Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[YZT580]

If they took out the word “coward” would it change the meaning?

Taking it out of “Israel vs Hamas” and into a broader LOAC situation: If a belligerent uses a typically-protected structure (thus losing its protection under LOAC) and the other belligerent strikes it, does it absolve them of CIVCAS fallout?

so it is internationally acceptable to send troops into a contested area knowing that at least some of them will die. That is being brave. However using explosives in advance of your entry to prevent casualties on your side is being cowardly. I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[brihard]

so it is internationally acceptable to send troops into a contested area knowing that at least some of them will die. That is being brave. However using explosives in advance of your entry to prevent casualties on your side is being cowardly. I don't understand your reasoning.

How did you possibly read that from what he wrote? He’s asking a pointed and important question about how responsibility for CIVCAS is considered in aerial strikes. He’s not chucking crap at anyone.

 

[dimsum]

so it is internationally acceptable to send troops into a contested area knowing that at least some of them will die. That is being brave. However using explosives in advance of your entry to prevent casualties on your side is being cowardly. I don't understand your reasoning.

So…breaching a doorway with explosives prior to going in is cowardly? I was playing Rainbow Six wrong the entire time. /s

But as @brihard said, I was legit asking about CIVCAS, hence why I purposely took it out of the current geo context.

 

[KevinB]

So…breaching a doorway with explosives prior to going in is cowardly? I was playing Rainbow Six wrong the entire time. /s

But as @brihard said, I was legit asking about CIVCAS, hence why I purposely took it out of the current geo context.

I don’t think he was replying to you but to @Lumber ’s post.

I think Lumber doubled down on “devil’s advocate” and was intentionally trolling with the word choice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Israel can reasonably assume that senior political and military members of Hamas would plan and orchestrate attacks to cause mass civilian casualties if they could. That is reasonably part of every "necessity/proportionality" calculation when attacking the aforementioned members.

 

[Good2Golf]

Israel can reasonably assume that senior political and military members of Hamas would plan and orchestrate attacks to cause mass civilian casualties if they could. That is reasonably part of every "necessity/proportionality" calculation when attacking the aforementioned members.

Scale different, but principle remains…August 6 and 9, 1945…the ultimate ‘proportionality’ case for action.

 

[brihard]

Israel can reasonably assume that senior political and military members of Hamas would plan and orchestrate attacks to cause mass civilian casualties if they could. That is reasonably part of every "necessity/proportionality" calculation when attacking the aforementioned members.

That’s a stretch at best. Hamas leaders can have the desire and non-specific intent to do something, but are suggesting they still have anything close to the ability or means to do so?

CIVCAS and collateral damage estimates are very specific to an individual planned strike in these sorts of circumstances. While I of course accept that the relative value of a target can speak to military necessity, it doesn’t satisfy military necessity on its own. It’s not simply “why is it militarily necessary to kill this leader?”, but “why is it militarily necessary to kill this leader in this manner, with everything that can be reasonably expected to come with it?”.

Are there alternative ways to service the target? Can it be done at a different time or with different munitions? Does your intelligence allow for monitoring of the target and striking them in another time, place, or manner?

“We’re gonna hit them in their car on the move and yeah, might cause a few CIVCAS among traffic on the road depending on how it goes” will be a different assessment that “we’re gonna put a smart bomb into the apartment building/school/mosque/clinic/grocery store”. And time of day, local pattern of life etc all figure in those assessments too.

Again, I don’t have the facts to give an informed assessment of this specific strike. I’m just saying that the LOAC always apply, and even the presence of a high value target doesn’t exempt the attacking force from those considerations.

 

[Good2Golf]

That’s a stretch at best. Hamas leaders can have the desire and non-specific intent to do something, but are suggesting they still have anything close to the ability or means to do so?

What is the agreed authority that will validate how much remaining capability Hamas has, so as to allow Israel to continue to pursue Hamas leadership and militants?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, I don’t have the facts to give an informed assessment of this specific strike. I’m just saying that the LOAC always apply, and even the presence of a high value target doesn’t exempt the attacking force from those considerations.

