Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[Brad Sallows]

Yup. During Inherent Resolve in Iraq/Syria, a lot of CIVCAS incidents were self reported by the involved units based on strike video. Turnaround time on intial “oh shit” impressions can be very quick.

A thorough investigation can and sometimes does arrive at a greater understanding of just what happened leading up to an incident, but the bare fact that something bad happened can be known with considerable confidence very quickly.



Big problem with how incomplete your reasoning is here. You’re looking at the military legitimacy of a target and treating it as a be-all end-all, but that’s far from the whole equation. A target can be impeccably valid, yet the means used to strike it can be badly - even criminally - disproportionate or imprecise. Your simplistic logic here would not distinguish between dropping on a community centre with hundreds of refugees to kill one gunman, or killing a dozen high value enemy leaders in a command post where you incidentally kill a civilian janitor. In reality, proportionality and discrimination always have to be considered because they’re always in play. You very much come across as being in the “Israel can do no possible wrong” camp, and it’s clouding how rigorously you apply logic.

Yes, Hamas started this latest round of violence with the atrocities of October 7th. Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. However, Israel is still responsible for how it chooses to strike one particular target or another.

Yes, in war you can kill civilians, accidentally or even deliberately in anticipated collateral damage. In certain circumstances you could conceivably justify knowingly (in advance) killing children if the military target is critical enough and you’re still being reasonably proportionate and discriminate. But it’s not a carte blanche.

Israel has, generally, a very powerful and effective intelligence apparatus. They’re pinpointing valid targets. How they prosecute those targets, however, (or if they hit a particular target at a particular time at all) remains a choice Israel must make in each instance and they are separately accountable for each decision. If Israel decides to bomb an IDP camp (where people were specifically told by Israel to evacuate to) in order to take out a couple Hamas leaders, Israel has to wear that choice.

I hope Israel has some idea of a long term diplomatic and political game plan- and I’m talking on a generational scale. They’re going to need it, because the choices they’re making as going to prove increasingly alienating and isolating.

Nothing wrong with my logic. I didn't make any claims about the military advantage of a target; I didn't claim that any target may be attacked any time irrespective of collateral damage and casualties. The point is that siting military targets near protected people and infrastructure invites attack; the responsibility for siting is with the people doing it. They have the first power and responsibility to prevent tragedy. The initiative then passes to the attacker. If the military advantage of the target is worth the collateral damage, the collateral damage is on the defender.

 

[brihard]

Nothing wrong with my logic. I didn't make any claims about the military advantage of a target; I didn't claim that any target may be attacked any time irrespective of collateral damage and casualties. The point is that siting military targets near protected people and infrastructure invites attack; the responsibility for siting is with the people doing it. They have the first power and responsibility to prevent tragedy. The initiative then passes to the attacker. If the military advantage of the target is worth the collateral damage, the collateral damage is on the defender.

You made no such distinction and offered no such qualifier. Your words again:

Collateral damage and casualties resulting from the siting of legitimate military targets is the fault of the people siting legitimate military targets there.

There was nothing you said that I replied to that suggested so much of a shred of responsibility is borne by an attacker. You were speaking with quite absolute language. If you’ve now realized you were incorrect or imprecise, fine, but please don’t try to blow smoke about what you actually did and didn’t say.

Yes, the responsibility for siting a target is with those who actually put it there. Responsibility for the effects of striking said target, however, is shared to some greater or lesser extent. The more disproportionate the resultant harm to civilians is, the more responsibility is borne by the attacker, and the greater the onus on them to show why it was worth it.

And, pragmatically- it matters when you depend on the goodwill of other countries to enable you militarily, and those other countries have governments that are at least somewhat responsive to their population. Israel’s comments today suggest that in the case of this particular strike, they realize it may not have been worth it, whether or not they exonerate themselves through investigation.

 

[Brad Sallows]

You made no such distinction and offered no such qualifier. Your words again:



There was nothing you said that I replied to that suggested so much of a shred of responsibility is borne by an attacker. You were speaking with quite absolute language. If you’ve now realized you were incorrect or imprecise, fine, but please don’t try to blow smoke about what you actually did and didn’t say.

Yes, the responsibility for siting a target is with those who actually put it there. Responsibility for the effects of striking said target, however, is shared to some greater or lesser extent. The more disproportionate the resultant harm to civilians is, the more responsibility is borne by the attacker, and the greater the onus on them to show why it was worth it.

