Zionuts

[Flixy]

What would be the correct word for proportionality of a response? As in the balance between the offense and the retaliation (you are right in pointing out the meaning of it, which was indeed not what I meant, I'll excuse myself as being a non native english speaker ). Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but at what point is the retaliation for attacks disproportionate? I think in that discussion you'd also need to consider effectiveness of the attacks, from both sides. Note that I don't know the answer, but at some point hundreds of civilian casualties vs a few makes you wonder if the scale of the response is appropriate or not. Out of the two major actors Hamas is (obviously) the worse one, because they specifically target civilians, but if the missile attacks are that ineffective, is it really worth this response, and aren't there better, less costly ways to counter? I honestly don't know enough about the whole thing to judge on that, so I won't, and it doesn't help that Hamas is using human shields/hiding their weapons in/near civilian targets.

edit: also blame the West Wing for having an episode called 'A proportional response'

[Loki]

Why would Hamas stop after a weaker response?

[Khendraja'aro]

Why would Hamas stop after a weaker response?

Particularly if they're not stopping after a pretty strong response?

[Flixy]

If we're answering with questions: Why would they stop after this response?

You're not going to stop them completely/kill them all, and it's not like they don't know they will be bombed in return, and that obviously hasn't deterred them so far. And I wouldn't be surprised if this works well for their popularity and fundraising. And considering their missiles hardly ever hit anything these days, maybe retaliation is just what they want, to try and look like the victim.

Or do you think that this time Hamas will say "You know what? We give up!"?

edit: to be clear, I don't know what a proper alternative could possibly be, as I stated in the previous post I don't know enough, this post is just to answer your non-answer.

[Loki]

The point isn't to make them give up; it's to make the cost of continued action so high that they'd prefer another cease-fire.

[Aimless]

I must admit to some doubt as to whether or not Israel would--or should--be satisfied with just another cease-fire, given some of the sentiments in eg. the following speech to the Security Council (no doubt linked to elsewhere in this thread or this forum):

Mr. President,

In the face of terrorists kidnapping our children, we were left with no choice.

In the face of rockets raining down on our citizens, we were left with no choice.

In the face of jihadists tunneling under our borders, we were left with no choice.

A few hours ago, the Israel Defense Forces entered Gaza to restore a sustained quiet to the people of Israel while degrading Hamas’s terror capabilities. We did everything in our power to avoid this. Prime Minister Netanyahu made the courageous decision to accept every cease-fire offered - even as the people of Israel were under attack. But Hamas rejected every overture to restore the quiet.

This wasn’t what we wanted. We have sent our children - our sons and our daughters - to face an enemy who lives by violence and celebrates death. I want to be clear - our forces are fighting in Gaza, but they are not fighting the people of Gaza.

For years, the citizens of Israel have been the victims of unrelenting attacks perpetrated by a murderous terrorist group. Hamas has attacked us in our homes and schools and cafes and on our buses.

Stand now with Israel to prevent the next barrage of rockets, the next kidnapping, and the next suicide attack so that we may, once and for all, remove the threat of terrorism casting its dark shadow over the people of Israel.

Mr. President,

The past month alone offers a glimpse into the unrelenting threats that Israel faces. We have been attacked on four fronts. Rockets have been launched from Syria, Lebanon, and Sinai and over 1,500 rockets have been fired by terrorists in Gaza.

Israel’s great restraint is being met with unrestrained aggression. For six hours on Tuesday, Israel held its fire. During that time, the world witnessed Hamas’s understanding of ‘cease-fires’ - Israel ceases and Hamas fires. Hamas didn’t fire one or two rockets; it battered Israel with 50 rockets. Every one sent a message loud and clear - Hamas is determined to wage war on the Jewish State.

Two days later, the UN asked for a limited humanitarian truce. Once again, Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed and proved that Israel is not interested in a war. As aid workers transferred goods to assist the people of Gaza, Hamas continued to defiantly launch rockets into Israel.

How did Hamas use the humanitarian cease-fire? It sent thirteen heavily armed terrorists through a terror tunnel towards Kibbutz Sufa with the sole purpose of committing a massacre.

This is the third time in the past two weeks that Hamas has used its tunnels to infiltrate Israel and tried to carry out attacks. And all the while, it is still launching hundreds of rockets.

Mr. President,

For 10 days, life for five million Israelis has meant having just seconds to run for a bomb shelter and save their lives. Our largest cities - Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem - are being bombarded on a daily basis.

There is no country in the world that would tolerate such an assault on its citizens - and Israel should not be expected to either. We are acting solely to defend Israelis from constant terror attacks.

Throughout Operation Protective Edge, Israel has been committed to upholding international law. Our army is a moral army like no other in the world. It does not aspire to harm any innocent person. We are operating only against terrorist targets and genuinely regret any civilian loss.

In contrast, there is no red line that Hamas will not cross. It will stop at nothing and there is no depth that they will not sink to - they are even using ambulances filled with children to move their terrorists around Gaza.

