Well, he came away with a very different conclusion than most people who served in war, like Yair Golan.
No shit it’s much harder. Israel rushed into it without taking the time to formulate a real plan with real and achievable goals. And thus they got a bunch of destruction and not much else.
So you say; what I remember is that Israel paused for quite a few days before invading precisely because they were planning things out, which is why Israel started conducting limited operations inside Gaza on the 13th and didn’t launch a full scale invasion until another 2 weeks later. That sounds like the exact opposite of rushing into things without formulating a real plan.
The results suggest otherwise. A few days obviously wasn’t enough.
I disagree with this claim.
The results are horrible. It’s a huge amount of destruction. It’s horrendous.
That fact alone does not support the conclusion that Israel rushed into the war. It’s possible that this level of destruction is as low as you can go while effectively engaging Hamas, so your options are:
-
Don’t engage Hamas
-
Engage Hamas at a lower intensity level, causing less collateral damage but not hurting Hamas.
-
Engage Hamas at the current level, causing serious infrastructure and civilian damage as well as effectively targeting Hamas.
-
Engage Hamas at an even higher level of intensity, killing way more civilians and not accomplishing much more than Israel currently is.
You’re using the large amount of damage to claim that Israel is doing the 4th option, but that’s a huge logical leap. Obviously there’s a ton of destruction, but that fact alone isn’t enough - you also have to show that it is possible to achieve results WITHOUT this level of destruction. I have seen 0 convincing evidence of this.
Considering all the incidents of abuse by the IDF, plus ongoing settler violence (which despite so many claims otherwise, cannot be separated from this conflict), I strongly disagree.
Who is suffering in this war? Mostly Gazans. Mostly not Hamas leadership and funders/enablers. Mostly not settlers and other Israeli extremists. It’s not just more/less intense. It’s how it’s gone about. This war has gone about focusing mostly on the rank and file of Hamas rather than their leaders, funders, and other enablers. It’s entirely ignored any effort to restrain settlers and other Israeli extremists. And it’s done nothing (that I can see, anyway) proactive to deal with extremists within the ranks of the IDF, only reacting as they mistreat Gazans.
Lots of damage isn’t necessarily enough info on its own to condemn the IDF and Israeli leadership. But combined with everything else? Yes, I’m very comfortable concluding the IDF (and Israeli leadership) is not doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.
When Israeli government officials regularly dehumanize Gazan and Palestinian civilians rhetorically, how could anyone expect that at least some of the IDF doesn’t feel the same way, and act on it?
Yet another reason to be skeptical of Israeli conduct in the war - no one (credibly, anyway) denies that Netanyahu wants the war to continue indefinitely to stay in power. How can anyone doubt that he’s doing all he can to make this so? It’s not realistic to suggest that he has no ability to influence the course and conduct of the war.
The IDF has a standard protocol of kidnapping Palestinian civilians, dressing them as IDF soldiers, and sending them into buildings and tunnels to check for boobytraps.
“The senior ranks know about it,” one source said to have taken part in finding civilians to serve as human shields told the paper. “Our lives are more important than their lives,” Haaretz quoted commanders telling their soldiers.
…
One soldier had been told Palestinian civilians were being used to replace the dog units that search for explosives “because too many dogs had died”, he added.Many soldiers had raised concerns about a practice that is illegal under international and Israeli law, Weiman said.
In Israel in 2005, the supreme court banned using Palestinians as human shields in response to a petition against the military’s “neighbour procedure” in the West Bank, in which soldiers forced civilians to go ahead of them when raiding houses there.
If I understand the arguments made in this thread, this use of human shields means that any action taken against Israeli soldiers and civilians is justified, right?
It strikes me that past genocides have been sparked by incidents far, far lesser in terms of casualties than the Oct 7th attacks. It shouldn’t be surprising that some Israelis, including some in the IDF, are so angry they’d be willing to violate human rights, or overlook their comrades violating human rights. The IDF defenders in this thread would have us believe that the IDF is too solid and disciplined of an organization for this to be widespread. With Netanyahu and other extremists in charge for so long, it’s not credible that this would have no impact on the solidity and discipline of the IDF.
Israelis aren’t special. They’re human just like Gazans and everyone else… with the same propensity, under certain conditions, for doing bad things. That’s what I’m concerned about – not that Israelis, or the IDF, are especially bad… but that under circumstances like this, historically, human rights tend to be violated all over the place, and there’s nothing special about Israelis that makes this impossible. I’m skeptical that all these dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of stories of IDF members doing terrible things are all isolated incidents. Maybe this is the norm in human history. And ISTM that it’s pretty damn reasonable to be very, very concerned about it.
