Gaza situation discussion

[eyl]

All of this talk about disproportionate force being used needs to be put into context. Gaza is a defacto part of Israel and retains no sovereignty (with its borders controlled by the IDF) which means that this isn't a war, it's more akin to a police action.

This is exactly the same sort of objections that came up during campaigns by the US military inside of Iraq when we flattened entire cities to get rid of nests of terrorists when we should have been kicking down doors and making arrests. The only thing that Israel is demonstrating by these attacks is that they feel that the lives of the people living in Gaza aren't as valuable as those of the Israeli military who would be at risk doing a proper police action.

Bad analogy. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, Israel does not currently have forces on the ground in Gaza, nor would the area just passively stand by while we sent them in. Sending troops to make arrests instead of the air attacks (though they may wind up happening to supplement it would lead to a major battle anyway, except that the air attacks would happen after the ground actions.

[[R_H]]

Hamas leader killed in air strike

A senior Hamas leader has been killed by an Israeli air strike on his home in the Gaza Strip, Hamas officials say.

Nizar Rayyan, the most senior Hamas figure to be killed since 2004, had urged suicide attacks against Israel.

News of the strike came on the sixth day of Israeli strikes on Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian medical sources say 391 people have been killed. Israel says it is trying to prevent militants from firing rockets into southern Israel.

Mr Rayyan is the most senior Hamas leader to be killed since the death of Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi in April 2004.

Long reach of Israel

Since its bombing campaign began last Saturday, Israel has attacked Hamas fighters and commanders.

Sites linked to Hamas have also been hit, including smuggling tunnels under the border to Egypt, government buildings and security compounds. Hamas considered Mr Rayyan to be a political leader, but he often wore a military uniform and was close to the group's armed wing.

Until now, political leaders have not been killed.

The BBC's Mike Sergeant, in Jerusalem, says this may further strengthen the determination of Hamas to resist the Israeli air assault.

But it will also be seen as an indication that the Israeli military can target key members of the Hamas leadership - the people Israel says are responsible for the rockets being fired towards Israeli towns, our correspondent adds.

Four Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets fired into Israel since Saturday.

Humanitarian warning

On Wednesday, Mr Rayyan had promised that Hamas would hit Israel "even deeper" than it has so far.

On the Hamas-run al-Aqsa television channel, he said Hamas militants were preparing for any Israeli ground incursion, saying "we will kill the enemy and take hostages".

At least four other people, some said to be family members, were also killed in the air raid on Mr Rayyan's home in the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the Gaza Strip.

The deaths come as the main UN agency operating in Gaza, Unwra, has resumed food deliveries, but warned of a dire humanitarian situation in the territory.

Israel is refusing entry to Gaza for international journalists and has declared the area around it a "closed military zone", leading to speculation a ground offensive into the tiny coastal strip could be imminent.

Israeli President Shimon Peres said it was not his country's aim to return to the Gaza Strip.

"The aim is to stop terror. Our aim, if you ask me, is a positive one - to make peace," he told the BBC.

He said it was up to Hamas to end the conflict.

"It depends upon them. Today, after all the death and all the blood, they fired 17 rockets today. What for? If they really care about their people, stop it."

[CJvR]

Seems the IDF still have good intel on Hamas, many Fatahites eager to even the score perhaps?

[Coyote]

Seems the IDF still have good intel on Hamas, many Fatahites eager to even the score perhaps?

Or Gazans angry that Hamas isn't fixing Gaza, like they were elected to do, but shooting their bolt on another useless poke at Israel.

Ha, let's see: Gaza elected Hamas to take care of our problems; they need education, food, welfare, jobs, and homes... instead, Hamas launches a war and wraps it's justifications up in high-flying rhetoric about greater causes...

...so, what was it, exactly, that they had against George Bush?

[Guardsman Bass]

I suppose the counter-argument would be that Hamas also managed to take power in Gaza on the premise that they'd make things better. With the blockade of Gaza, that isn't going to happen - so they basically had a threefold choice-

1)Sit, and watch their political support among the Gazans drain for the failure;
2)Leave, and surrender power in Gaza back to Fatah like the US and Israelis want;
3)Provoke Israel in an attempt to get some more political leverage, both at home and abroad.