And, pragmatically- it matters when you depend on the goodwill of other countries to enable you militarily, and those other countries have governments that are at least somewhat responsive to their population. Israel’s comments today suggest that in the case of this particular strike, they realize it may not have been worth it, whether or not they exonerate themselves through investigation.

Without qualification and in absolute terms, then, "Collateral damage and casualties resulting from the siting of legitimate military targets is the fault of the people siting legitimate military targets there." stands, because without the legitimate military target there would be no attack and subsequent events are indeterminate.

I suppose if you must imagine you've won some kind of "point" by trying to pin the tail of indiscriminate use of military force upon me despite everything I have written here in the past about military necessity and proportionality, then I suppose "Yay for you".

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yup. During Inherent Resolve in Iraq/Syria, a lot of CIVCAS incidents were self reported by the involved units based on strike video. Turnaround time on intial “oh shit” impressions can be very quick.

A thorough investigation can and sometimes does arrive at a greater understanding of just what happened leading up to an incident, but the bare fact that something bad happened can be known with considerable confidence very quickly.



Big problem with how incomplete your reasoning is here. You’re looking at the military legitimacy of a target and treating it as a be-all end-all, but that’s far from the whole equation. A target can be impeccably valid, yet the means used to strike it can be badly - even criminally - disproportionate or imprecise. Your simplistic logic here would not distinguish between dropping on a community centre with hundreds of refugees to kill one gunman, or killing a dozen high value enemy leaders in a command post where you incidentally kill a civilian janitor. In reality, proportionality and discrimination always have to be considered because they’re always in play. You very much come across as being in the “Israel can do no possible wrong” camp, and it’s clouding how rigorously you apply logic.

Yes, Hamas started this latest round of violence with the atrocities of October 7th. Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. However, Israel is still responsible for how it chooses to strike one particular target or another.

Yes, in war you can kill civilians, accidentally or even deliberately in anticipated collateral damage. In certain circumstances you could conceivably justify knowingly (in advance) killing children if the military target is critical enough and you’re still being reasonably proportionate and discriminate. But it’s not a carte blanche.

Israel has, generally, a very powerful and effective intelligence apparatus. They’re pinpointing valid targets. How they prosecute those targets, however, (or if they hit a particular target at a particular time at all) remains a choice Israel must make in each instance and they are separately accountable for each decision. If Israel decides to bomb an IDP camp (where people were specifically told by Israel to evacuate to) in order to take out a couple Hamas leaders, Israel has to wear that choice.

I hope Israel has some idea of a long term diplomatic and political game plan- and I’m talking on a generational scale. They’re going to need it, because the choices they’re making as going to prove increasingly alienating and isolating.

Problem is they are dammed if they do or don't. The people who hate Israel and Jews, will continue to hate them regardless of what they do. Looks how fast Oct 7th was being downplayed even in the West. I suspect the Israelis don't feel like they have any real friends anyways and very little to lose. They live in a rough neighbourhood and the Arabs generally only seem to respect force.
In the scheme of current conflicts, Gaza is not exactly the worse conflicts by any means and it's interesting how silent the world is on other conflicts verses the attention on this conflict.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And, pragmatically- it matters when you depend on the goodwill of other countries to enable you militarily, and those other countries have governments that are at least somewhat responsive to their population. Israel’s comments today suggest that in the case of this particular strike, they realize it may not have been worth it, whether or not they exonerate themselves through investigation.

Other countries are misguided. For those that believe in the abstract of the "IRBO", Hamas cannot be allowed to succeed. The short lesson drawn by observers will be "Well, it worked."

Political support for Hamas or against Israel will tend to buttress Hamas's will to continue the fight rather than surrender. As long as the fight continues, more people will die. Israel can't really be the one to back down and show that "well, it worked".

 

[Brad Sallows]

it's interesting how silent the world is on other conflicts verses the attention on this conflict.

Can't seem to find any news at all about how the ICC prosecution against Putin is going.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Some friction between Egypt and Israel. Likely some supporters of Hamas within the ranks, or Egyptian army members upset about the loss of income from the smuggling tunnels.

Israeli, Egyptian forces exchange fire, Egyptian soldier killed

 

[brihard]

Without qualification and in absolute terms, then, "Collateral damage and casualties resulting from the siting of legitimate military targets is the fault of the people siting legitimate military targets there." stands, because without the legitimate military target there would be no attack and subsequent events are indeterminate.

