The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
“… even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?”
No, it is not. It would not be proportionate to the military aim.
Read the LOAC. They aren’t some archaic set of details and impractical rules; they are a codification of what decent people think about war, and would be willing to be held accountable to in a court of law.
There’s a few anomalies (killing someone is preferred to blinding them) but it’s mostly basic stuff - including the idea of proportionality.
It's entirely proportionate to the military aim of defeating Hamas so long as they're minimising casualties along the way.
Please provide any objective evidence that it's not proportionate.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
Not sure what you mean by a righteous war so will have to explain, yes the life of the gazans is shit....however if they didnt support hamas and supported parties that wanted to reconcile I suspect over time the yoke would be relaxed until there came a time where israeli and palestinian could be countrymen. The fact is though they support the hardliners.
Well sure, but the Israelis have elected a government that doesn't seem to have any interest in the Palestinians having a state.
It feels terribly... arbitrary... to say "Oh, the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist" without the corollary of "Oh, the Israelis must recognize the right of Palestine to exist".
I agree but a 2 state solution was on the table for a while
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
If you are an average Gazan, do you think you are the aggressor, or Israel?
I ask this in all seriousness. Put yourself in the shoes of an average Gazan. They will - I suspect - say "Israel doesn't allow us to live. They've blockade our port. They cut off our power. Our life is shit. You say I should recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, maybe they should recognize Gaza's right to exist."
Does that mean Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course not.
But the Six Days War happened after the Arab states blockaded Israel's ports, and that was regarded (by me at least) as a righteous war.
Of course, the Israelis didn't indiscriminatory kill and kidnap civilians, so there's a big difference. But would I see that if I was in Gaza?
Not sure what you mean by a righteous war so will have to explain, yes the life of the gazans is shit....however if they didnt support hamas and supported parties that wanted to reconcile I suspect over time the yoke would be relaxed until there came a time where israeli and palestinian could be countrymen. The fact is though they support the hardliners.
Well sure, but the Israelis have elected a government that doesn't seem to have any interest in the Palestinians having a state.
It feels terribly... arbitrary... to say "Oh, the Palestinians must recognize the right of Israel to exist" without the corollary of "Oh, the Israelis must recognize the right of Palestine to exist".
At the basic level a question...if the uk had sent 2000 troops into calais and told them to kill all french people they saw....would that be the uk declaring war on france? That is what hamas basically did. In wars innocents die...ask the people of coventry or dresden. It is sad but its also every war that has ever been.
That is an argument for less war, not more.
The way to have less war is to defeat those like Russia or Hamas who start wars.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
“… even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?”
No, it is not. It would not be proportionate to the military aim.
Read the LOAC. They aren’t some archaic set of details and impractical rules; they are a codification of what decent people think about war, and would be willing to be held accountable to in a court of law.
There’s a few anomalies (killing someone is preferred to blinding them) but it’s mostly basic stuff - including the idea of proportionality.
There is a difference however between fighting an organised army and hamas....an organised army wears uniforms and can be differentiated. Hamas fighters tend to look like ordinary people till they pull out a gun or a knife. That makes it harder to keep civillian casualties low and its a choice hamas made
It's time for the PB hand-wringers to suggest exactly how Israel can achieve its clear and necessary objectives without vast casualties. Those objectives are:
1. It needs to destroy Hamas entirely 2. It needs to subjugate Gaza to the extent that Hamas cannot re-awaken in the next 50 years 3. It needs to change Gaza to the extent that no successor to Hamas will be born, able to behead Israeli babies
These are really difficult things to do, without levelling Gaza and killing lots of Gazans. But if PB-ers have any ideas as to how Israel might do this, I promise to forward them to the Knesset. Because I imagine they would really like to hear an alternative
For the avoidance of doubt, I too would like to hear an alternative. No one is thirsting for blood. This is a horrific situation for which - in my opinion - Israel is as much to blame as the Gazans. But we are where we are
I don't know. I'm not sure it's possible without going after Hamas' enablers.
But I'm pretty sure a ground invasion of Gaza will be unsuccessful. It's a giant urban warren. Thousands of Israeli soldiers will be killed, and thousands more Gazans will turn to Hamas, ultimately weakening Israel's ability to defend itself in the long term.
In a worst case scenario, millions of Palestinians starve, Israel turns into the baddie, Iran etc uses the excuse and the IDFs preoccupation with Gaza to open war on Israel.
