Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[ZiprHead]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

Just do some reading about combat instead of listening to sound bites.

Apparently you already have so you should easily be able to find some cites.

War is hell, there are only horrible choices. You have to pick the least horrible--and until you recognize that you're not going to be able to pick the least horrible because you'll see it's horrible and balk at it.

I've never denied there are horrible choices.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

Hamas, as the original aggressor chose this war, but are held to a zero standard for their unprovoked and shocking attack on Israel. They are backed by Iran and support the same oppressive religious bullshit. They choose to take cover in buildings occupied by civilians because they're wagering that the world will come down on Israel for attacking those targets. They willfully choose to sacrifice their own people, and young liberals lap it up as "genocide."

Hamas is the original aggressor???

I agree Hamas are evil bastards. I also think the Israel government are evil bastards

Any decent military leadership will do what it reasonably can to minimize its own losses while inflicting the most losses it can on the enemy. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

It is their responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. It's required by international law.

When I was in the army I never engaged in real urban warfare, but we did train in it. On our first go-through, nearly the entire platoon was killed. I forget the name of the laser engagement system, but when you'd get hit, a beeper would go off, which is how we knew when we were "dead." It was eye opening. Thus, if there is a better way than getting your people killed, that's the path that should be taken.

So you weren't further trained on how to avoid getting killed the next time?

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

I already said what should be a reasonably expected return.

 

[ZiprHead]

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

Israel did send in ground troops into Gaza. But even so, significant civilian casualties are unavoidable when talking urban combat in very densely populated areas.

I've never expected there to be no civilian casualties at all. But when your bombing turns the landscape into this:



or this



causes extensive casualties among civilians.

And of course Israel used aerial attacks too. It would be stupid not to. US also bombs targets from the air and uses air support to aid ground troops. And yes, civilians died during our campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan or against ISIS in Syria.

So two wrongs make a right?

 

[ZiprHead]

And how many times have posters on these fora complained, shrieked about Israeli troops invading Gaza. Terrorising civilians and destroying buildings.
What can Israel do that you would not complain about?

Biden didn't want Israel to use ground troops in Rafah because of concern for the civilians. You are right, no matter what Israel does, it will be attacked.

This is not quite the entire story.

“We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently,” he said. “But it’s, it’s just wrong. We’re not going to – we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”

Already, the US has paused a shipment of “high-payload munitions” due to Israel’s possible operations in Rafah without a plan for the civilians there, according to the Pentagon, though it said a final decision on that shipment hadn’t been made. The administration has said it is reviewing the potential sale or transfer of other munitions.

Taking civilians into account is required by international law.

Urban warfare and violence

Urban warfare endangers the lives of civilians and the infrastructure they depend on, while its humanitarian consequences persist years after the fighting ends.

www.icrc.org

1. In order to better safeguard civilians and civilian infrastructure, parties to armed conflicts must rigorously apply and better comply with existing international humanitarian law, which is adapted to the major trends in warfare. The underlying principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution are critical in protecting civilians against the effects of hostilities in urban areas.
2. They must also urgently reassess their approach to operations in urban environments, including by reviewing urban warfare doctrines, training and planning procedures, tactics and choice of weapons. Protecting civilians must be made a strategic priority in the planning and conduct of military operations, as warring parties remain obliged to take all feasible precautions to avoid incidental harm to civilians.
3. Most importantly, they must avoid using heavy explosive weapons at all costs. Such weapons are designed to deliver large explosive force from a distance and over wide areas, which causes indiscriminate damage and makes them ill-adapted for use in urban and other population centres. They should not be used unless sufficient mitigation measures are taken to limit their wide-area effects and the subsequent risk for civilians.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

One 2000 lbs bomb cannot destroy an entire neighborhood.

The blast radius of a 2,000-pound bomb can range from 360 meters (1,198 feet) to a quarter mile, depending on the variant of the bomb and the environment it's dropped in:

• Lethal radius
  The lethal radius of a 2,000-pound bomb can be up to 360 meters (1,198 feet), which is the area where people can be killed.
  