And yet…

I suppose if you must imagine you've won some kind of "point" by trying to pin the tail of indiscriminate use of military force upon me despite everything I have written here in the past about military necessity and proportionality, then I suppose "Yay for you".

So what am I to take from anything you’ve said before on proportionality if you’re still taking an absolutist position that a party making a strike bears no fault or responsibility if the enemy sites the valid military objective?

Proportionality is explicitly meaningful only in the context of harm to noncombatants or destruction of objects not of military use. The inevitable logic of the position you’re taking still serves to nullify proportionality as a consideration.

I’ll put it plainly: if an enemy, one who can be lawfully attacked, puts their people or objects among civilian collateral, you nonetheless carry some responsibility for a decision to strike it, all the moreso if you do so disproportionately. Doesn’t make the hit inherently wrong or unjustified; but you still wear your choices both to attack, and how you attack.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’ll put it plainly: if an enemy, one who can be lawfully attacked, puts their people or objects among civilian collateral, you nonetheless carry some responsibility for a decision to strike it, all the moreso if you do so disproportionately. Doesn’t make the hit inherently wrong or unjustified; but you still wear your choices both to attack, and how you attack.

Which has nothing to do with my point, which is that it can all be avoided by not mixing unprotected and protected things. And that can only be done by whoever controls the assets.

"Collateral damage and casualties resulting from the siting of legitimate military targets is the fault of the people siting legitimate military targets there."

Not a value statement. Not an exploration of possible events further along in the arrow of time. Not a share-of-blame treatise on proportionality. Just "Don't do X, and Y won't happen".

[Add in case the idea is unclear: an attack which takes out two enemy commanders and one innocent pool boy is still one which results in a collateral casualty that could have been avoided. Situated what-ifs designed to bring in the concept of proportionality unfavourably or favourably are beside the point.]

 

[brihard]

Which has nothing to do with my point, which is that it can all be avoided by not mixing unprotected and protected things. And that can only be done by whoever controls the assets.

"Collateral damage and casualties resulting from the siting of legitimate military targets is the fault of the people siting legitimate military targets there."

Not a value statement. Not an exploration of possible events further along in the arrow of time. Not a share-of-blame treatise on proportionality. Just "Don't do X, and Y won't happen".

[Add in case the idea is unclear: an attack which takes out two enemy commanders and one innocent pool boy is still one which results in a collateral casualty that could have been avoided. Situated what-ifs designed to bring in the concept of proportionality unfavourably or favourably are beside the point.]

Nope, not buying it. The resultant collateral damage is a product of everything that happens from start to end. You don’t get the collateral damage without where the target is sited. You also don’t get the collateral damage without the attack, which for individual people is generally more of a variable than, say, a fixed site- when and where you actually strike is a choice. You may not be ‘explori[ing] possible events further along in the arrow of time’, but you’re certainly ignoring them, or writing off them off as meaningless or irrelevant. Likewise, to talk of ‘fault’ is inherently a ‘value statement’.

Israel is fully within its right to exist, and to defend itself with armed force. That does not make them immune from scrutiny or criticism in how they do so, and it doesn’t coat their hands in something making them impossible to dirty. Something being a lawful target does not absolve them of all possible fault if they later hit that target and something terrible and disproportionate happens as a result.

 

[KevinB]

The Moral High Ground needs to be occupied by deeds, not words.

Hamas are giant pieces of shit, if Israeli acts without reasonableness, then they get drawn down into the trash with their enemies.

 

[brihard]

The Moral High Ground needs to be occupied by deeds, not words.

Hamas are giant pieces of shit, if Israeli acts without reasonableness, then they get drawn down into the trash with their enemies.

Yup, nicely put.

And as I’ve said above, this isn’t just principle, it’s also pragmatism, particularly Israel’s need to continued need to keep enough support from friendly countries with democratic governments. There are only so many dead kids that can be sold as necessary and proportionate as they JDAM their way up and down Hamas’s chain of command.

 

[suffolkowner]

is this Rafah attack supposed to be some big terrible attack from a collateral damage standpoint? Whats the damage? 50+ dead and a couple hundred other casualties? Is that the standard? Was the attack a mistake? Originally i heard that the Israelis had targeted a couple of Hamas principles?