That's assuming, of course, that Hamas speaks and acts with one voice, which it doesn't.

[Kanastrous]

4) Change tack, acknowledge reality, set aside armed struggle and comical rhetoric, and negotiate.

Not like that was really going to happen, either.

[Durandal]

I'd like to see the methodology behind calculating the 6:1 terrorist:civilian ratio. Who's a terrorist, exactly? Israel's position is that Hamas is a terrorist organization, so they could very well be defining anyone who works for Hamas as a terrorist. It'd be like bombing the Post Office and claiming that there were no civilian casualties. (Jokes about going postal aside.)

Beyond that, I find it very difficult to believe that they're being that precise with air strikes. For example, they just bombed Nazir Rayan's apartment building into oblivion with a 2,000-pound bomb. His entire apartment building. His four wives were killed, plus most of his children. Not exactly surgical.

As for "disproportionate response", of course the response is disproportionate. Some terrorists were firing rockets into Israel, and before Saturday (after the bombing started), no Israeli citizens were injured or killed. Since Saturday, one soldier and three civilians have been killed by rockets from Gaza. If some kid shoots you in the leg with a BB gun, you're not allowed to throw a grenade at him in retaliation.

[montypython]

What I find surprising is how no matter how damaging self-defeating the Israeli actions are to themselves and their actual security, they still think that using such methods repeatedly can in any way improve their position, even though a sociopolitical approach would be more effective in achieving a durable long-term solution. Martin Buber must be spinning in his grave...

[Kanastrous]

Beyond that, I find it very difficult to believe that they're being that precise with air strikes. For example, they just bombed Nazir Rayan's apartment building into oblivion with a 2,000-pound bomb. His entire apartment building. His four wives were killed, plus most of his children. Not exactly surgical.

I think that the definition of 'surgical' shifts with the passage of time and the availability of new weapons. There were days when hitting one small urban target meant taking out all of the surrounding structures for blocks.

As a side observation, maybe there's room to question the judgment of someone who knows that he is a target, and keeps his wives and children nearby (or, alternately, hopes to hide behind them on the gamble that the Israelis would be too afraid of PR repercussions, to fire).

As for "disproportionate response", of course the response is disproportionate. Some terrorists were firing rockets into Israel, and before Saturday (after the bombing started), no Israeli citizens were injured or killed. Since Saturday, one soldier and three civilians have been killed by rockets from Gaza. If some kid shoots you in the leg with a BB gun, you're not allowed to throw a grenade at him in retaliation.

So...the Israelis should start pelting the Strip with thousands of unguided rockets? Would that be more 'proportionate...?'

[CJvR]

Well if they were after the suspected arms cache in his basement it was about surgical as you can make it. Still it would have been nice if Hamas had stoped hiding among civilians.
The rate have gone down recently as expected, last figure I saw was about 4:1 which indicates much more collateral damage than in the first days.

[Kanastrous]

Still it would have been nice if Hamas had stoped hiding among civilians.

Seems like the very cornerstone of their operation. Makes the Israelis loathe to hit them until after months of provocation, then HAMAS gets to reap sympathy points on the corpses of those civilians amongst whom (in violation of the Geneva Convention) they like to hide.

[CJvR]

(in violation of the Geneva Convention)

Try explaining that little technicality to a reporter...

[The Kernel]

Bad analogy. As has been pointed out previously in this thread, Israel does not currently have forces on the ground in Gaza, nor would the area just passively stand by while we sent them in. Sending troops to make arrests instead of the air attacks (though they may wind up happening to supplement it would lead to a major battle anyway, except that the air attacks would happen after the ground actions.

Just because more Israeli troops would be lost during a ground campaign does not mean that it isn't a police action. OF COURSE more troops will be lost. If a terrorist seized control of a building in downtown Los Angeles and the LAPD uses demolition charges to blow up the building it would be infinitely safer for the police than storming the building...does that make it the proper course of action?

[The Kernel]

Still it would have been nice if Hamas had stoped hiding among civilians.