  
• Damage radius
  The damage radius of a 2,000-pound bomb can be up to 800 meters, which is the area where buildings can be severely damaged.
  
  
• Crater size
  A 2,000-pound bomb can create a crater that's 50 feet (15 meters) wide and 36 feet (11 meters) deep.

A quarter mile can definitely encompass an entire neighborhood.

Nevertheless, neighborhoods in Gaza have been destroyed of course. Because Hamas operate from built-up areas among and under the civilian population.
When asked whether 10,000 dead Gazans were worth it, Yahya Sinwar said that even 100,000 would be. He is now dead, but the rest of the upper echelons hardly have a different philosophy. That is the enemy that Israel is fighting against here.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys.

And with air support. Take the Battle of Fallujah. US ground troops but also helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. And a lot of civilian casualties too. You can't avoid them in warfare, especially not in an urban setting. And unlike Hamas, Iraqis did not even seek to maximize casualties for propaganda purposes.

The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

Even when they know where they are, there are still going to be casualties. The operation in Nuseirat to rescue some hostages led to the death of >200 and more hundreds injured, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Many of them combatants, but many of them civilians as well. Not surprising, given that the hostages were held in apartments.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

The only way to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza is not to take the war to Hamas. But that would only make Israeli civilians more vulnerable to the next Hamas attack.

No one is saying civilian casualties need to be avoided altogether. But they should be minimised.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

I'm aware of only one incident that might reasonably be described as a city block full of people dying--and it was from indiscriminate shooting by Hamas. The Israeli troops were disguised, they couldn't have been carrying heavy weapons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

Hamas, as the original aggressor chose this war, but are held to a zero standard for their unprovoked and shocking attack on Israel. They are backed by Iran and support the same oppressive religious bullshit. They choose to take cover in buildings occupied by civilians because they're wagering that the world will come down on Israel for attacking those targets. They willfully choose to sacrifice their own people, and young liberals lap it up as "genocide."

Hamas is the original aggressor???

They launched 10/7.

I agree Hamas are evil bastards. I also think the Israel government are evil bastards

But you keep failing to prove that.

Any decent military leadership will do what it reasonably can to minimize its own losses while inflicting the most losses it can on the enemy. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

It is their responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. It's required by international law.

No. It is required to minimize them as much as practical. Not as much as possible.

When I was in the army I never engaged in real urban warfare, but we did train in it. On our first go-through, nearly the entire platoon was killed. I forget the name of the laser engagement system, but when you'd get hit, a beeper would go off, which is how we knew when we were "dead." It was eye opening. Thus, if there is a better way than getting your people killed, that's the path that should be taken.

So you weren't further trained on how to avoid getting killed the next time?

Further trained how? He's simply describing what happens when you attempt to assault troops holed up in a city. In practice you figure out where they are hiding and reduce the place with explosives.

You're still not getting it that there are nothing but horrible choices.

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

I already said what should be a reasonably expected return.

No. Your position has been one of shall-not's. You persist in thinking there's a better answer is just the evil Jews would look for it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

Israel did send in ground troops into Gaza. But even so, significant civilian casualties are unavoidable when talking urban combat in very densely populated areas.

I've never expected there to be no civilian casualties at all. But when your bombing turns the landscape into this:

View attachment 48431

or this

View attachment 48432

causes extensive casualties among civilians.

And of course Israel used aerial attacks too. It would be stupid not to. US also bombs targets from the air and uses air support to aid ground troops. And yes, civilians died during our campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan or against ISIS in Syria.

So two wrongs make a right?

Most of the buildings are still standing. That's actually a better than expected outcome. And note that most of those buildings were empty. In the earlier part of the war we had counts of weapons dropped. And we had Hamas claims of the dead. Even if you take Hamas' data at face value (at least 10% is known to be fake) Israel was averaging less than one dead per bomb dropped. Israel is incredibly good at getting the civilians out of the way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taking civilians into account is required by international law.