There is no site that is off limits for Hamas - it is storing its weapons in family homes, launching rockets from mosques and establishing its headquarters in the basement of a Gaza hospital.

Yesterday, UNRWA admitted that it mysteriously found 20 missiles in one of its schools. I’m sure that if UNRWA takes the time to check its other facilities, it will discover that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hamas is using UN facilities to commit a double war crime by targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians.

From the safety of their luxury hotels in Qatar, Hamas leaders like Khaled Mashaal order room service with one hand and order Hamas to use Palestinians as human shields with the other.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. The Palestinian delegate to the UN Human Rights Council admitted as much, saying (and I quote): “The missiles that are now being launched against Israel, each and every missile constitutes a crime against humanity, whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets.”

I hope the Palestinian delegate will remember this when making threats against certain UN agencies.

Mr. President,

Israel has been faced with a choice that no nation should have to make: refrain from responding and subject its civilians to rocket fire or engage with the terrorists and risk injuring civilians.

Hamas uses Palestinian casualties to fuel its propaganda machine. Hamas’s strategy is clear - it perpetuates the killing of its own people in the hope that the international community will place pressure on Israel to grant its demands.

Sadly, many people have fallen for their cynical campaign by describing the fighting as moral equivalency or a (quote unquote) “cycle of violence.”

All those who argue that both sides are equally to blame are playing into Hamas’s hand and sentencing the people of Gaza and Israel to further suffering. Ill-informed condemnations of Israel strengthen the hand of terrorists.

There is a clear difference between Israel and Hamas - the Jewish people believe in the value of life, while Hamas believes in the value of taking lives.

How many more Palestinians must fall victim before President Abbas finally breaks his partnership with Hamas?

Abbas is the president of the unity government that includes a murderous terror group. What exactly is this government united for? Obviously not for peace.

Mr. President,

Even as alarms sound throughout Israel, some members of the international community are sounding false alarms here in the United Nations. They told us that as soon as Israel retreated to 1967 lines and dismantled its settlements, there would be peace. They insisted that the conflict was fueled by the so-called occupation.

Occupation? Does no one remember anything?

When I headed Israel’s Foreign Service in 2005, Israel turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. In the process, the world watched as we uprooted thousands of families from their homes and dismantled their businesses.

When we were done, there was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left. All we left behind were greenhouses and other structures that would develop the Gaza economy and allow the Palestinian people to build a peaceful society. We opened border crossings and encouraged commerce because we wanted Gaza to succeed. We hoped that this would serve as a model for two societies to live side by side in peace.

But it didn’t. Hamas used the pretense of democracy to create a militant theocracy. First, it waged a civil war against Fatah and executed political opponents. Then it destroyed the greenhouses and businesses we left behind. Instead of using them to build economic institutions, it built a terrorist regime complete with miles of underground tunnels. And finally, it seized the funding that flowed from the international community to flood Gaza with weapons.

In each and every month for the past nine years, Hamas has fired rockets towards Israel’s towns and cities. Over time, it has expanded its arsenal of rockets from a few hundred to thousands. The weapons that they have today are more sophisticated and can reach farther into Israel than ever before.

Every few years, Hamas escalates its attacks by launching a massive offensive.

In 2008, over the course of three weeks, Hamas fired 800 rockets that could reach 1 million Israelis living in the area near Gaza.

In 2012, Hamas fired 1,200 rockets in a single week that could reach 3.5 million Israelis in southern and central Israel.

In the last two weeks, Hamas has fired 1,500 rockets that threaten 5 million Israelis - or 70% of our population - living throughout the country.

After each escalation, the international community brokers a cease-fire and Israel accepts it hoping that it will finally bring peace. After three rounds of major assaults and over 12,000 rockets in nine years, it has become clear that Hamas is not interested in bringing quiet to Gaza. It is employing the “Hudna” strategy. When Hamas finds itself on the verge of defeat, it agrees to a brief recess to rest, rearm, and resume aggressions.

Mr. President,

For years, we told you about the thousands of rockets that Hamas was smuggling into Gaza. We were met with silence. Time and again we called on the international community to condemn the rocket fire and we were met with silence.

It is time for the international community to face the consequences of its inaction. Hamas used its foothold in Gaza to trample on the Palestinian people and build a terror base in Israel’s backyard. And now it sees an opportunity to do it again.

Hamas is using the unity government to export its terrorist capabilities from Gaza to Judea and Samaria. If Hamas is not stopped, it will mean more terror for Israel and more tragedy for the Palestinians.

The international community embraced the unity agreement between Fatah and a terror organization, believing it would bring us closer to peace. Does that sound logical to you?

How could embracing a terror group whose raison d’etre is the eradication of Israel bring about peace?

By now it should be clear that Hamas is using the cover of a political agreement to gain legitimacy for its extremist objectives. Following the establishment of the unity government, Hamas Minister Fathi Hammad declared (and I quote) that: “the whistling of bullets, the sound of bombs and missiles exploding…and the capture of [Israeli] soldiers” was “music to our ears.”

