My post was a reply to
Right, or indeed something in between e.g. blowing up a whole building because of some genuine military intelligence, but of an operative or risk that is of minimal value, so is a poor justification.
Anyway, some posters here seem quite willing to give the IDF the benefit of the doubt, and I am not. Because at every level up to bombing we see heavy handed actions without adequate justification. And it’s a government quite happy to thumb it’s nose at the world and continue building settlements.
One of the features of Discourse I like is that in those circumstances you can click on the down version of ^ at the top right of the quote box to get a drop-down of the extended conversation. Helps clear up confusion.
I agree that continuing to tolerate illegal settlements, let alone permit new ones to crop up, is one of the worst things the Israeli government has done and continues to do. It certainly fuels the fears of the Palestinians and destroys Israeli credibility on related issues.
However, while I am open to the possibility that the IDF are blowing up civilian targets and attempting to silence the press I want to see proof of these claims just as I want to see proof of any other serious claim. And “blew up this building here” is not inherently proof when there is always the possibility of bad intelligence or even Hamas attempting to mislead the IDF as to where their stuff is, which, given how warfare goes, is a tactic Hamas could very well be employing. Misdirection has long been a tactic in warfare.
Exactly.
It’s not always obvious where the burden of proof lies. However, in this case, there’s a destroyed building, so it’s pretty clearly on the IDF. Or rather, the null hypothesis is simply that they blew up a civilian target for reasons that are currently in dispute and unclear.
Also, of course, maybe it was just bad wording but they are blowing up civilian targets, that part is not in dispute. The question is whether there was a military asset of some kind being hidden there of suitable importance / risk that it justified destroying the civilian target.
If a known Jihadist runs into the London Underground, that doesn’t make the London Underground now a military facility, it’s still civilian.
The problem is, is that there are only civilian buildings in Gaza. There are no military bases, no official areas of operation.
So that basically means that, to the IDF, any civilian building is a potential target.
Hamas can launch a few rockets from a rooftop, and then leave. Destroying the building doesn’t harm Hamas in the slightest, they will just go to another one. Any building that any member of Hamas has ever entered can be declared a target because it may have been used to plan attacks or “electronic warfare”, whatever that means.
Essentially, in order to “degrade” Hamas’s ability to launch attacks into Israel, the IDF needs to destroy all buildings in Gaza that are within 5 miles of the border. The fact that nearly all of Gaza is within 5 miles of the border just means that Israel doesn’t need to be all that picky.
Blowing up buildings in Gaza does nothing to degrade Hamas’s ability to shoot into Israel. Nothing at all, not unless you blow up every single building.
Until then, all destroying buildings does is legitimize Hamas in the eyes of the inhabitants of Gaza, as well as create ill will towards Israel from the rest of the world.
I don’t know what the solution is. It’s complex and will require compromise on all sides, compromises it seems no one is willing to make. What I do know the solution is not is violence, unless Israel is prepared to kill every single person living in Gaza, and we are prepared to sit back and watch.
Indeed it does; it essentially guarantees more recruits for Hamas. It could also, over time, inspire action by other groups away from the immediate vicinity of the conflict (i.e. ISIL/ISIS). The clashes of the 90s didn’t necessarily cause Al Qaida, but they were one hell of a recruitment tool. I can see something similar happening as a result of this.
As an aside, the recent carnage has shown how weak and impotent the US is in terms of being a factor in this dispute. The only hand it has to play, it seems, is to totally withdraw support for Israel, and that is a political nonstarter domestically.
It keeps Gazans desperately poor, so that they won’t have money to buy more and better weaponry.
Some of these comments don’t jive with reality. For one, Israel is pretty clearly not just leveling all high rises within x miles of Israel. For two, destroying places Hamas uses to launch rockets, does degrade Hamas’s abilities. These are fixed-rail fired rockets, the elevation they are fired from does actually have an impact on where they go and how far they travel. Additionally it is factual that much of Israel’s efforts have been aimed at Hamas’ underground weapons tunnels and Hamas leadership, Israel isn’t just blindly leveling residential buildings and it’s not accurate to imagine the current fighting that way.
Would you like to point out which comments you are speaking of?
It’s not accurate to assert that anyone is imagining it that way.
This u?
Yes, that is my post.
Could you point out where I claimed that Israel is just blindly leveling residential buildings?
Thank you kindly in advance.
This is the sort of line of discussion that I find tedious. No one directly said you were saying anything. I was simply clarifying that what you hypothesized is not actually happening. The point I am making is that that hypothesis is not based in reality. I don’t plan to engage in further discussion on that matter as I find tedious back and forth about lexical shit to being deeply uninteresting.
Sure:
Unless your point was “they don’t need to be all that picky but they are anyways, so kudos to them!”, but unless I gravely misunderstood you I don’t think that’s the case.
These two statements are the clearest indicator of the bait and switch. Perhaps you are not doing it deliberately, but I’m going to try to illustrate the difference here because this is why we’re going in circles here.
What some here are speculating may be the case is that Israel is being trigger happy with its bombs. Maybe in some cases there’s strong intelligence of an imminent threat. Maybe in some cases there’s intelligence about a single low level operative. Maybe in some cases they just don’t like what a news agency is reporting. I don’t see enough evidence yet that it is only the first of these propositions, and no, I’m not giving the IDF the benefit of the doubt.
However, what no-one is saying is that the IDF is trying to level all the buildings, or exterminate the palestinians, or anything like that. Clearly they could if they chose to do that. The fact they are not does not lead me to automatically assume that the things they are bombing had it coming though.
Yes, as do I. I’m not sure why you chose to start it with your accusations if you find it tedious to back up the comments that you choose to make.
No, just made implications. You said, “some of these comments”. Unless you are willing to point out what comments you are talking about, then that’s a completely useless contribution.
But, by not doing so, you get to make your accusation, and not have to bother to back it up.
You did nothing of the sort. I made no hypothesis. You simply made one up.
All I said was that in order to achieve the stated goal of degrading Hamas’s ability to launch rockets from buildings, they would have to destroy all the buildings within 5 miles of the border. Not only is that not me making a hypothosis as to what is going on, your response did not in any way contradict that.
You got that right, the hypothesis that you claim I made does not exist in reality.
That’s fine, you interjected some accusations into the thread that had no merit whatsoever. I don’t see how continuing that line would be productive for anyone.
It does make me think though, is this sort of willful misunderstanding at least part of what is behind the continuing hostilities?
This is an incredibly serious allegation that you are flippantly throwing around with absolutely no evidence. It isn’t something a modern first world nation with a free press and credible opposition to the ruling party does; it is something dictatorships do.
You did in fact gravely misunderstand me. I’m not sure where either the claim that they are blindly leveling residential buildings, not your restatement follow from my comments.
What I said was that any building within 5 miles of the border can be used to launch rocket attacks. In order for the IDF to prevent civilian buildings from being used to launch rocket attacks, they would have to destroy them all. The point about them not needing to be all that picky is that, by the standards of what can be a threat to Israel, any civilian building can be used to launch or plan attacks.
Is there anything in there that you would like to actually refute?
@k9bfriender - I think on some level we are speaking past each other - I have also said that I don’t think Israel’s actions at this time are particularly likely to achieve peace, and that they do contribute to a radicalization of the Palestinian population, and that criticisms along those lines are absolutely fair. Much of our disagreement probably simply stems from the language with which we choose to communicate these ideas.