[Pants-of-dog]

This is illogical.

If the IDF was aiming to kill the hostage takers, it would be targeting them, not the hostages. The hostages who were killed or harmed would be collateral damage. And it would be tragic, but not criminal in my opinion.

The persons responsible would be first and foremost the hostage takers, not those attempting to rescue the hostages or at least kill the hostage takers.

Of course, one would ideally prefer to end this through a negotiation. But I would not be for giving anything and everything the hostage takers want for the sake of rescuing the kidnapped victims. Doing so would undoubtedly encourage new kidnappings be they done by Hamas or someone else (e.g. Hezbollah).

So you think it would be justified if the IDF just bombed the whole building with hostages in it. Is that correct?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

If you look at the facts, Hamas has done a lot less terror-wise than Israel.

If you look at the facts, Israel is the terrorist, not Hamas.

If you look at the facts ...

Weird facts you have there.

Another fact that is worth remembering is that Israel has successfully negotiated peace with other countries, like Egypt and Jordan. Hamas doesn't even try.

So you think it would be justified if the IDF just bombed the whole building with hostages in it. Is that correct?

If it's necessary to get inside it, to take it, yes.

If there are other ways to achieve that same goal, one that doesn't get many soldiers killed, I would go for it.

But since you're trying to draw a comparison with the cases when Israel bombs a building where there are no hostages (or it's not known if they are inside), this is exactly the same standard. If there's an alternative way to take the building and its environs, of course I'd be OK with using it.

But 21st century urban warfare doesn't work like that, and here I am simply basing myself on how other comparable urban battles have been fought. In Mosul, where the ground troops were Iraqi (the US provided air support for the most part, with US ground troops serving as advisors and helping with targeting) and presumably not keen on killing other Iraqi civilians, in the end there was no other way for them to actually take the city. Even then, low power precision bombs - used precisely to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage - were often insufficient to allow for killing or even wounding ISIS fighters, which in turn led to more bombings and more damage. And when Iraqi ground troops they finally got into house-by-house combat, they'd find ISIS fighters dressed like civilians, shoot at them while dressed like civilians and sometimes surrender to subsequently blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

You can see the same in other battles like Russia's attempt to take Mariupol (which took several months even though the disparity in power between Russia and Ukraine could lead someone to believe it should have been fast). There, Ukrainian soldiers eventually holed up into a steel plant and the battle ended when they reached an agreement with Russia to surrender and let them become POWs. The battle ended with 90%+ buildings of the city damaged or destroyed and thousands of civilians dead (it's not even known exactly how many, the Ukrainians claim 25,000 civilians were killed from a pre-war population of ~425,000).

Hamas and other groups use tactics like those used by ISIS in Mosul, because they understand they limit Israel's actions and negate its material superiority. It's a completely rational action on their end if they want to avoid defeat.

[Pants-of-dog]

If it's necessary to get inside it, to take it, yes.

If there are other ways to achieve that same goal, one that doesn't get many soldiers killed, I would go for it.

But since you're trying to draw a comparison with the cases when Israel bombs a building where there are no hostages (or it's not known if they are inside), this is exactly the same standard. If there's an alternative way to take the building and its environs, of course I'd be OK with using it.

But 21st century urban warfare doesn't work like that, and here I am simply basing myself on how other comparable urban battles have been fought. In Mosul, where the ground troops were Iraqi (the US provided air support for the most part, with US ground troops serving as advisors and helping with targeting) and presumably not keen on killing other Iraqi civilians, in the end there was no other way for them to actually take the city. Even then, low power precision bombs - used precisely to limit civilian casualties and collateral damage - were often insufficient to allow for killing or even wounding ISIS fighters, which in turn led to more bombings and more damage. And when Iraqi ground troops they finally got into house-by-house combat, they'd find ISIS fighters dressed like civilians, shoot at them while dressed like civilians and sometimes surrender to subsequently blow themselves up in suicide attacks.

You can see the same in other battles like Russia's attempt to take Mariupol (which took several months even though the disparity in power between Russia and Ukraine could lead someone to believe it should have been fast). There, Ukrainian soldiers eventually holed up into a steel plant and the battle ended when they reached an agreement with Russia to surrender and let them become POWs. The battle ended with 90%+ buildings of the cities damaged or destroyed and thousands of civilians dead (it's not even known exactly how many, the Ukrainians claim 25,000 civilians were killed from a pre-war population of ~425,000).

Hamas and other groups use tactics like those used by ISIS in Mosul, because they understand they limit Israel's actions and negate its material superiority. It's a completely rational action on their end if they want to avoid defeat.

Okay.

Then why does the IDF not simply do that?

Why not simply bomb the whole building?

[wat0n]

Okay.

Then why does the IDF not simply do that?

Why not simply bomb the whole building?

It sometimes does? In fact, one of the soldiers captured and found dead was wounded by an Israeli bombing (but not killed by it, she was moved from the bombed building and then executed).

[Pants-of-dog]

It sometimes does? In fact, one of the soldiers captured and found dead was wounded by an Israeli bombing (but not killed by it, she was moved from the bombed building and then executed).

So there is no record of the IDF deliberately attacking a building that they think contains Israeli civilians.

And yet there are many, many, instances of the IDF deliberately attacking a building that they think contains Palestinian civilians.

[wat0n]

So there is no record of the IDF deliberately attacking a building that they think contains Israeli civilians.

And yet there are many, many, instances of the IDF deliberately attacking a building that they think contains Palestinian civilians.

The soldier would be an Israeli POW (at least).

[ingliz]

@wat0n

Facts

Murder...

In 2023, and prior to Oct.7, Israel had already killed around 500 Palestinians.