The danger couldn’t be clearer. By supporting the unity agreement, you are giving Hamas the opportunity to weave incitement, violence, and terror into the basic fabric of Judea and Samaria, just as it did in Gaza.

Mr. President,

The citizens of Israel want to live in peace. We want to see our children grow up and grow old without ever running for a bomb shelter or putting on an army uniform.

I hope that someday we read about attacks on the Jewish people in history books rather than in newspapers. But that day has not yet come. For now, we are forced to wage a war against a terrorist group committed to our destruction.

Night has fallen in Israel. Rather than sleeping soundly in their beds, our sons and daughters are out there in the darkness standing guard over the people of Israel. In the Book of Psalms, King David says:

רַ֭בַּת שָֽׁכְנָה־לָּ֣הּ נַפְשִׁ֑י עִ֗ם שׂוֹנֵ֥א שָׁלֽוֹם:

אֲֽנִי־שָׁ֭לוֹם וְכִ֣י אֲדַבֵּ֑ר הֵ֗מָּה לַמִּלְחָמָֽה:

Too long have I lived among those who hate peace.

I am for peace; but when I speak, they are for war.

Mr. President - Israel was left with no choice. But each of you has a choice.

Stand against terrorism and stand for the right of people to live in peace.

Stand against the use of human shields and stand for human rights.

Stand against oppression and stand for the freedoms that we hold dear.

The leaders of many governments represented in this room have already expressed their support for Israel’s right to defend itself. We thank them for standing at our side at this important hour.

I ask the rest of you to join them.

I have with me a compass. I offer it to the international community in the hopes that it will guide you towards making the right decision. Stand for moral clarity, stand for good against evil, and stand for right against wrong.

Thank you.

[wiggin]

What would be the correct word for proportionality of a response? As in the balance between the offense and the retaliation (you are right in pointing out the meaning of it, which was indeed not what I meant, I'll excuse myself as being a non native english speaker ). Of course Israel has a right to defend itself, but at what point is the retaliation for attacks disproportionate? I think in that discussion you'd also need to consider effectiveness of the attacks, from both sides. Note that I don't know the answer, but at some point hundreds of civilian casualties vs a few makes you wonder if the scale of the response is appropriate or not. Out of the two major actors Hamas is (obviously) the worse one, because they specifically target civilians, but if the missile attacks are that ineffective, is it really worth this response, and aren't there better, less costly ways to counter? I honestly don't know enough about the whole thing to judge on that, so I won't, and it doesn't help that Hamas is using human shields/hiding their weapons in/near civilian targets.

edit: also blame the West Wing for having an episode called 'A proportional response'

I think this has nothing to do with your grasp of English - the media and politicians routinely make this mistake as well. Let's ignore any words related to 'proportional' and instead suggest that something seems wrong if there's a 20-to-1 casualty ratio in a military conflict.

And yet maybe there isn't. Iraqi casualties in the Iraq war vs. coalition casualties were on that order, and the vast majority of coalition casualties were soldiers; did that make the war unethically waged? In fact, if you look at most modern wars there are massive differentials in the casualties from one side to another, especially in so-called 'asymmetrical warfare'. When that warfare takes place in densely populated areas (e.g. urban warfare), you tend to have a high proportion of one side's casualties consisting of civilians. In the 1967 war, there were over 20k (estimated) Arab deaths for about 800 Israeli deaths, and that was largely fought in sparsely populated areas by conventional forces! Enemy casualties in the Iraq War were about 7 times coalition casualties, and civilian casualties were many times THAT figure. If you look at enemy civilian:combatant casualty ratios (which are closer to the ACTUAL definition of 'proportionality'), Israel also looks average to good on this rubric: in most recent wars, civilians have accounted for ~70% of casualties; Israel's final tally will probably be in the 50-70% range, though numbers are currently a bit fuzzy. It's ugly, but not unusual, unexpected, or criminal. It's just the cost of doing business, and a reason why the stronger combatant normally tries strenuously to avoid an outbreak of fighting.

No, I don't think that it's unusual or even particularly wrong for one side to escape largely unscathed. In asymmetric wars, this happens because the stronger combatant tends to invest far more in protecting their own people through both offensive and defensive means, while the asymmetric foe generally works within civilian populations and focuses solely on offensive, 'irregular' capabilities. In this case, Israel has precious little choice in the matter - it's clear that merely a defensive posture will do nothing for deterrence, nor will limited airstrikes do much to damage offensive capability (and thus help prevent future recurrences of fighting). Then there's the tunnel issue to contend with - Israel has known that the tunnel network has been expanding at a rapid pace in the last few years, but can't clear them short of a massive ground invasion. Already dozens of Hamas members have tried to carry out attacks and kidnappings through the tunnels, and have only been thwarted by massive IDF surveillance, keeping communities near Gaza shuttered, luck, and the lives of several soldiers. It's only a matter of time before they succeed.