Yes, but not to the degree that you are demanding.

Urban warfare and violence

Urban warfare endangers the lives of civilians and the infrastructure they depend on, while its humanitarian consequences persist years after the fighting ends.

www.icrc.org

1. In order to better safeguard civilians and civilian infrastructure, parties to armed conflicts must rigorously apply and better comply with existing international humanitarian law, which is adapted to the major trends in warfare. The underlying principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution are critical in protecting civilians against the effects of hostilities in urban areas.
2. They must also urgently reassess their approach to operations in urban environments, including by reviewing urban warfare doctrines, training and planning procedures, tactics and choice of weapons. Protecting civilians must be made a strategic priority in the planning and conduct of military operations, as warring parties remain obliged to take all feasible precautions to avoid incidental harm to civilians.
3. Most importantly, they must avoid using heavy explosive weapons at all costs. Such weapons are designed to deliver large explosive force from a distance and over wide areas, which causes indiscriminate damage and makes them ill-adapted for use in urban and other population centres. They should not be used unless sufficient mitigation measures are taken to limit their wide-area effects and the subsequent risk for civilians.

Points 1 and 2 don't say what you think they say.

And you're missing what happened with the bombs. They are exploding underground. That makes a huge difference in their effect.

Earlier in the war we had multiple videos of bombs going off--you could see the blast zone and you could see the secondary effects of the tunnels collapsing well beyond the primary blast area. So long as the tunnel collapse range exceeds the blast range it's better to use the bigger booms.

And we have video out of Lebanon that I have mentioned before. A bunch of people standing around filming themselves in front of a Hezbollah building that's about to go boom. They sure don't look scared and they sure don't look like anybody's making them be there. That means they must be sufficiently confident of the precision of the Israeli strike and that the boom would not be in a position to yeet things everywhere. I've seen other video without the selfies that likewise shows that the bombs are clearly exploding underneath the target--the buildings blow up, not out.

Or look at that video you posted of Israel destroying part of a Lebanese village. The charges were in the tunnels underneath. It's not Israel's fault that there are civilian buildings literally on top of military structures and the laws of war do not protect such structures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one is saying civilian casualties need to be avoided altogether. But they should be minimised.

But anything Israel does you say is excessive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No one is saying civilian casualties need to be avoided altogether. But they should be minimised.

But anything Israel does you say is excessive.

Hamas/Hezbollah are on purpose using Palestinian civilians to hide behind. Their tactic is to use Palestinian civilian casualies as a weapon in the PR war

 

[ZiprHead]

Ground combat causes a lot more civilian casualties than what Israel was doing from the air.

I'd like to see some confirmation of that other than just a dry statement.

I'm aware of only one incident that might reasonably be described as a city block full of people dying--and it was from indiscriminate shooting by Hamas. The Israeli troops were disguised, they couldn't have been carrying heavy weapons.

Another dry statement that doesn't provide the confirmation I asked for.

 

[ZiprHead]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

Hamas, as the original aggressor chose this war, but are held to a zero standard for their unprovoked and shocking attack on Israel. They are backed by Iran and support the same oppressive religious bullshit. They choose to take cover in buildings occupied by civilians because they're wagering that the world will come down on Israel for attacking those targets. They willfully choose to sacrifice their own people, and young liberals lap it up as "genocide."

Hamas is the original aggressor???

They launched 10/7.

Do you think nothing happened before 10/7?

I agree Hamas are evil bastards. I also think the Israel government are evil bastards

But you keep failing to prove that.

No, you keep failing to acknowledge that.

Any decent military leadership will do what it reasonably can to minimize its own losses while inflicting the most losses it can on the enemy. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

It is their responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. It's required by international law.

No. It is required to minimize them as much as practical. Not as much as possible.

When I was in the army I never engaged in real urban warfare, but we did train in it. On our first go-through, nearly the entire platoon was killed. I forget the name of the laser engagement system, but when you'd get hit, a beeper would go off, which is how we knew when we were "dead." It was eye opening. Thus, if there is a better way than getting your people killed, that's the path that should be taken.