I half agree, but I don't think israel has much choice. After October 7 and now Kfar Aza there is no way Israel can step back and call a truce with Hamas. Any PM suggesting that would be lynched, for a start
So they will have to go in and destroy Hamas as a fighting force. And - as I say below - the only way you can do that as an Israeli general without incurring major losses is by a slow, grinding, remorseless destruction of Gaza, block by block, shooting every fighting age male that doesn't flee or immediately surrender
That possibly means quite enormous numbers of Gazan casualties (tho it is also possible Hamas will simply slip away and the fighting is easy, who knows). It is unbearably bleak
And on that truly cheerless note, I shall abed
I agree with that. That's why I think the US needs to come up with an alternative.
I wonder if the big military build up on the Gazan border is to force Biden to intervene in a way that will satisfy the Israeli people while avoiding slaughter, on both sides, in Gaza.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
But if Gaza were a State, then de jure or de facto, a state of war would exist between the two, and blockade is lawful in war.
Depriving a population of food is now a war crime under the 1949 Rome Convention. That applies as long as the two sides are independent states. On a point of law it does not apply if it is not an international conflict.
Indeed the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that the Israeli blockade is a war crime if it prevents food and medicine getting into Gaza. .
Thanks. Having checked the relevant provisions of the San Remo Manual, I think that would be correct, upon condition that food is distributed to civilians only, under the supervision of a body such as the Red Cross.
But, Israel itself has no legal obligation to supply food or medicines or power to Gaza.
Thanks for the grim confirmation all. Hate truly knows no bounds.
I like to think that somewhere there’s a group of smart people in smart clothes that have got this figured out with their smart ideas. A cunning plan that will avoid a further massacre of innocents and that puts the lid back on what feels like a terrible brewing global war between democracy and autocracy. But then you realise that the room is probably filled with people like Matt Hancock. Ho hum.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
“… even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?”
No, it is not. It would not be proportionate to the military aim.
Read the LOAC. They aren’t some archaic set of details and impractical rules; they are a codification of what decent people think about war, and would be willing to be held accountable to in a court of law.
There’s a few anomalies (killing someone is preferred to blinding them) but it’s mostly basic stuff - including the idea of proportionality.
It's entirely proportionate to the military aim of defeating Hamas so long as they're minimising casualties along the way.
Please provide any objective evidence that it's not proportionate.
Thanks for the grim confirmation all. Hate truly knows no bounds.
I like to think that somewhere there’s a group of smart people in smart clothes that have got this figured out with their smart ideas. A cunning plan that will avoid a further massacre of innocents and that puts the lid back on what feels like a terrible brewing global war between democracy and autocracy. But then you realise that the room is probably filled with people like Matt Hancock. Ho hum.
You know that bit where the jesus guy said the meek shall inherit the earth...he was referring to a hole 6 foot deep. It has always been thus
Thanks for the grim confirmation all. Hate truly knows no bounds.
I like to think that somewhere there’s a group of smart people in smart clothes that have got this figured out with their smart ideas. A cunning plan that will avoid a further massacre of innocents and that puts the lid back on what feels like a terrible brewing global war between democracy and autocracy. But then you realise that the room is probably filled with people like Matt Hancock. Ho hum.
Prof Neil Ferguson isn't going to be doing any modelling is he?
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
AIUI, from the San Remo Manual, a blockade of everything but food or medicines is lawful, provided it is intended to achieve a legitimate military aim, and it is proportionate.
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
AIUI, from the San Remo Manual, a blockade of everything but food or medicines is lawful, provided it is intended to achieve a legitimate military aim, and it is proportionate.
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
Also not blockading food and medicines is a lot different from having to supply them
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
AIUI, from the San Remo Manual, a blockade of everything but food or medicines is lawful, provided it is intended to achieve a legitimate military aim, and it is proportionate.
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
Remember that it must be a purely military aim though. I think proportionality is a stretch on this one, albeit I can see it if I squint.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
AIUI, from the San Remo Manual, a blockade of everything but food or medicines is lawful, provided it is intended to achieve a legitimate military aim, and it is proportionate.
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
Remember that it must be a purely military aim though. I think proportionality is a stretch on this one, albeit I can see it if I squint.