These threats - the rockets, the drones, the mortars, the tunnels, etc. - should not be trifled with. Just because only 3 civilians have been killed so far, that's largely a product of heavy investment in passive and active defense, partially shutting down the economy, and luck. But with over 2k attacks against Israeli civilians so far, it's hard to go with a purely defensive strategy - especially when you have some 5 million people - most of your population - sleeping in bomb shelters. Offense is necessary - first, limited to bombardment in the hopes of restoring deterrence and achieving a quick cease fire along the lines of status quo ante bellum. When that fails (as it did last week), you have to ratchet up the pressure to both achieve more lasting effects (e.g. dismantling infrastructure, tunnels, killing operatives in direct fighting, destroying weapons caches and equipment) and to drive deterrence home more personally.

It's going to be messy, and lots of largely blameless people are likely to die. There's not much you can do about it. But there are frankly few reasonable options out there on how to handle such a situation, and the disparity between the Israeli and Gazan casualties is merely reflective of this reality.

If we're answering with questions: Why would they stop after this response?

You're not going to stop them completely/kill them all, and it's not like they don't know they will be bombed in return, and that obviously hasn't deterred them so far. And I wouldn't be surprised if this works well for their popularity and fundraising. And considering their missiles hardly ever hit anything these days, maybe retaliation is just what they want, to try and look like the victim.

Or do you think that this time Hamas will say "You know what? We give up!"?

edit: to be clear, I don't know what a proper alternative could possibly be, as I stated in the previous post I don't know enough, this post is just to answer your non-answer.

See above, but deterrence is only part of the story. Remember that Hamas is in a tough spot right now - Iran is angry with them over their lack of support for the Assad regime, Egypt is much more hostile under the military government for obvious reasons, they have lost Syria as a useful ally, etc. Hamas' weapons stores have been heavily depleted by IDF action and expenditures during fighting, and the most dangerous of their weapons are going to be very hard to replace - not just the rockets, but advanced ATGMs like the Kornet, RPG-29s, MANPADS, etc. These aren't produced locally and are difficult to get back, especially when naval commandos in the Red Sea and drone strikes in Sudan interdict most of their weapons shipments. Tunnels also aren't cheap - they rely on imports of building and excavating materials, and probably cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to build (nothing to sneeze at in such a poor region).

There's also the chance to kill high ranking operatives; killing rank and file Hamas men is a waste of time (though Israel has probably killed a couple hundred front line fighters so far, along with capturing a few dozen); killing or incapacitating operational leaders is much more valuable. Details are sketchy, but it appears that the IDF has tried to take out much of Islamic Jihad's leadership in Gaza and high ranking operational cadres of Hamas. Completely toppling the Hamas government is probably not their goal, but seriously degrading their operational effectiveness is.

At some point, Hamas is going to stop. It might be because external pressure gets too great for them to continue; more likely, it will be a calculated response. I suspect they'll stop after they feel a combination of two things: 1) They can't get much more out of the fighting because IDF forces have cleared sufficient amounts of land and weapons that they can't effectively attack Israel proper, and their operational cohesion is falling apart. 2) They feel they have inflicted enough damage on Israel to claim victory. The latter is probably more important, and why there have been so many infiltration attempts - kidnapping live Israeli soldiers or civilians would be a huge coup, and shooting up a kibbutz for a high-casualty event would similarly play well in the Arab world. It's grotesque, but that's their way of thinking. Realistically, so far they have to settle for seeming impotence against Iron Dome (though its magical properties are exaggerated), but relatively heavy IDF casualties (so far at 33 dead) and possibly the body of one dead soldier. In their eyes, this might be enough of a 'haul' to claim victory. I suspect they're still holding out for a lucky hit with a long range rocket - if a single one gets through Iron Dome and hits a populated area, there could be tens of civilian casualties. Either way, eventually pressure will force them to call quits on this latest round.

There's also the possibility that they're hoping that mounting civilian casualties will eventually turn the tide of world opinion (which has, until now, been remarkably accommodating towards Israeli action) and force Israel to agree to cease fire terms they wouldn't do otherwise - say, something tangible like a prisoner release or laxer border controls. Knowing the Israeli government, though, I doubt they have much chance on that score. They'll be lucky to get the Nov. 2012 agreement reinstated. Hamas might think that enough dead Palestinians might push things in their direction, though.


I know that I'm painting a fairly depressing picture, where Hamas' actions dictate a grisly and largely inevitable calculus that ends up with hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians. But that's the reality of the situation we're seeing, and wringing our hands over it and shouting about war crimes isn't going to change it one bit. I feel deeply for Gazan civilians, but frankly don't think there's much Israel can do right now to make things better.

[Flixy]

Thanks for the long reply, certainly clears up some of the things I didn't know.