So you weren't further trained on how to avoid getting killed the next time?

Further trained how? He's simply describing what happens when you attempt to assault troops holed up in a city. In practice you figure out where they are hiding and reduce the place with explosives.

You're still not getting it that there are nothing but horrible choices.

Why don't you let him answer? You were not there. Have you ever even been in the military to speak so authoritatively about it?

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

I already said what should be a reasonably expected return.

No. Your position has been one of shall-not's. You persist in thinking there's a better answer is just the evil Jews would look for it.

There is a better answer and it's already required by international law.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

How do you propose Israel defend itself against an enemy that hides in civilian areas without there being significant civilian casualties?

You send ground troops in to route out HAMAS instead of bombing and destroying an entire city block full of people to get a few HAMAS members.

So you send your soldiers into urban combat, one of the most difficult and bloody types of combat where civilian casualties are going to be high anyway?

Not nearly as high as dropping 2000 lb bombs and destroying an entire neighborhood.

A place where it's difficult if not at times impossible to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers? This is particularly true in this war. Hamas is quite happy to take up positions in buildings occupied by civilians and fire on Israelis.

A lot of the operations by the US during desert storm 2 was urban combat. Clearing buildings and hunting bad guys. The Israelis know who they are looking for and where they are, so go in and get them.

You don't unnecessarily sacrifice your soldiers and there is no such thing as clean warfare.

So you sacrifice civilians and you are fine with that.

Hamas, as the original aggressor chose this war, but are held to a zero standard for their unprovoked and shocking attack on Israel. They are backed by Iran and support the same oppressive religious bullshit. They choose to take cover in buildings occupied by civilians because they're wagering that the world will come down on Israel for attacking those targets. They willfully choose to sacrifice their own people, and young liberals lap it up as "genocide."

Hamas is the original aggressor???

They launched 10/7.

I agree Hamas are evil bastards. I also think the Israel government are evil bastards

But you keep failing to prove that.

Any decent military leadership will do what it reasonably can to minimize its own losses while inflicting the most losses it can on the enemy. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

It is their responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. It's required by international law.

No. It is required to minimize them as much as practical. Not as much as possible.

When I was in the army I never engaged in real urban warfare, but we did train in it. On our first go-through, nearly the entire platoon was killed. I forget the name of the laser engagement system, but when you'd get hit, a beeper would go off, which is how we knew when we were "dead." It was eye opening. Thus, if there is a better way than getting your people killed, that's the path that should be taken.

So you weren't further trained on how to avoid getting killed the next time?

Further trained how? He's simply describing what happens when you attempt to assault troops holed up in a city. In practice you figure out where they are hiding and reduce the place with explosives.

You're still not getting it that there are nothing but horrible choices.

Hamas purposely set out to kill Israeli civilians so what can reasonably be expected in return?

I already said what should be a reasonably expected return.

No. Your position has been one of shall-not's. You persist in thinking there's a better answer is just the evil Jews would look for it.

I don't know how to use the quote system, it always goes wrong for me, so I'll address some of the responses others have made to my post here.

1. During the urban combat training I went through, we got massacred the first time, but did get better each subsequent time. HOWEVER, a laser engagement system can only duplicate small arms fired. What it cannot duplicate are grenades, claymore mines and other types of anti-personnel mines. It can't duplicate RPGs or smaller mortar fire, nor can it duplicate homemade devices like molotov cocktails. So, given all that, calling in an artillery and/or airstrike is exactly what military leadership should do. Are you really going to tell a young soldier's family, "Hey, at least he got killed in a way that third party liberals thought was right!"

2. Rules of Warfare: there should be rules and there are, but why is Israel the only one held to account for those rules? Also, on a practical level, the rules with respect to direct combat aren't realistic and never have been. Warfare is ghastly, and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. However, when it's unavoidable, the job is to decimate the enemy and destroy their fighting capability in order to end the war (fundamentally speaking).