 

[brihard]

is this Rafah attack supposed to be some big terrible attack from a collateral damage standpoint? Whats the damage? 50+ dead and a couple hundred other casualties? Is that the standard? Was the attack a mistake? Originally i heard that the Israelis had targeted a couple of Hamas principles?

A couple Hamas commanders, one of whom reportedly their chief of staff for West Bank operations. Certainly a worthy target if true. Issue is, the civilian population there has been moved and evacuated time and again, and are crowded into extremely dense areas that the Israelis have essentially forced them to for lack of other options. When you target enemy leadership in a refugee camp, that’s a choice. In this case that means the world was quickly looking at a lot of video of badly burned bodies, and a distraught father holding what was left of a little girl with her head very clearly missing. Maybe I’m a bit swayed from how much time I spend holding my own child each day, but I hate seeing that shit, especially knowing that Israel is choosing certain ways to attack over others.

That kind of imagery has strategic consequences if you care what other countries and their populations think of you, which Israel to some extent still does. Both sides appear to consider the other guys’ civilian lives to be pretty expendable. It’s been a long time since I expected any better of Hamas, which is why I’m very at ease with Hamas being killed. Unfortunately Israel is showing less and less restraint and discipline as this goes on. Meanwhile another generation on both sides is getting radicalized against each other.

And the band plays on…

 

[Remius]

The formula is simple.

Israel is allowed to defend itself and respond to attacks on their people and country.
Hamas has no legitimacy and needs to be destroyed.
Israel is still subject to criticism on how it prosecutes this war and should be held accountable if it goes beyond the bounds of what might be reasonable.

If one cannot accept these principles then they are very biased to one side of this or the other.

 

[brihard]

On a separate note, the Gaza aid pier that was only suitable up to a certain limited sea state: Appears that possibly the front fell off.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1795165050417594716

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Some friction between Egypt and Israel. Likely some supporters of Hamas within the ranks, or Egyptian army members upset about the loss of income from the smuggling tunnels.

Israeli, Egyptian forces exchange fire, Egyptian soldier killed

Enh... I chalk it up to the IDF being inexperienced and the EAF being trigger happy. Its been that way since the end of Yom Kippur 1973 and is unlikely to change.

I have been to the Rafah crossing and it's less a crossing and more a barrier. Egypt does not want a single Hamas fighter or Palestinian refugee setting foot in the Sinai, because then it becomes their problem. They are more than happy to keep the trouble on Israel's side of the fence and blame the neighbours for driving the property value down.

Egypt and Israel have had an uneasy partnership for the past 45 years. They keep the peace because money is a pretty solid motivator. Anything that jeopardizes that, will be the undoing of it. Dropping a humanitarian crisis onto El Arish vice Rafah will see the Egyptians pulling out of the Camp David Accords with haste.

We have 55 folks in Sinai withe the MFO. I hope for their sake this is a one-off and feathers aren't too ruffled in a few days.

 

[brihard]

Enh... I chalk it up to the IDF being inexperienced and the EAF being trigger happy. Its been that way since the end of Yom Kippur 1973 and is unlikely to change.

I have been to the Rafah crossing and it's less a crossing and more a barrier. Wgypt does not want a single Hamas fighter or Palestinian refugee setting foot in the Sinai, because then it becomes their problem. They are more than happy to keep the trouble on Israel's side of the fence and blame the neighbours for driving the property value down.

Egypt and Israel have had an uneasy partnership for the past 45 years. They keep the peace because money is a pretty solid motivator. Anything that jeopardizes that, will be the undoing of it. Dropping a humanitarian crisis onto El Arish vice Rafah will see the Egyptians pulling out of the Camp David Accords with haste.

We have 55 folks in Sinai withe the MFO. I hope for their sake this is a one-off and feathers aren't too ruffled in a few days.

I suspect it was some sort of mutual screwup/misunderstanding, or a failure to communicate operations to other parties in the battlespace who should have been deconflicted with. I’m not ready to chalk that incident up to anything nefarious in anyone’s part absent evidence to suggest it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Palestinians could always tell Hamas fighters to get lost when they show up to refugee camps.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I suspect it was some sort of mutual screwup/misunderstanding, or a failure to communicate operations to other parties in the battlespace who should have been deconflicted with. I’m not ready to chalk that incident up to anything nefarious in anyone’s part absent evidence to suggest it.

Seeing as we had more of a threat from EAF Green on Blue than we did from ISIS while I was there, I chalk this up to strategic Corporal idiocy.