Sure. But the value of some targets is probably a lot higher than most people want to believe or would admit.

 

[brihard]

Sure. But the value of some targets is probably a lot higher than most people want to believe or would admit.

And conversely, given how readily Hamas replaces leadership as Israel plays whack-a-mole, the military necessity of taking out the boos of the week may at times be overstated. By all means take them out, don't get me wrong- but let's not pretend each one is Bin Laden.

What is the agreed authority that will validate how much remaining capability Hamas has, so as to allow Israel to continue to pursue Hamas leadership and militants?

Given that this is all pretty much academic anyway, obviously there is no such clean and simple mechanism. Israel enjoys considerable impunity and they know it. Not dissimilar from the position we've been in as part of an extremely dominant coalition in past conflicts.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If they took out the word “coward” would it change the meaning?

Taking it out of “Israel vs Hamas” and into a broader LOAC situation: If a belligerent uses a typically-protected structure (thus losing its protection under LOAC) and the other belligerent strikes it, does it absolve them of CIVCAS fallout?

Please refer to the quote below:

I don’t think he was replying to you but to @Lumber ’s post.

I think Lumber doubled down on “devil’s advocate” and was intentionally trolling with the word choice.

 

[Good2Golf]

Given that this is all pretty much academic anyway, obviously there is no such clean and simple mechanism. Israel enjoys considerable impunity and they know it. Not dissimilar from the position we've been in as part of an extremely dominant coalition in past conflicts

However, my point remains. What is the authority to judge that Israel’s CDE/proportionality assessment is/is no longer valid, based on what Hamas’ tenant capability is judged to be?

Is your point that Israel no longer has justification within the LOAC’s framework, to pursue Hamas?

 

[brihard]

However, my point remains. What is the authority to judge that Israel’s CDE/proportionality assessment is/is no longer valid, based on what Hamas’ tenant capability is judged to be?

There is none presently applicable. That would only come up in the potential hypothetical of some sort of investigation into a potential LOAC breach. Since that's very unlikely to happen in any situation where an investigating authority would be privy to Israel's CDE, it's academic like I conceded.

 

[Good2Golf]

Israel will IMO continue its action against Hamas until the ingrained “River to the Sea” jihadist spirit against the State of Israel is no more.

 

[brihard]

Israel will IMO continue its action against Hamas until the ingrained “River to the Sea” jihadist spirit against the State of Israel is no more.

Yup, it's a perpetual conflict.

 

[YZT580]

How did you possibly read that from what he wrote? He’s asking a pointed and important question about how responsibility for CIVCAS is considered in aerial strikes. He’s not chucking crap at anyone.

really easy actually. Instead of replying to the applicable statement by Lumbar in this case I simply clicked on reply to follow the string. Me bad.

 

[brihard]

really easy actually. Instead of replying to the applicable statement by Lumbar in this case I simply clicked on reply to follow the string. Me bad.

Ah, ok. All good.

 

[KevinB]

Yup, it's a perpetual conflict.

Eventually one side will win or both sides will get tired, and find a path to peace.

Right now, neither side is willing/wanting peace. (Generalization based on the leadership- not necessarily the individuals in the street).

 

[daftandbarmy]

Eventually one side will win or both sides will get tired, and find a path to peace.

Right now, neither side is willing/wanting peace. (Generalization based on the leadership- not necessarily the individuals in the street).

While the international pearl clutchers continue gasping in disapproval, whack-a-mole continues... Israel-Gaza war: Israel issues massive evacuation order in Khan Younis – as it happened

 

[Lumber]

so it is internationally acceptable to send troops into a contested area knowing that at least some of them will die. That is being brave. However using explosives in advance of your entry to prevent casualties on your side is being cowardly. I don't understand your reasoning.

"It's not enough to survive. One has to be worthy of survival."

-Commander William "Bill" Adama