[Aimless]

Clearly not all Israelis are as pessimistic...


http://forward.com/articles/202558/i...#ixzz38HqghUaU



(title obviously does not match the article)

[GGT]

Yes, things are dire in Gaza and it's worth discussing. Some 1.5 million people are stuck in what's basically an open-air prison -- land-locked with closed borders, unable to get out, or get supplies or emergency workers in. I think everyone understands Israel's need to find/destroy the tunnels used by Hamas is legitimate defense, and plenty of blame can be laid on Hamas using civilian structures to build/hide those tunnels.....

But (depending on which Israeli official is speaking) at some point it went from a "limited ground offensive" to eliminating Hamas? Will they just keep going, even though it's wounding or killing more Palestinian civilians than Hamas operatives, and in the process of destroying infrastructure it creates a breeding ground for future extremists?

[Dreadnaught]

I actually don't think everyone understands Israeli's need to find/destroy tunnels and rockets. Though I wish Israel had avoided this confrontation -- Hamas was doing a wonderful job hurting itself. Though clearly, when cornered, they probably would have activated those tunnels that are now being revealed to be quite scary.

[GGT]

I actually don't think everyone understands Israeli's need to find/destroy tunnels and rockets. Though I wish Israel had avoided this confrontation -- Hamas was doing a wonderful job hurting itself. Though clearly, when cornered, they probably would have activated those tunnels that are now being revealed to be quite scary.

Feeling "cornered" is a concept familiar to most Israelis, right? What I don't understand is why that same principle isn't afforded to Palestinian civilians, and their children, trapped in Gaza?

Since Palestinians don't have traditional elements of "validity" like nation state status, or even "legitimate" international funding.....is it any wonder that radical, extremist groups have filled the void?

[Aimless]

I've been seeing references to the IDF's use of human shields (shorthand for coercing civilians to participate in military tasks) crop up here and there. I know some IDF troops have on occasion done this in previous conflicts, even after it was found to be illegal, but what's the situation right now?

[Hazir]

It seems odd that proportionality in Israeli government circles means, being willing to sacrifice 46 young Israelis, for what supposedly is an attempt to deny Hamas access to Israeli territory through their tunnels.

[wiggin]

Yes, things are dire in Gaza and it's worth discussing. Some 1.5 million people are stuck in what's basically an open-air prison -- land-locked with closed borders, unable to get out, or get supplies or emergency workers in. I think everyone understands Israel's need to find/destroy the tunnels used by Hamas is legitimate defense, and plenty of blame can be laid on Hamas using civilian structures to build/hide those tunnels.....

But (depending on which Israeli official is speaking) at some point it went from a "limited ground offensive" to eliminating Hamas? Will they just keep going, even though it's wounding or killing more Palestinian civilians than Hamas operatives, and in the process of destroying infrastructure it creates a breeding ground for future extremists?

To be fair, two very different countries that border on Gaza have both closed their borders, mostly because Gaza makes such a poor neighbor. Yes, they spend most of their time shelling Israel, but they also have done all sorts of nasty things to Egypt in the Sinai. There are good reasons why they're pariahs.

As for the rest, it's true that Israel's operation isn't making any friends in Gaza (though Hamas' reputation isn't doing too well either), but at some points the immediate needs of safety for 5 million people trump vague concerns about the future. Israel's current operation is not my immediate concern; I'm more interested in how to move from whatever inevitable cease fire is cobbled together to making Gaza a better place for its people... and maybe, someday, a reasonable neighbor. Hamas is clearly part of the problem, and few people would be sorry to see them go. But there remains a serious concern about what would replace them. If a Fatah-led government could stably rule Gaza that would be ideal, but it seems far fetched given the current political situation. Otherwise, there's precious little that can be done other than manage the situation and hope for a change in the future.

I've been seeing references to the IDF's use of human shields (shorthand for coercing civilians to participate in military tasks) crop up here and there. I know some IDF troops have on occasion done this in previous conflicts, even after it was found to be illegal, but what's the situation right now?

The Israeli Supreme Court outlawed the use of Palestinian civilians in military operations years ago (most common was using civilians to knock on the door of a home containing a terrorist in the hopes that said terrorist wouldn't blow the civilian away). It has by and large stopped being IDF practice, though occasionally there are reports of unsanctioned variants of this practice being used by specific units (normally in the West Bank during arrest raids). To my knowledge there have been no credible reports of this happening in the current operation; as I understand it, there has been relatively little interaction between IDF ground forces and civilians at any rate. Most of the IDF deployment has been in rural areas and the outskirts of cities, in a band about 3 km from the border. The neighborhood that has featured so prominently in the fighting (and death toll) is an eastern extension of the main city in the northern Gaza Strip, and its proximity to the border is the reason it has been the focal point of so much tunneling activity.

While the prior use of Palestinian civilians in operations was absolutely wrong, it is also worthwhile noting that this was done in an attempt to minimize bloodshed, rather than maximizing the civilian toll as it Hamas' clear and cynical goal. One of the memorable things Volokh Conspiracy said about this is that Israel is 'blessed' with cartoonishly evil enemies - even though Israel is far from perfect, the people they're fighting make them look like angels in comparison.