Seems like the very cornerstone of their operation. Makes the Israelis loathe to hit them until after months of provocation, then HAMAS gets to reap sympathy points on the corpses of those civilians amongst whom (in violation of the Geneva Convention) they like to hide.

Hamas is the elected government in Gaza and they live there. Are you saying that by going home to their family every day they are engaged in a conspiracy to create a larger body count so that they get more international sympathy? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that they don't feel like living in a bunker in their own home?

[Beowulf]

As for "disproportionate response", of course the response is disproportionate. Some terrorists were firing rockets into Israel, and before Saturday (after the bombing started), no Israeli citizens were injured or killed. Since Saturday, one soldier and three civilians have been killed by rockets from Gaza. If some kid shoots you in the leg with a BB gun, you're not allowed to throw a grenade at him in retaliation.

So... we shouldn't prosecute attempted murder then? Hamas is trying to kill civilians. Their failure to do so is a result of lack of ability, not lack of effort.

Hamas is the elected government in Gaza and they live there. Are you saying that by going home to their family every day they are engaged in a conspiracy to create a larger body count so that they get more international sympathy? Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that they don't feel like living in a bunker in their own home?

It's not just living amongst the civilian population, but arms caches in civilian homes.

[The Kernel]

So... we shouldn't prosecute attempted murder then? Hamas is trying to kill civilians. Their failure to do so is a result of lack of ability, not lack of effort.

Of course we should, but not by arial bombings. Go into Gaza and arrest them and put them on trial.

It's not just living amongst the civilian population, but arms caches in civilian homes.

Then go in and seize the arms and arrest them. If a militia in the US has an illegal arms cache, we don't send in the air force to carpet bomb their homes.

[Durandal]

I think that the definition of 'surgical' shifts with the passage of time and the availability of new weapons. There were days when hitting one small urban target meant taking out all of the surrounding structures for blocks.

What's your point? This is exactly what the Israelis are doing, and it's anything but surgical.

As a side observation, maybe there's room to question the judgment of someone who knows that he is a target, and keeps his wives and children nearby (or, alternately, hopes to hide behind them on the gamble that the Israelis would be too afraid of PR repercussions, to fire).

So his family should be punished for his poor judgment? A team of commandos couldn't storm his apartment and arrest or kill just him? At the very least, this approach significantly reduces the likelihood of collateral deaths.

So...the Israelis should start pelting the Strip with thousands of unguided rockets? Would that be more 'proportionate...?'

So because responding with an exact replica of the attacks isn't a feasible option, indiscriminate bombing is the most prudent course? Don't be stupid.

So... we shouldn't prosecute attempted murder then? Hamas is trying to kill civilians. Their failure to do so is a result of lack of ability, not lack of effort.

Don't be ridiculous. In this country, an attempted murder charge is a function of how likely the attempt is to succeed. No one's going to arrest me for attempted murder if I concentrate really hard in the belief that it'll make some guy's head explode. (This is an extreme example and not analogous to the Gaza attacks, but my point still stands that effort is not the only determining factor with attempted murder.)

I could maybe understand Israel's approach if the Gaza rockets were killing dozens of people per day, thus making this kind of retaliation an emergency response. But that's just not the case. They're trying to drive a thumb tack with a sledgehammer. What Israel should be doing is sending commando teams in to arrest and detain the people carrying out the rocket attacks while trying to find their arms suppliers and cut them off.

[CJvR]

Then go in and seize the arms and arrest them.

LOL! And here I thought you tried to appear a humanitarian.
Have you any idea what invading and fighting house by house will do to a city?

Stop pretending this is a simple police action, this is war.

If a militia in the US has an illegal arms cache, we don't send in the air force to carpet bomb their homes.

Only because Lincoln didn't have an airforce. It took the US authorities several years and hundreds of thousands of casualties to "arrest" those responsible for shelling Fort Sumpter.

Is that the kind of police action you want in Gaza? It would probably solve the Gaza problem permanently - there wouldn't be a Gaza city afterwards...