Whilst I don’t agree with arguments that customary international law, in relation to armed conflicts is meaningless, (most of us would surely agree that the conduct of the armies in, say, the Thirty Years War is not something that should be allowed), I do think that most of us would disregard international law if it meant the difference between victory and defeat.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Grim grim grim
Because I don't see how else you do it, without risking thousands of Israeli lives. You do it slowly, and carefully, but remorselessly and relentlessly. Israel has overwhelming air and naval and ground power, but a lot of that is pointless in street by street fighting, where Hamas has the upper hand
So, you destroy the streets first. Building by building. Create wide avenues of fire. Collapse buildings on the tunnels. And simply shoot every male in sight who doesn't immediately flee. No quarter given
I said on the morning of October 7 that this was existential for Israel, and got much scorn thereby; well, I was right. It is existential. Israel has to destroy Gaza as a functioning polity - as any kind of coherent entity - to ensure its existence. It cannot tolerate life alongside a vast prison where at any moment the inhabitants might break out and kill every Jewish baby they find
This is a fight a l'outrance
Shooting all males on sight would be a war crime, and Israel would be rightly condemned around the world for it.
What is being raised by several posters is remarkably similar to the logic of the Islamists.
Would it be a war crime? What are you doing on a battlefield as a fighting age male unless you intend to fight?
IANA international L but I genuinely dunno what the law would say in this instance
Besides, the larger point is Israel is beyond caring
Egypt is heavily reliant on American aid, America needs to use this leverage to get Egypt to open the gates so that those Gazans who want or need to flee, can flee, and they can all be given aid in safety
Yes it would be a war crime.
Several posters are advocating a situation where all adult males can't get out, and whatever happens to them is excusable. There are 30,000 adult males in Gaza who are in Hamas, and many more who are not in Hamas. Any indiscriminate plan to kill all of them would be no better than ISIS, and the same laws of international criminality would apply to it.
Israel is not dettered by international laws
And neither is Hamas.
Sadly, we should just forget international laws. It's pointless. They don't apply, no one cares, it's all way beyond that, this is two political entities fighting to the end
It's like trying to apply the Queensberry Rules to a lethal knife fight
In which case I don't expect to see you or Bart making any further complaint about Russian behaviour against Ukraine. It is only those international laws which define the crimes they are committing.
But Russia, like Hamas, are the ones in the wrong here. They are the aggressors.
Israel, like Ukraine, is the victim.
I'm consistent in saying both Ukraine and Israel should do whatever it takes to win.
How many casualties in your eyes should it be before Ukraine surrender to avoid more? Or is it only Israel who shouldn't be able to defend themselves for some bizarre reason?
Again with the stupid (and logically inconsistent) arguments. No one is saying Ukraine or Israel should surrender. What we are saying is that there are basic rules they have to follow. Western countries including the UK are prosecuting their own soldiers for committing war crimes. We should hold other democracies to similar standards or we have no right to make any criticism when other countries like Russia or Serbia ignore those rules.
Yes there are rules and I say they should be followed.
A quarter of a million have died in Ukraine but Ukraine very rightly fights on to defeat their enemy.
Israel should do what they can to destroy Hama's while sticking to the rules of war. So minimising civilian casualties where possible should be attempted but even if a quarter of a million were to hypothetically die then so long as Israel are still doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties that's entirely reasonable is it not?
And you falsely called a blockade a war crime, but blockades are entirely legal while at war.
AIUI, from the San Remo Manual, a blockade of everything but food or medicines is lawful, provided it is intended to achieve a legitimate military aim, and it is proportionate.
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
Remember that it must be a purely military aim though. I think proportionality is a stretch on this one, albeit I can see it if I squint.
Whilst I don’t agree with arguments that customary international law, in relation to armed conflicts is meaningless, (most of us would surely agree that the conduct of the armies in, say, the Thirty Years War is not something that should be allowed), I do think that most of us would disregard international law if it meant the difference between victory and defeat.
Perhaps. But there is no risk of Israel being defeated. I don’t think I have said anything on this thread that the Israeli military leadership wouldn’t agree with (other than my scepticism over the blockade, and even then I’m on the fence without knowing more about it). The Israelis get that they must fight with that one hand behind their backs just as we did in Iraq/Afghanistan.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
The Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Resorting to insults as usual when someone points out you are wrong because of your usual overreaction. Travelling also doesn't make you and expert. How many months have you spent in the middle east in the last couple of years outside of some swanky hotel? I don't recall Alan Whicker or Judith Charmers being offered the job of Foreign Secretary because of their travel experience.
The European Union helped to build more than 30 miles of water pipelines for Palestinians despite Hamas terrorists boasting of their ability to forge an arsenal of home-made rockets from pipes.
Putting aside the Telegraph anti-EU bent and obviously the fact all sorts of piping could be used, just tells you what Hamas are like. Water for our people, nah, dig them up and turn them into rockets.