It seems odd that proportionality in Israeli government circles means, being willing to sacrifice 46 young Israelis, for what supposedly is an attempt to deny Hamas access to Israeli territory through their tunnels.

The vast majority of those deaths are active duty soldiers, and it's their job to put their lives on the line to provide safety and security for the citizens they protect. The death toll is obviously a trauma for such a small country, but an overwhelming proportion of the Israeli public supports the operation (and its expansion!) and believes the sacrifice is worth it. According to media reports in Israel (take this with a grain of salt, they're poorly sourced) intelligence obtained from captured Hamas members has suggested that a major cross-border attack was planned for the Jewish New Year in September, and could easily have killed dozens of civilians. I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.

During the operation so far, Israel has destroyed about half of Hamas' rocket arsenal and has likely identified nearly all of its cross-border tunnels (not all have been destroyed yet, but that work should be done in a few more days). They've also killed 300+ enemy combatants and captured another 100+. It will take them a few years to build those capabilities back, probably longer for the long range missiles since their supply lines have dried up or been interdicted. (It also will probably take a couple hundred lives of children to rebuild the tunnels as well, but it's not news that Hamas cares little for the lives of their own people.) Purchasing a few years of calm is the least they can expect from this operation - Israeli media call it 'mowing the lawn' (in the sense of a 'maintenance' operation that doesn't change the strategic calculus but does improve short term security). At best, they might expect that a weakened Hamas could be peacefully supplanted by a Fatah-led government, though I don't think anyone is holding their breaths on this one.

There's an interesting piece over at the New Republic discussing the growing pressure Hamas has been under in recent months and their complete inability to continue to administer the Strip. I have to conclude that this war had little to do with Israel's choosing, and everything to do with Hamas' desperate need for a 'quality' attack against the Zionist enemy so they could shore up domestic support. So far I don't think it's been particularly successful, but that's not for lack of trying. Now, Israel could have ignored this escalation and hunkered down, trying to ride it out with just the occasional airstrike (though likely precipitating a political crisis in the Knesset), but that wouldn't have gained them anything. Instead they have an opportunity to seriously weaken the striking power of their major threat to public order, and they took it.



One last interesting note - Kerry really screwed the pooch on this one. In the quest for a cease fire, he came up with a proposal Friday that was unanimously rejected by the Israeli cabinet as being too much a capitulation to Hamas' demands without adequate security guarantees. A unanimous Israeli cabinet decision is a rare thing to behold. Even more remarkably, the PA was sidelined from the negotiations, and they were very publicly pissed about it. So was Egypt. Instead Kerry spent his time chatting up Hamas' backers (Turkey and Qatar) and getting nowhere. Even Haaretz ran an incredibly negative editorial about Kerry's efforts. I'm curious to see what the State Department spin on this will be on Monday.

[Hazir]

I'm a bit surprised you juxtapose the needs of Israel's civilans against vague concerns for the future in order to justify the operations. Besides the murder of three boys and ineffective firing of rockets towards Israel very little of an accute nature is demanding actions of the drastic kind we witness these days. It is only because there are serious fears for the attacks to become more effective and bloodier that Israel is hitting out now. With other words, Israel is less reacting to old attacks than pre-empting new ones that may be worse. The very vague concerns you think are arguments against war.

P.S. No, I don't think murdering three civilians is something you should just let pass, and I also don't think that Israel doesn't have the right to defend against present missiles, but neither explain why now and why so fierce.

[wiggin]

The kidnapping and murder of the three teenagers has absolutely nothing to do with what's going in on Gaza now. Full stop. Media reports outside of Israel like to draw that connection: their logic is something along the lines of "3 teenagers killed, Israel rounds up a bunch of Hamas members, Palestinian teenager killed, Hamas starts shooting from Gaza". This narrative is incorrect.

The war in Gaza started because Hamas needed it. They're out of money and supplies now that Egypt has gotten a lot more serious about border security, they lost Syria as a patron, and Iran is less interested. The unity government with Fatah was a last gasp effort to prop up their regime, but it clearly failed in May/June. In that context, starting a shooting war with Israel makes perfect sense for them.

A little reported but possibly crucial detail in the early stages of this conflict is that a cross-border tunnel collapsed (or was destroyed), likely due to Israeli action, early in July. It killed somewhere around half a dozen Hamas fighters, and seems to have been a major setback for the organization. I suspect that Israel had growing evidence that rockets were going to provide a cover for cross-border infiltrations and was trying to step up clandestine activity against them - Hamas realized this, and decided that they had to start the fighting in the hopes of carrying out a high quality attack before Israel was able to respond. I don't know if the media reports of a plan to send 200+ infiltrators into 6 separate border communities in September are overblown, but it's certainly an ambitious plan that is far more advanced than their previous attempts at cross-border raids; I suspect that something of this order was planned, but they had to move of their timetable given the precariousness of their position in Gaza and mounting evidence that Israel was on to them.