The only unilateral path to peace is war
~Max
My understanding is this:
IDF unit discovers entrance to a tunnel or other objective, illegally coerces Palestinian civilian to walk in front of a military formation. Laws of war do not necessarily prohibit the enemy from shooting at the formation even though, because a civilian is shielding it, the civilian will inevitably be caught in the crossfire. Laws of war do prohibit IDF from using the civilian as a human shield.
However this is not an excuse for the enemy to violate any applicable laws of war, in this or any other context. For example, they are still prohibited from attacking when the anticipated civilian casualties are excessively disproportionate to the direct military advantage yielded.
~Max
I don’t think human rights is the right term. War necessarily involves willful violations of human rights and everybody who supports a war necessarily endorses some level of human rights violations. For example, urban warfare necessarily involves displacing civilians. There is no getting around it. But isn’t forced displacement a human rights violation?
~Max
Correct. Netenyahu is a fascist and I’ve regularly compared him to Palpatine in the Star Wars prequels, taking advantage of a crisis to preserve his own power and shut down his enemies. I was opposed to the judicial reform amd was relieved when the Israeli Supreme Court overturned it. I think his moves in the West Bank are largely uncalled for. I think keeping the ultra-Orthodox out of the army is ridiculous - if they’re going to argue for some greater Israel that stretches from the Red Sea to Damascus (which I do not support) then they should be the ones fighting for it instead of burying their noses in the Talmud all day. I think Israel should hold elections ASAP so Netenyahu can be gone and a sensible government can take over. Iiiandyiii is a bad faith arguer and his “Smaptenyahu” comments are why he’s on my ignore list, because I refuse to engage with someone who can’t dispute my points without lying about them.
I didn’t sawy there’s no reason to care, I said it makes sense why people wouldn’t. There’s a war going on and Israelis are being asked to have sympathy and compassion for people who want them dead, and that’s not reasonable. You certainly won’t get Hamas and its sympathizers to say they care about Israelis. It’s unfortunate that noncombants are dying, but it’s also the fact that Hamas uses child soldiers and hides behind human shields, and in a war you need to worry about the safety of your own first. If we’d had this sort of attitude towards the Germans in WWII there probably wouldn’t even be an Israel today.
Describing the kinds of things that happen in a genocide is not the same thing as planning a genocide. I expect that kind of dimwitted moon logic from Christian fundamentalists arguing that D&D is Satanic. Genocide does not mean “a bunch of civilians on one side die”. It means a systematic, organized, and deliberate attempt to destroy a racial group, for which there is no evidence.
It’s not lying, it’s mocking you. Because your arguments on this issue are so pathetically juvenile. You’ve regressed to the old Smapti who believed it was wrong to help slaves escape from their masters, and wrong for civil rights protesters to conduct non violent resistance (like sit ins) when it was against the law. Black and white and nothing in the middle.
On one hand, we have the opinion of Omer Bartov, a former IDF soldier and professor of Israeli history whose area of expertise is genocide, that Israel’s actions are genocidal. Then we have your opinion that it’s not.
His credentials are out there for everyone to look at. What are your credentials? Share them, and then we can all decide for ourselves which opinion carries more weight.
Yawn.
Benny Morris, the pre-eminent historian on the topic, disagrees.
We can appeal to authority all day if you want.
If you’re going to quote fallacies, you should at least understand them. Your own cite explains it:
However, when used in the inductive method, which implies the conclusions can not be proven with certainty, this argument can be considered a strong inductive argument and therefore not fallacious. If a person has a credible authority i.e. is an expert in the field in question, it is more likely that their assessments would be correct, especially if there is consensus about the topic between the credible sources.
Providing cites from other experts who disagree with Bartov is helpful. Providing an opinion from some fascist in the US is less so.
It’s also helpful to know things like Benny Morris is a self-described Zionist. Doesn’t mean his opinion is worthless, but it’s good info when evaluating which opinion to trust.
What percentage of the IDF and Israeli leadership being in favor of and taking action to expel or kill all Gazans would be high enough to qualify as genocide (or attempted genocide)? It’s a semantics disagreement, but IMO it’s entirely reasonable to call this a possible attempted genocide if that percentage is more than ten or so (which I suspect it is).