Not murdering troops that have surrendered or are in the process of surrendering and not murdering and torturing POWs is realistic and doable. Not purposefully attacking purely civilian targets is realistic and doable. So again, why isn't Hamas held to this standard?

Finally, why does Islamic fundamentalism find so much sympathy among liberals, especially atheists? This will never cease to puzzle me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Christian fundamentalism is fucking awful, so why doesn't the same apply to a religion that subjugates and murders women, non-believers, and those not of that faith?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Most of the buildings are still standing. That's actually a better than expected outcome. And note that most of those buildings were empty. In the earlier part of the war we had counts of weapons dropped. And we had Hamas claims of the dead. Even if you take Hamas' data at face value (at least 10% is known to be fake) Israel was averaging less than one dead per bomb dropped. Israel is incredibly good at getting the civilians out of the way.

and when the war is over and Hamas completely defeated the Gazan civilians can simply move back into the houses that weren’t destroyed and live a merry life of freedom from tyranny and terrorism.

 

[TomC]

Most of the buildings are still standing. That's actually a better than expected outcome. And note that most of those buildings were empty. In the earlier part of the war we had counts of weapons dropped. And we had Hamas claims of the dead. Even if you take Hamas' data at face value (at least 10% is known to be fake) Israel was averaging less than one dead per bomb dropped. Israel is incredibly good at getting the civilians out of the way.

and when the war is over and Hamas completely defeated the Gazan civilians can simply move back into the houses that weren’t destroyed and live a merry life of freedom from tyranny and terrorism.

Will the Gazans ever allow the war to end?
70 years of history suggest that Gazans, as a whole, prefer violence and ethnic cleansing over peace and prosperity.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

Most of the buildings are still standing. That's actually a better than expected outcome. And note that most of those buildings were empty. In the earlier part of the war we had counts of weapons dropped. And we had Hamas claims of the dead. Even if you take Hamas' data at face value (at least 10% is known to be fake) Israel was averaging less than one dead per bomb dropped. Israel is incredibly good at getting the civilians out of the way.

and when the war is over and Hamas completely defeated the Gazan civilians can simply move back into the houses that weren’t destroyed and live a merry life of freedom from tyranny and terrorism.

Will the Gazans ever allow the war to end?
70 years of history suggest that Gazans, as a whole, prefer violence and ethnic cleansing over peace and prosperity.
Tom

Then I guess the Israelis should just keep killing them until either they are all gone or they do want war to end. Is that the right answer?

If they all want war then there are actually no civilians, they are all combatants.

 

[TomC]

Then I guess the Israelis should just keep killing them until either they are all gone or they do want war to end. Is that the right answer?

Killing who? The violent Muslim extremists who have been attacking Israel for decades, including last October 7?

You keep saying "they" as though it's obvious who you're referring to, but it isn't.

How about we use "they" to refer specifically to the Muslim authoritarians who use violence to get rid of the Jews in Israel? In that case, I'm okay with "keep killing them until they are all gone or they do want the war to end".

If they all want war then there are actually no civilians, they are all combatants.

Which is why Israeli forces have killed so many Palestinians. Because the few who don't want the war are executed by their Muslim compatriots.

There is no "All" here, but there is definitely "as a whole". Gazans as a whole prefer war to peace and prosperity or this wouldn't be happening.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

There is no "All" here, but there is definitely "as a whole". Gazans as a whole prefer war to peace and prosperity or this wouldn't be happening.
Tom

One could make the same claim about Israelis as a whole, and it would be just as insightful.

 

[TomC]

There is no "All" here, but there is definitely "as a whole". Gazans as a whole prefer war to peace and prosperity or this wouldn't be happening.
Tom

One could make the same claim about Israelis as a whole, and it would be just as insightful.

Tell me again about how the vicious attacks on Palestinians forced them to launch a bunch of missiles and kidnap a bunch of people on October 7 last year.
Tom