Their calculation was straightforward, and it could easily have worked. There have been a good number of large-scale infiltration attempts in the last month - two landings by naval commandos, and several big infiltration attempts through tunnels (we're talking groups of 10+ gunmen). Only fast work by IDF forces, good surveillance, intelligence, and an abundance of caution have kept the death toll so low (and, other than some mortar/rocket attacks, confined to soldiers). They could easily have failed and we could be looking at dozens (or more) dead civilians or hostage crises.

In this context, it's hardly some nebulous future threat the IDF is addressing. The reason for 'why now' is because Hamas started massive rocket salvos and repeated infiltration attempts, so they had to respond. The answer to 'why so fierce' is that it isn't particularly fierce. Israel has carried out a methodical ratcheting-up of their use of force as Hamas has continued its attacks; first, pinpoint strikes against rocket launchers and fighters near the border. As the salvos increased in frequency and it became clear this was a planned Hamas operation, Israel started with ever-increasing intensity of airstrikes, artillery, and naval attacks. Meanwhile, they inexorably built up forces on the border as a threat... and after a week or so of continuing fighting, they moved in. There's still plenty of room for escalation - Israel's ground invasion has barely touched built-up areas in the Strip, but they're holding off on expanding the operation until the political echelons decide it's worth the cost/benefit calculation.

Remember that for several days in the last week Israel has largely avoided major airstrikes or ground operations; most of their effort is directed at destroying the tunnels and airstrikes against launching positions. During repeated unilateral ceasefires and 'humanitarian ceasefires' Israel has by and large restrained the IDF from a massive incursion, and kept airstrikes to a manageable minimum. (I suspect that the decreased intensity of airstrikes is partly because of a depleted target bank - now they just hit targets of opportunity (such as launch sites) and provide close air support for ground troops.) In a single day of urban fighting, the US Army Rangers killed a similar number of people (with a similar civilian casualty ratio) as in the entire Gaza operation so far. In the Battle of Fallujah, which took just slightly longer than the IDF operation so far, US troops killed a similar number of Iraqis (and lost a similar number of casualties). Urban warfare is complicated and messy, but I don't think Israel's response is uniquely 'fierce' for the situation.

[Hazir]

After reading all that I can only conclude that we both see the present war as mostly pre-emptive. And where we probably don't agree is that I think Israel wanted this war just was badly as you claim their Hamas opponents wanted it.

[wiggin]

Six attempted cross border attacks in 3 weeks seems like a pretty reasonable casus belli, even ignoring the rockets. That's hardly pre-emptive.

As for Israel's intentions, I have no doubt that plenty of people in the government and the populace feel just fine about sticking it to Hamas. Yet I strongly suspect that they would have delayed a significant operation indefinitely if Hamas has stopped rocket fire and infiltration attempts. Indeed, before the ground invasion it appeared that Israel was serious about an Egyptian cease fire proposal to result in status quo ante bellum - with little to show the Israeli public in a tactical or strategic victory - except that it became clear Hamas had no interest in such an arrangement. Now that they're committed, I think they want something to show for it, so they'll delay any ceasefire until proximate objectives are met - notably the destruction of the cross-border tunnel network - but afterwards, I strongly suspect they'll agree to a cease fire along the lines of the Nov. 2012 agreement without the need for a bloodier incursion into the urban centers.

[Hazir]

Is there a single week in the last 3 years Hamas didn't give a 'casus belli'?

[wiggin]

Is there a single week in the last 3 years Hamas didn't give a 'casus belli'?

Yes. The vast majority of the sporadic rocket fire on Israel since Nov. 2012 was not carried out by Hamas, and it certainly wasn't claimed by them. The ceasefire was more or less respected; certainly Hamas was working on weapons smuggling, tunnels, etc. but they had not used said weapons or tunnels until June/July. In 2014, the only major barrage of rockets was a 60-rocket attack in mid-March by PIJ, probably in response to the killing of one of their operatives by an Israeli airstrike a week earlier (said operative being in the process of firing a rocket). Likely most of the sporadic rocket fire in 2013 and 2014 was PIJ or Salafist groups; the rockets were shorter range and fewer numbers than Hamas barrages.

This doesn't mean that being targeted by 5-20 rockets a month isn't a casus belli, but it pales in comparison to a concerted Hamas attack. Hamas keeps reasonably good discipline of its own troops, and exerts at least modest pressure on other groups like PIJ to limit escalations; Israel is generally happy to keep it that way and avoid escalations absent pressing operational concerns. Hamas' relative restraint ended in late June/early July of this year.


You're trying to make this out into some pre-planned Israeli operation. While I have no doubt that Israel was well prepared for this (likely) contingency and the government isn't one to shy away from a fight with Hamas, I also don't think they chose this timing.