[Kanastrous]

Hamas is the elected government in Gaza and they live there. Are you saying that by going home to their family every day they are engaged in a conspiracy to create a larger body count so that they get more international sympathy?

I believe that they regard their dead as martyrs-to-the-cause whose martyrdom is useful in pursuing their aims. I suspect that yes, a HAMAS operative who knows for a fact that he is being hunted with weapons designed to flatten buildings, has accepted that people with whom he shares that building are inside the target circle, and that having that knowledge, it's tough to conjure an explanation that doesn't involve a willingness on that guy's part, to endanger his family (or anyone else nearby). After all, saddened as one might be by the death of a loved one, the firm belief that that loved one got an express ticket to paradise where you will someday rejoin them would probably make the bitter pill much easier to prepare, and swallow.

Wouldn't it be more logical to assume that they don't feel like living in a bunker in their own home?

If one is aware that one is a target, and one is aware that the shot may well be fired at you regardless of your family's proximity, and one is also aware that your family may well die as a result, then the logical course would be to stay as far from your family, as possible. Assuming that your aim is to preserve your family's lives, of course. If you are content to bring serious risk of death and dismemberment upon your family, by cohabiting with them while you know that you're a target, then maybe their safety isn't more than a third- or fourth-priority issue, to you.

Their homes aren't bunkers. They're relatively fragile residential buildings, often filled with non-combatants, and that's the problem. HAMAS' attitude appears to be, who needs reinforced concrete when you can surround yourself with women and children?

It's not just living amongst the civilian population, but arms caches in civilian homes.

Okay, you've noted a second sin, where before we were just talking about one.

[CJvR]

...it's tough to conjure an explanation that doesn't involve a willingness on that guy's part, to endanger his family...

Apparently he sent his son off as a suicide bomber to Israel in 2001.

[Axis Kast]

What Israel should be doing is sending commando teams in to arrest and detain the people carrying out the rocket attacks while trying to find their arms suppliers and cut them off.

Sending commando teams would most likely result in a situation straight out of Mogadishu, October 1993. The imperative of then extracting those men would result in all the kinds of indiscriminate, high-casualty contingencies -- air strikes, armored incursions, and more -- that the Israelis are right now at least making some effort to avoid.

Gaza is already awash with weapons. Like improvised explosive devices, unguided rockets are a simple technology, easily built with everyday materials. Even if the Israeli military were more successful in choking off smugglers, HAMAS would still have plenty of munitions.

[Kanastrous]

So his family should be punished for his poor judgment?

I think it's an absolutely calculated judgment, not a 'poor' one, at all. I don't think 'punishment' is either the right word, or the right concept, any more than the Geneva Accords describe it as 'punishment' if civilians unfortunate enough to live next door to, say the Schweinfurt ball-bearing factories circa 1945 suffer from that target being bombed. The power is entirely in each individual HAMAS' operatives hands: don't want to endanger your family? Then stay away from them, so long as you're hot. If you know that you won't succeed in hiding behind them, why drag them into it?

A team of commandos couldn't storm his apartment and arrest or kill just him? At the very least, this approach significantly reduces the likelihood of collateral deaths.

I suspect that the answer is 'no.' Let's see: you have to locate Mister HAMAS, and move on him fast enough that he won't be long-gone by the time you arrive. You have to successfully move your commandos into position, undetected and - in a dense urban area saturated with small arms - without taking a lot of ground fire. You have to find your way around inside an unfamiliar building for which - being in the Gaza Strip - you probably lack any sort of floor plan or blueprints useful in pulling the arrest/hit off. Of course, you have to posit that this raid will come off without harming any bystanders, since the whole idea of commandos-vs-bombs, is to avoid such losses. And, let's suppose that - miraculously - you do succeed in arresting him, casualty free, back to Israel clean as a whistle. Now what? Lacking a death penalty, the only thing you now have is a hero, a symbol, a living martyr, one more person against whose release your opponents now have reason to try and kidnap more of your people, in the hopes of forcing an exchange.

There's something both unfair and unreasonable, in expecting that people subjected to prolonged attack whose purpose is indiscriminate killing, will plan around zero civilian losses when they eventually decide to go after the people orchestrating the attacks.