NBC reports that the Biden administration is working with other countries on drafting a plan that would create green corridors for civilians out of Gaza into Egypt
NBC reports that the Biden administration is working with other countries on drafting a plan that would create green corridors for civilians out of Gaza into Egypt
And onward to a new state surrounded by people who hate them.
The question is: did the killers at Kfar Aza simply lose it in a bloodlust of “revenge” - something like My Lai - or was this a premeditated act, to kill many many people in as barbaric a way as possible - an Oradour?
If the latter what on earth was the wider purpose? To get Israel to obliterate Gaza entirely?
I can think of two plausible motivations.
One is to create terror, in the hope that individual Israelis will decide that they have a better, safer future in the US, or anywhere else.
The second is to provoke Israel into an occupation of Gaza in the hope of fighting a long guerilla campaign to bleed the IDF dry.
The third is to enlist much of the Muslim world to their cause. Al Sisi is on shaky ground in Egypt, reignited the "Arab Spring" against secular nationalist leaders could put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.
If Israel selectively targets Hamas militants, then that is a fair go, but to cut off all supplies to a population of 2.3 million, nearly half of whom are children is not a proportionate response.
Similarly, Bloody Sunday and similar acts didn't defeat the IRA, it just recruited a fresh cohort of recruits to their cause.
If you are at war are you obliged to provide materials to your enemy?
Suppose France and Britain were at war? Would France be obliged to provide us with electricity? Or food?
If not, why is Israel expected to do so?
I genuinely don't know what the answer to this question is.
It seems odd to me to say that a country at war should be legally obliged to provide goods and services to those it is fighting, especially when those goods and services will allow it to fight you more effectively.
I can see the case for saying that a humanitarian corridor should be provided for the evacuation of hospitals or children to some third party location, say. And a truce monitored by the UN to allow that. But providing food to those fighting you?
Israel has a blockade around Gaza, where 2.3 million people live, of whom 30 000 or so are Hamas.
If you are comfortable starving, dehydrating them and depriving people power, including hospitals as an act of war then by all means do so.
I say collective punishment by that means is not civilised, even if causing death by beseigement and blockade has been used in war since time immemorial. It is also doing exactly what Hamas wanted. You can bet the Hamas fighters will be fed and watered.
Asymmetrical warfare is full of dilemmas.
I am not comfortable with any of this. I was asking some genuine questions. I have not seen any answers. It does feel sometimes as if some want Israel to do everything short of actually defending themselves. If you provide food and water and electricity and don't bomb anywhere where civilians might be located then actually you can't do anything at all can you? So you're (in general - not making this about you) actually saying that Israel can and should do nothing. Isn't that the conclusion of all this focus on we can't possibly harm civilians?
Are we really saying that a country which is attacked should be expected to tie its hands in such a way that it cannot effectively defend itself or its citizens?
No, I am not; there will be civilian casualties from any Israeli operation. That is inevitable, but it’s not a reason for their doing nothing in response. I don’t have any good answers, though - do you ?
I don’t think Barty’s formulation is one, as I pointed out upthread.
The only suggestion I can make is this one: Israel says that it will give the UN 7 days to offer safe passage out of Gaza to whichever countries will take them to (1) all civilians in hospital (2) all children under the age of 16, (3) their mothers (4) pregnant women and (5) people over the age of 60 plus (6) all Israeli hostages.
After that Israel will take whatever steps it deems necessary to defeat Hamas in Gaza. Once they are defeated, then those who have been given safety elsewhere can return and, subject to whoever then runs Gaza agreeing to Israel's right to exist, Israel will enter into peace negotiations with them.
I do not expect for a moment that Netanyahu would do this. Nor that Hamas would agree. But it might possibly be a way forward.
That's a pretty good plan, and I agree, and I earnestly hope for it. Because, after Kfar Aza, I fear the Israeli army is going to slowly slowly walk through Gaza, levelling every single building on the way, and killing every fighting age male
That's what a ground invasion of Gaza looks like - every fighting age male. The IDF won't take any risks if they have troops in amongst those buildings.
That's hundreds of thousands of people, all sheltering in buildings full of children, women, older people. Grim.
Its what Hamas has wreaked.
When the tragic news broke about what Hamas has just done, I compared it immediately to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked.
War is evil, but Hamas started the war. They would kill every single Jew in Israel if they could. How many Jews need to die before Hamas can be defeated? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 6,000,000?
If you think that's stupid, its no less stupid than the talk of 2 million dead elsewhere. Should we accept the risk of 6 million dead Jews in Israel if Hamas gets its way? Or should Hamas be stopped?
Your logic is the logic of the terrorist. If you advocate killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to get the bad guys then you are no better than they are.