[Hazir]

Yes. The vast majority of the sporadic rocket fire on Israel since Nov. 2012 was not carried out by Hamas, and it certainly wasn't claimed by them. The ceasefire was more or less respected; certainly Hamas was working on weapons smuggling, tunnels, etc. but they had not used said weapons or tunnels until June/July. In 2014, the only major barrage of rockets was a 60-rocket attack in mid-March by PIJ, probably in response to the killing of one of their operatives by an Israeli airstrike a week earlier (said operative being in the process of firing a rocket). Likely most of the sporadic rocket fire in 2013 and 2014 was PIJ or Salafist groups; the rockets were shorter range and fewer numbers than Hamas barrages.

This doesn't mean that being targeted by 5-20 rockets a month isn't a casus belli, but it pales in comparison to a concerted Hamas attack. Hamas keeps reasonably good discipline of its own troops, and exerts at least modest pressure on other groups like PIJ to limit escalations; Israel is generally happy to keep it that way and avoid escalations absent pressing operational concerns. Hamas' relative restraint ended in late June/early July of this year.


You're trying to make this out into some pre-planned Israeli operation. While I have no doubt that Israel was well prepared for this (likely) contingency and the government isn't one to shy away from a fight with Hamas, I also don't think they chose this timing.

Interesting how you absolve Hamas from responsability of rockets fired from Gaza by other groups.

On your last comment; I am not trying to make anything out as anything; I am merely observing that the tunnels even though they have been problematic in the past have yet to become a life threathening means against Israel. In retrospective, after the hit near Ben Gurion, one can say that Israel started hitting out when the tunnels were on the verge of becoming that.

[wiggin]

Interesting how you absolve Hamas from responsability of rockets fired from Gaza by other groups.

On your last comment; I am not trying to make anything out as anything; I am merely observing that the tunnels even though they have been problematic in the past have yet to become a life threathening means against Israel. In retrospective, after the hit near Ben Gurion, one can say that Israel started hitting out when the tunnels were on the verge of becoming that.

Of course I don't absolve them of responsibility, but I (and the Israelis) am realistic about what can be expected in managing the conflict. The 'background' level of rocket fire, while wholly unacceptable and a war crime, does not meet the threshold for a massive retaliatory response. Israel just 'manages' that sort of violence with surveillance, occasional airstrikes, and border vigilance.


I'm not sure I can parse the rest of your post correctly. What does a rocket attack on Tel Aviv have to do with tunnels? Anyhow, the cross-border tunnels have been 'life threatening' since Gilad Shalit was abducted in 2006. It's just that Hamas has largely refrained from using them except sporadically until now. Just yesterday, 5 soldiers in a guard post were killed by an antitank missile fired by Hamas fighters who had infiltrated across the border in a tunnel. Fast work by other soldiers kept them from abducting any soldiers (or bodies), but it was far from merely 'problematic'. A large proportion of IDF casualties so far have been due to fighters emerging from tunnels, whether in Israel or Gaza (most of the rest have been due to much more sophisticated antitank weaponry that Hamas has gotten their hands on - while Israeli tanks are relatively well protected by an active protection system, their APCs and infantry are not). The air offensive was clearly linked to the resumption of massive rocket fire by Hamas. The subsequent ground offensive was clearly linked to repeated infiltration attempts through tunnels (and other methods).

[Hazir]

Of course I meant a life threath to all of Israel, as opposed to individual victims up till now. Of which there are only a few. If you seriously think that effectively shutting own Ben Gurion is not a game changer then I don't know what is.

I had no idea till today by the way that Ben Gurion studied in Constantinople.

[wiggin]

The flight ban hit on July 22, after the beginning of the ground offensive. I don't think they're connected in the slightest. For that matter, Hamas has had the range to hit the Tel Aviv area for several years now. To be honest, the threat to commercial aviation from Hamas' rockets is minimal, and I think upon consultation with Israeli sources on the threat, the FAA et al agreed and rescinded the closure. A much bigger threat to Ben Gurion would be if they ceded full control of the heights in the West Bank to Palestinians - from there, even a MANPAD can take down an airliner on approach.


Still don't get how you're connecting tunnels with shelling the airport...?

[GGT]

Okay....so if threats to commercial aviation and airports in Israel are "minimal", then why does Israel continue to broaden sanctions, and limit Palestinians from fishing for food on their own borders?

[Flixy]

Because Israel is composed of more than just airports and aviation?

[GGT]

Because Israel is composed of more than just airports and aviation?

And what comprises "Palestine" and/or the Gaza strip?

[Loki]

What comprises the price of strawberries in Peru?

[Flixy]

And what comprises "Palestine" and/or the Gaza strip?

What, you just asked why Israel is moving against Hamas while air travel is relatively safe - but you are aware that Hamas does more than just threatening airports, right? I think it's fair to say Israel's sanctions are pretty much unrelated to the safety of air travel, and more related to the safety of Israel/Israelis in general, and Hamas' attacks on them. Without judging one way or the other on the conflict, why on earth do you think it has to do with just air travel?