So...the Israelis should start pelting the Strip with thousands of unguided rockets? Would that be more 'proportionate...?'

So because responding with an exact replica of the attacks isn't a feasible option, indiscriminate bombing is the most prudent course? Don't be stupid.

Well, please be smart. Outline this 'proportionate' response, taking into account the limitations imposed by the available equipment and environment. If you have a more effective, more proportionate response for Israel to choose, please don't keep it to yourself.

I could maybe understand Israel's approach if the Gaza rockets were killing dozens of people per day, thus making this kind of retaliation an emergency response. But that's just not the case.

Paralyzing day-to-day life with a rain of rockets, is just something you expect Israelis to put up with? Imagine that you just spent the last few seconds crouching alongside a wall, hoping that the next incoming round doesn't blow your head off. If, after you get up and dust yourself off, someone said well, that one didn't actually kill anyone; no harm done, nothing to see here, no need for a military response, would you agree that being pelted with rockets isn't really any sort of emergency?

They're trying to drive a thumb tack with a sledgehammer.

When your only tool is a sledgehammer, all problems start to look like thumbtacks. I think that's the Middle-East version, of the saying.

What Israel should be doing is sending commando teams in to arrest and detain the people carrying out the rocket attacks while trying to find their arms suppliers and cut them off.

You make it sound so incredibly easy. Why hasn't this politically-safe, comparatively international-condemnation-free, equipment-and-munitions-frugal approach been implemented, if it's really so simple as you appear to believe?

[Beowulf]

So... we shouldn't prosecute attempted murder then? Hamas is trying to kill civilians. Their failure to do so is a result of lack of ability, not lack of effort.

Of course we should, but not by aerial bombings. Go into Gaza and arrest them and put them on trial.

It's not just living amongst the civilian population, but arms caches in civilian homes.

Then go in and seize the arms and arrest them. If a militia in the US has an illegal arms cache, we don't send in the air force to carpet bomb their homes.

If a militia in the US has a large illegal arms cache we do this to them:


Anyways, that's a red herring. The caches are owned by the legitimate government of the Gaza Strip. The illegality isn't the existence of them, but the placement of them in civilian homes. The fact that a government is attacking another makes this a war. You don't arrest your enemies in war, you kill them.

Also, lets take a look at what happened when a similarly trained power went into a fairly hostile area to arrest a man: the raid in Somalia where the US attempted to arrest Aidid, made famous in Black Hawk Down. The result of that raid was the deaths of an estimated 500-2000 Somalis, and 18 US servicemen. And that was just to capture a couple guys in the same location.

So... we shouldn't prosecute attempted murder then? Hamas is trying to kill civilians. Their failure to do so is a result of lack of ability, not lack of effort.

Don't be ridiculous. In this country, an attempted murder charge is a function of how likely the attempt is to succeed. No one's going to arrest me for attempted murder if I concentrate really hard in the belief that it'll make some guy's head explode. (This is an extreme example and not analogous to the Gaza attacks, but my point still stands that effort is not the only determining factor with attempted murder.)

I could maybe understand Israel's approach if the Gaza rockets were killing dozens of people per day, thus making this kind of retaliation an emergency response. But that's just not the case. They're trying to drive a thumb tack with a sledgehammer. What Israel should be doing is sending commando teams in to arrest and detain the people carrying out the rocket attacks while trying to find their arms suppliers and cut them off.

It's not my fault you used a ridiculous analogy. Also, you're wrong. Rocket attacks by Hamas have caused deaths and injuries: Injury Death Where'd you get that tidbit? DailyKos?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Then go in and seize the arms and arrest them. If a militia in the US has an illegal arms cache, we don't send in the air force to carpet bomb their homes.

"Arrest" them? Storm an arms cache defended by RPGs, IEDs, and lots of AK-47s who know full well that they can defeat such an "arrest"?

Would you like to try harder?

[Durandal]

Sending commando teams would most likely result in a situation straight out of Mogadishu, October 1993. The imperative of then extracting those men would result in all the kinds of indiscriminate, high-casualty contingencies -- air strikes, armored incursions, and more -- that the Israelis are right now at least making some effort to avoid.

