-07-11T18:02:03Z")
Damuri Ajashi: > [@](#): > > Sure, I suppose unconditional surrender could work. But its been 60 years and there is no sign of unconditional surrender. So I guess we are just stuck at the boot on the neck impasse. Hamas could break that impasse if it wanted to. Israel can’t afford to without Hamas’s willingness. > [@](#): > > Would Israel believe them if this was offered? If done in a believable way, yes. > [@](#): > > Who would they hold accountable when a splinter faction of Hamas broke off and continued to blow shit up? Responsibility for security would have to be part of the treaty arrangement. > [@](#): > > When South Africa eliminated apartheid, all the white folks were afraid that there was going to be a white genocide and it didn’t happen. Sometimes the victims aren’t as evil as the oppressors. It would be nice if this was one of those times, but it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/69 "2014-07-11T18:05:19Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Well I suppose to some, an unguided rocket could be more similar to a shove than an bullet but I’m not in that camp. I was scaling both the attack and response down. So the relevant question is, is the ratio (shooting one person)/(airstrikes that kill a hundred) more similar to the ratio (shoving someone)/(mostly ineffectual unguided rockets) or to the ratio (shooting someone)/(mostly ineffectual unguided rockets.) > [@](#): > > But you keep saying things like “Israeli response has been to kill 100 people”. You’ve gone and mixed consequence with intent. The Israeli response has not been to kill civilians (Hamas’ is by the way) it has been to attack rocket launch sites deliberately placed amongst civilians and consequently some of those civilians have died. I don’t mean to suggest that Israel wanted all those people dead, but only that they acted in a way that could have been reasonably expected to cause about that number of deaths, fair number of whom are innocent civilians. The fact that Israel would surely prefer to have weapons that could hit Hamas targets while avoiding all innocent civilians doesn’t necessarily mean they’re justified in using the weapons they do have. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/70 "2014-07-11T18:05:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about the Israeli children who were kidnapped and killed? > **[2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidnapping_of_Israeli_teens)** > > .mw-parser-output .geo-default,.mw-parser-output .geo-dms,.mw-parser-output .geo-dec{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .geo-nondefault,.mw-parser-output .geo-multi-punct,.mw-parser-output .geo-inline-hidden{display:none}.mw-parser-output .longitude,.mw-parser-output .latitude{white-space:nowrap}31°39′17″N 35°07′20″E / 31.6547°N 35.1223°E / 31.6547; 35.1223 > > > The 2014 Gush Etzion kidnapping and murder refers to the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank during June 20... Hamas, denied responsibility for the kidnapping while praising the action. Is Hamas usually shy about taking responsibility for these sort of things? Israeli military arrested 350 and killed 5 in the West Bank. The notion that anyone can say “well he started it” is almost laughable. This goes back 3 generations, noone and everyone started it. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/71 "2014-07-11T18:06:55Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > “‘Attempted murder,’ now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for ‘attempted chemistry?’” Simpson’s reference, right? To be clear, I’m not saying the fact that Hamas weren’t effective at killing people with their rockets makes the attempt in any way OK. But I do think the number of people killed, and the number of people likely to be killed by such an attack in the future, does factor in to what sort of response is appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/72 "2014-07-11T18:10:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Exactly. I’m not sure what you’re point is with this. My point is that you are never going to have peace there if the Israelis adopt your attitude. It will be continued conflict unless the Palestinians get the upper hand and then who knows. They might be like the blacks of South Africa and forgive their oppressors or they might be like the French Peasants during the revolution. > [@](#): > > I don’t recall saying that Hamas’ survival was at stake. There’s a cost to these battles for both sides. You said something about a survival instinct. > [@](#): > > They work temporarily. In the absence of a permanent solution, temporary solutions are better than nothing. See above. When you dismiss every possible avenue to a more permanent solution because it means you have to trust the other side, you will never have a more permanent solution. EVERY permanent solution I can think of requires trusting that the Palestinians aren’t just crazy bloodthirsty arabs. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/73 "2014-07-11T18:12:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I’d get out of those settlements and give the Palestinians their own state. Me too. I’d call it Jordan. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/74 "2014-07-11T18:14:46Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Why do you feel this is a key point? It touches on proportionality. If the rockets were killing thousands I think you could justify much more drastic measures than if the rockets were generally ineffective. Its like throwing grenades and mortarfire at kids who are throwing rocks. I don’t know if the attacks are proportional or not, my local news is spending all its time covering the world cup and tea party antics. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/75 "2014-07-11T18:16:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Okay then - where would **you** draw the line? It’s hard to draw an _exact_ line, but I think this is pretty far beyond where I would draw it. If Israel could dramatically reduce the chance of further rocket attacks by killing, say, 10 innocent people (and some number of Hamas members), I’d still feel pretty conflicted about it, given that the rocket attacks haven’t killed anyone. But somewhere around there, maybe I’d say “Yeah, that’s justified”. Killing 100 people while seemingly not having much effect on the attacks you wanted to stop doesn’t seem close to justified, all the more so because the Hamas attacks weren’t that effective anyway. > [@](#): > > Presumably there is a point between “doing nothing” and “airstrikes” that would better than what is happening now - either it would be more likely to bring an end to the rocket attacks, or would convince Hamas to negotiate a settlement and stick to it, or in some sense would be desirable vs. whatever is happening today. > > What do you think that point is, and what makes you think it is more attainable than bombing the rocket launchers? If the number you’d have to kill to end (or substantially curtail) the rocket attacks is way more than the number I could ever see being justified in response to a mostly ineffectual attack, then there really isn’t a middle ground of “the right amount of force”, and it becomes a case where responding with military force just isn’t a good option. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/76 "2014-07-11T18:17:43Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Ah, the ‘Israelis-have-it-coming-because-they-oppress-the-poor-Palestinians’ meme. No, of course, you are right. There is nothing wrong with the way the Israelis are treating the Palestinians. They must be crazy to be upset about any of it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/77 "2014-07-11T18:19:33Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s very generous of you. They say it, they act as if they mean it, but you expect the Israelis to wave it away as mere rhetoric and act as if it’s not a danger. Easy for you, because it’s not your neck out there. It’s rhetoric because they know it ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/78 "2014-07-11T18:19:42Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Had black South Africans sworn to wipe out the whites? To drive them into the sea? Had there been a fifty-year history of black terrorism against whites? Great analogy. Do you think the South African whites treated the blacks better or worse or about the same as Israel is treating the Palestinians? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/79 "2014-07-11T18:20:38Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Me too. I’d call it Jordan. Which would be expanded to include the West Bank up to the Green Line (not up to the Wall). And then the Gaza Strip can go to Egypt. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856/80 "2014-07-11T18:20:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > My point is that you are never going to have peace there if the Israelis adopt your attitude. It will be continued conflict unless the Palestinians get the upper hand and then who knows. They might be like the blacks of South Africa and forgive their oppressors or they might be like the French Peasants during the revolution. Or it might be that the Palestinians never get the upper hand. Or the entire dynamic could change in some unforseen way. Point is that just unilaterally caving in is just suicide. The other way, at least you have a shot. > [@](#): > > You said something about a survival instinct. OK, but I didn’t mean that they might cease to exist. Just that they wouldn’t want to be seriously harmed either. > [@](#): > > When you dismiss every possible avenue to a more permanent solution because it means you have to trust the other side, you will never have a more permanent solution. EVERY permanent solution I can think of requires trusting that the Palestinians aren’t just crazy bloodthirsty arabs. In that case then there just are no permanent solutions. The fact that you can’t think of a solution unless you make certain assumptions doesn’t make those assumptions any more likely to be true. [Like a guy who can’t think of a solution to his terminal illness unless he assumes that Dr. Quack’s Miracle Cure is true. Doesn’t make it any more likely, and the fact that you “can’t think of another solution” is not part of the equation from a logical standpoint.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airstrikes-on-gaza/692856.md?page=5)