These analogies are getting us nowhere, because the argument here is about proportionality.
No-one disputes Israel’s right to fire back and defend itself. But that right to defend itself doesn’t mean Israel could, say, nuke Gaza. Most people believe that the response should be proportionate and every effort should be made to minimize civilian casualties.
And the fact is, many agencies and governments, such as the UN, believe Israel is not doing that.
Despite how long this thread is, I’ve only seen two counters to this specific point (if I’ve missed one, let me know).
One is that the IDF telephones houses before bombing them.
Well, if gaza was much bigger, or less densely-populated, or the bombs were much more precise, then this would have much more value. As it is, it doesn’t appear that many of the people in gaza have anywhere to go.
The other is “So and so country had even worse civilian casualty rates, so they can’t talk”. Which, yeah, might indicate hypocrisy on “so and so”''s part, but doesn’t really address the point.
Terr has cited both articles to support his claim that Hamas fatalities are far higher than quoted, as they claim that a Hamas leader admitted this in an interview in Al-Hayat.
Whereas you claim the primary source is a white house release about the bombing of a UN school, which doesn’t even mention Hammad.
Are you massively confused or just being deliberately random?
If Israel used strictly proportional response to Hamas - that is, if it sent 3000 (as of today) rockets of same quality/explosive capacity into Gaza, without any targeting, based on Gaza population density and demographics, I figure it would have caused around 10,000 to 20,000 Palestinian dead, 75% of them women and children. It also, based on their proportion to the population, would have killed 1 Hamas militant. Maybe 2. And Israel wouldn’t have lost more than 60 soldiers in the process.
Why do so many people seem to struggle with the word “propotionate”?
Proportionate doesn’t mean “eye for an eye”, nor does it mean “do exactly as my enemy does, even if my enemy’s circumstances are different and many more innoncents would die”.
It means responding in a way that is scaled to the level of threat faced. Rockets are indeed a significant threat. However they do not justify bombing areas where there are known to be many civilians and racking up fatalities in the hundreds, including 300 children.
Proportionate means no such thing. A proportionate response for self defense would be to use only the amount of force necessary to stop the attack against you.
First, let’s be sure we’re all on the same page regarding who is defending themselves and who is the aggressor. Do you disagree that Israel is acting in self defense with the air strikes and ground invasion (even if you believe the amount of force used is unreasonable?)
Could someone please explain to me why Israel has switched from using precision-guided munitions and targeted airstrikes (as was the case in the early stages of the conflict according to video evidence of aborted strikes/etc) to unguided shelling? I gathered from a previous SDMB thread that such artillery has a spread of up to 200 meters, as compared to a few meters for guided projectiles. It seems that such a change in strategy clearly endangers Palestinian civilians for no apparent Israeli gain (I’m sure the shells are cheaper than guided missiles but money cannot compensate for lives, neither morally nor in the eyes of the international community). Could someone explain the rationale?
First, can you give a cite for the “fact” Israelis using “unguided shelling”? AFAIU, Israel uses precision-guided munitions and targeted airstrikes still. Artillery is used in operation support. Yes, it may be “unguided” but no, when you use artillery as infantry support, having 200 m “strike zone” is ridiculous on its face, since you’d be hitting your own troops. The numbers you were given in the other thread were for long ranges - 10-15 miles. That’s not the case in Gaza.
Yes, here’s one cite: Times of Israel. Please see the section headed by “Artillery”. I suppose the cite might itself start to answer my question (and you would call it operations support), but I question the validity of using unguided weapons in a residential area regardless of the status of the soldiers operating there; the soldiers have a duty to operate under fire whereas the civilians do not.
Aside from that incident, I refer to the other cases which the IDF is currently investigating, such as the shelling of the UN school occupied by children. I assume that these children were not running around in the immediate vicinity of Hamas munitions (I acknowledge that they could have been nearby, possibly even on the same premises, but I haven’t seen any claims that they were within the same targeting range). In this case, the fact that shells struck the playground indicates that they were either unguided or that the guiding system is tremendously flawed.
I think he’s trying to trip you up with the “unguided” part since to one extent or another all artillery is guided. Better phrasing would be to discuss “precision” weaponry.