The argument you have made previously about what was done in WW2 does not stand because many of the things we did then have now rightly been redefined as war crimes. We use those criteria against Russia, Serbia and many other regimes when they dehumanise their opponents to justify killing them.
As civilised democracies - including Israel - we are supposed to have moved on from that. Not least because the ultimate expression of your logic would be the use of nukes as a first strike weapon against those who threaten us.
However, I don't think there are any options that don't involve dead civilians.
Plainly, Isreal isn't going to say "no hard feelings", after driving Hamas back into Gaza. They will wish to take the fight to the enemy.
The issue is how to minimise civilian casualties. Cutting off power is probably the option that most clearly complies with international law (which does after all, permit economic sanctions), but in terms of human suffering, it's probably the cruelest option of all.
Cutting off food and water would be a war crime under international law if the Palestinians were recognised as a separate state. The fact that they are not means it is only 'legally' not a war crime.
The Gazans just broke out and killed every Israeli Jew they could find. In the cruellest way possible. Up to and including shooting toddlers in the head and beheading babies. It is clear that they would kill every Jew in Israel - and possibly beyond -given half a chance
And you expect Israelis to work around the clock making sure these same people have water, food, electricity?
Give over. The facts have changed. For the next few days or weeks these people are in a total war. They won't be furnishing each other with picnics
You shouldn't hold the whole population of Gaza responsible for the atrocities carried out by Hamas. I think you know this really. So I'm not sure what this sort of post is meant to be achieving. Or maybe I do. And if I'm right (which I am) it's low rent and reprehensible and probably ought to cease.
Oh DO fuck off with your tedious middlebrow halfwitted Radio 4 tutting. It is neither interesting nor clever, and has zero effect, and you have zero insight
You never travel, you know nothing, you're a painful idiot
Resorting to insults as usual when someone points out you are wrong because of your usual overreaction. Travelling also doesn't make you and expert. How many months have you spent in the middle east in the last couple of years outside of some swanky hotel? I don't recall Alan Whicker or Judith Charmers being offered the job of Foreign Secretary because of their travel experience.
This is the way.
For its sheer brutal simplicity, it's hard to top my personal favorite hate-tweet: "The only thing that makes me happy is you are old and will die soon." Rather than blocking or muting the sender, I "liked" it, just to bewilder them. 😜 https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/1710003424400744948
Comments
https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288?t=C-I26_5BdGwcmFiKkmhZiQ&s=19
Though X does seem to be systematically removing likes:
https://twitter.com/heridfan/status/1709337938364965241?t=u8K0VDnh6xDq1ZH6bqDKYw&s=19
Please provide any objective evidence that it's not proportionate.
Israel is a state.
Palestine is not.
Do Turkey need to recognise Kurdistan as a state?
Not tell their victims to stand down.
I wonder if the big military build up on the Gazan border is to force Biden to intervene in a way that will satisfy the Israeli people while avoiding slaughter, on both sides, in Gaza.
@afneil
Shameful. Embarrassment for Scotland.
Quote
Simon Johnson
@simon_telegraph
Scottish Parliament will not fly Israeli flag in decision involving MSP who defended Hamas attacks 1/2 https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/10/scotland-rejects-israel-flag-maggie-chapman-greens/
7:37 PM · Oct 10, 2023
329.3K Views"
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1711813222242582578
But, Israel itself has no legal obligation to supply food or medicines or power to Gaza.
I like to think that somewhere there’s a group of smart people in smart clothes that have got this figured out with their smart ideas. A cunning plan that will avoid a further massacre of innocents and that puts the lid back on what feels like a terrible brewing global war between democracy and autocracy. But then you realise that the room is probably filled with people like Matt Hancock. Ho hum.
These aren’t new ideas.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-12-10-proportionality-conduct-hostilities-incidental-harm-gillard-final.pdf
Nor do I see it as being unlawful to suspend the supply of power to Gaza.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/10/eu-funded-water-pipelines-hamas-rockets/
Putting aside the Telegraph anti-EU bent and obviously the fact all sorts of piping could be used, just tells you what Hamas are like. Water for our people, nah, dig them up and turn them into rockets.
https://x.com/bbcbreaking/status/1711859661387747571
Texas, USA.
NEW THREAD
For its sheer brutal simplicity, it's hard to top my personal favorite hate-tweet: "The only thing that makes me happy is you are old and will die soon."
Rather than blocking or muting the sender, I "liked" it, just to bewilder them. 😜
https://twitter.com/MarkHamill/status/1710003424400744948