If they were making an effort to avoid civilian casualties, they wouldn't be dropping 2,000 bombs on apartment buildings. Yes, using commandos would result in more Israeli casualties, but it would also result in far fewer civilian casualties. Soldiers are the ones who signed up to be in the line of fire; civilians did not.

Gaza is already awash with weapons. Like improvised explosive devices, unguided rockets are a simple technology, easily built with everyday materials. Even if the Israeli military were more successful in choking off smugglers, HAMAS would still have plenty of munitions.

Los Angeles is awash with weapons too. The LAPD still somehow manages to avoid obliterating certain neighborhoods.

I think it's an absolutely calculated judgment, not a 'poor' one, at all. I don't think 'punishment' is either the right word, or the right concept, any more than the Geneva Accords describe it as 'punishment' if civilians unfortunate enough to live next door to, say the Schweinfurt ball-bearing factories circa 1945 suffer from that target being bombed.

Fine, change "punished" to "killed". They're dead either way, and they don't deserve to die.

The power is entirely in each individual HAMAS' operatives hands: don't want to endanger your family? Then stay away from them, so long as you're hot. If you know that you won't succeed in hiding behind them, why drag them into it?

So everyone should assume that Israel will indiscriminately kill the families of targets if they happen to be in the neighborhood? Do you not see that you're making my point for me?

I suspect that the answer is 'no.' Let's see: you have to locate Mister HAMAS, and move on him fast enough that he won't be long-gone by the time you arrive. You have to successfully move your commandos into position, undetected and - in a dense urban area saturated with small arms - without taking a lot of ground fire. You have to find your way around inside an unfamiliar building for which - being in the Gaza Strip - you probably lack any sort of floor plan or blueprints useful in pulling the arrest/hit off. Of course, you have to posit that this raid will come off without harming any bystanders, since the whole idea of commandos-vs-bombs, is to avoid such losses.

No, you moron, I posited that the collateral deaths from such a raid will be lower, not zero. I can't believe I actually have to explain that an aerial assault with gigantic bombs carries a far greater maximum damage potential than a bunch of guys with guns.

And, let's suppose that - miraculously - you do succeed in arresting him, casualty free, back to Israel clean as a whistle. Now what? Lacking a death penalty, the only thing you now have is a hero, a symbol, a living martyr, one more person against whose release your opponents now have reason to try and kidnap more of your people, in the hopes of forcing an exchange.

Of course killing the guy with a bomb is easier. That's not the point.

There's something both unfair and unreasonable, in expecting that people subjected to prolonged attack whose purpose is indiscriminate killing, will plan around zero civilian losses when they eventually decide to go after the people orchestrating the attacks.

In other words, because there were rockets coming from the Gaza Strip (which killed and injured exactly zero people), civilians in that region (who can't exactly just pick up and head west) should expect that their homes will be destroyed in retaliation. This is a despicable argument.

Well, please be smart. Outline this 'proportionate' response, taking into account the limitations imposed by the available equipment and environment. If you have a more effective, more proportionate response for Israel to choose, please don't keep it to yourself.

Uh, didn't I just do that? Commando raids, the things that every police force in the world seems to have no qualms about.

When your only tool is a sledgehammer, all problems start to look like thumbtacks. I think that's the Middle-East version, of the saying.

So Israel doesn't have people with guns? They don't have commandos? All they have is 2,000-pound bombs? They've got one of the most well-equipped militaries in the world. They're not hurting for options; they just refuse to endanger the lives of their soldiers to protect Palestinian civilians.

You make it sound so incredibly easy. Why hasn't this politically-safe, comparatively international-condemnation-free, equipment-and-munitions-frugal approach been implemented, if it's really so simple as you appear to believe?

Stop strawmandering, you little shit. I never said it was easy. I said it was preferable because it stands to kill far fewer civilians. As to why it hasn't been implemented, it's transparently obvious that Israel considers Palestinian lives to be worthless, so they just take the easy route and bomb targets indiscriminately.