Yes. The two issues did not need to be linked. They weren’t linked at the time of the agreement to make the withdrawal. Israel and the PA agreed to a peace in Gaza.
Then Hamas got elected and broke the agreement.
This does not make some of us feel confident in the integrity of future agreements.
AFAIR, in that battle, the choice was between 600 dead Israeli soldiers and leveling the block with artillery. I am glad the Israeli command made the sane decision and preferred not to have 600 dead Israeli solders.
And some of us believe Israel is doing that. They’re attacking weapons sites and enemy combatants. Hamas has a habit of putting weapons in among civilian housing. This gives the illusion of Israel attacking civilians, but they really aren’t.
Israel is conducting the minimum attack.
They would be legally justified, not in nuking Gaza City, but in wider WWII or Vietnam style bombing. They would be justified in knocking out the electricity and water to Gaza.
This is war. You seem to have the idea that it should be conducted in a pleasant fashion, but that’s wildly unrealistic. It may be an American impression, coming from the fact that our last few wars never affected U.S. homeland civilians at all. It’d be nice if Hamas would act in such a way to make war of that kind possible, but they’re doing exactly the opposite.
The problem is, of course, that Hamas bases and fires their rockets specifically in areas where there are known to be many civilians, specifically to rack up fatalities.
No, actually its a reductio ad absurdum.
I’m saying your definition of proportionate implies that nuking gaza would be a proportionate response.
Sorry, by “the whole thing” there I wasn’t referring to the region, I’m referring to a particular facility or compound where it’s believed rockets have been fired from.
So, Shinna Minna Ma was saying the problem in this conflict is that Hamas are firing from sites in or near hospitals, schools etc. I’m saying that’s apparently not a problem for the IDF, because they just bomb the school / hospital anyway. Problem solved!
That would only be true if there were no lower amount of force that would stop the rocket attacks and destroy the tunnels.
If you actually believe that “using only the amount of force necessary to stop the attacks” leads directly to “nuke Gaza,” you have surrendered to the idea that NOTHING short of nuclear annihilation will stop Hamas from attacking Israel. This is just silly on its face.
Israel must balance protecting Gaza civilians, destroying or disarming Hamas, and protecting Israeli citizens and soldiers. It’s important to keep in mind that Israel wants to complete their operation with the fewest civilian deaths possible, and Hamas wants the most civilian deaths possible. The reason why is obvious - Hamas wants to isolate Israel from the rest of the world, and Hamas wants more allies in their fight against Israel. This can only work if people blame Israel for the civilian deaths in Gaza.
This is why Hamas keeps their rockets in schools and hospitals and mosques. It forces Israel to choose between destroying the rockets and killing civilians, or allowing Hamas to operate freely to attack Israel with impunity. Blame is actually very important in this situation. Blaming the wrong side for the bulk of the civilian deaths in Gaza only encourages this type of despicable war strategy.
Well no military option has stopped the attacks so far, right? I’m just following the logic through.
Right, and negotiating with guys who have hostages only encourages others to take hostages. Yet no-one would suggest “just blow up the building, hostages et al, so at least you get the perp”.
If you’re asking me what would I do if terrorists were firing from a hospital and my options are only blow up the hospital, or do nothing, the answer is do nothing. Or rather, try to find some other option.
On the PR thing, no, there’s not going to be a point where you will get me, or nations other than Israel, or the UN, to put the blame for this solely on Hamas.
Sure, they are using dirty tactics but Israel is making the call and deciding to knowingly kill large number of civilians.
No, its not … rather it’s quite revealing about the way he and so many others really think about the Palestinians and the whole situation. “Its obvious the poor Palestinians can’t keep themselves from attacking Israel … the responsibility falls on Israel to stop them without hurting them” … as if the Palestinians were children or mental patients off their meds.
Hamas was elected. Hamas, AFAIK, retains popular support. And everyone knows what Hamas stands for. The Palestinian people, collectively, keep choosing to pick a fight.
Note that the two "them"s in your sentence are not the same. The first is enemy combatants, and the other is innocent civilians, including, at the moment, a disproportionate number of children.
So indeed yes the responsibility falls on Israel not to kill them. And yes, I am treating children like children.