Dead babies...

In 2023, and prior to Oct. 7, Israel had already killed 124 children.

Kidnapping/Hostages...

The Israeli state is imprisoning Palestinians indefinitely without charge and without presenting any evidence against them.

In 2023, prior to Oct. 7, Israel held 1,300 Palestinians without charge and without presenting any evidence against them.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Facts

Murder...

In 2023, and prior to Oct.7, Israel had already killed around 500 Palestinians.

Dead babies...

In 2023, and prior to Oct. 7, Israel had already killed 124 children.

Another fact: Most of those dead Palestinians, including the Palestinian 15-17 year old "babies" were armed and killed in urban combat, with civilians present.

Kidnapping/Hostages...

The Israeli state is imprisoning Palestinians indefinitely without charge and without presenting any evidence against them.

In 2023, prior to Oct. 7, Israel held 1,300 Palestinians without charge and without presenting any evidence against them.

No, it's not indefinitely. Administrative detention lasts for a year on average, I've yet to hear of Hamas ever releasing a hostage unilaterally.

And those detentions are subject to review by Israel's Supreme Court.

[Pants-of-dog]

The soldier would be an Israeli POW (at least).

I think you lost track of my argument again.

Anyway, the discussion in Tel Aviv seems to be about creating a security buffer zone that would extend into Gaza, and would (according to the Israeli Intelligence Minister) expropriate about 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land.

It seems difficult to argue that this is not an intentional gambit for drastic reduction of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

[wat0n]

I think you lost track of my argument again.

Anyway, the discussion in Tel Aviv seems to be about creating a security buffer zone that would extend into Gaza, and would (according to the Israeli Intelligence Minister) expropriate about 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land.

It seems difficult to argue that this is not an intentional gambit for drastic reduction of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

It seems you are changing the goalposts now. You first asked about bombing hostages, I mentioned one such example I don't like but which I understand is unavoidable.

As for the rest, the reports floating around suggest there would be an international force in Gaza, jointly managed by the US and Arab states. This would be conditional on Israel making progress on a Palestinian state, which would in turn necessitate an election to get a new leadership (that will happen regardless).

[Pants-of-dog]

It seems you are changing the goalposts now. You first asked about bombing hostages, I mentioned one such example I don't like but which I understand is unavoidable.

I addressed it.

I pointed out that you misread.

As for the rest, the reports floating around suggest there would be an international force in Gaza, jointly managed by the US and Arab states. This would be conditional on Israel making progress on a Palestinian state, which would in turn necessitate an election to get a new leadership (that will happen regardless).

So you are ignoring my point about the expropriation of agricultural land designed to starve Gazans.

[wat0n]

I addressed it.

I pointed out that you misread.

No, I did not misread.

So you are ignoring my point about the expropriation of agricultural land designed to starve Gazans.

This international force would operate in all of Gaza.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I did not misread.



This international force would operate in all of Gaza.

So after most if the agricultural land is stolen in order to force starvation in Gazans, this former agricultural land might be patrolled by soldiers who are allied with the IDF.

How does this address the intentional starvation of Palestinians by the Israeli government?

[wat0n]

So after most if the agricultural land is stolen in order to force starvation in Gazans, this former agricultural land might be patrolled by soldiers who are allied with the IDF.

How does this address the intentional starvation of Palestinians by the Israeli government?

What makes you believe that international force would bar agricultural activity in that area?

[Pants-of-dog]

What makes you believe that international force would bar agricultural activity in that area?

Because it is a “security buffer zone”.

This is an area where civilians are not allowed, in order to help defend an area.

In this case, it would mean Gazans are not allowed within a certain distance of Israel,

Hard to farm when you cannot actually enter the field without being shot.

[wat0n]

Because it is a “security buffer zone”.

This is an area where civilians are not allowed, in order to help defend an area.

In this case, it would mean Gazans are not allowed within a certain distance of Israel,

Hard to farm when you cannot actually enter the field without being shot.

Actually, a "security buffer zone" refers to a neutral area. The international force would make it neutral.

[MadMonk]

Actually, a "security buffer zone" refers to a neutral area. The international force would make it neutral.

This 'international force' would consist of soldiers from where exactly? Apart from perhaps a nation like Türkiye (I would love to see Netanyahu's reaction to Turkish soldiers on his border), no one is stupid enough to put their dicks between two sides of crazy.

[wat0n]

This 'international force' would consist of soldiers from where exactly? Apart from perhaps a nation like Türkiye (I would love to see Netanyahu's reaction to Turkish soldiers on his border), no one is stupid enough to put their dicks between two sides of crazy.

The idea that has been floated around (yes, there's discussion on this) is that it would be Americans and soldiers from its Arab allies (probably the Gulf states). Egypt, being a neighboring state, would also play some role.

Some years ago, when Israel and Turkey didn't have such bad relations, there was also the option of including Turkey. But I doubt they'd be part of this, given their patronage of Hamas (plus Turkey has enough problems to deal with).

[KurtFF8]

The idea that has been floated around (yes, there's discussion on this) is that it would be Americans and soldiers from its Arab allies (probably the Gulf states). Egypt, being a neighboring state, would also play some role.

Some years ago, when Israel and Turkey didn't have such bad relations, there was also the option of including Turkey. But I doubt they'd be part of this, given their patronage of Hamas (plus Turkey has enough problems to deal with).

It would be such a mockery of the idea of "neutral" countries having a presence to have American soldiers there.

[wat0n]

It would be such a mockery of the idea of "neutral" countries having a presence to have American soldiers there.

They would be deployed along soldiers from Arab countries. That would make the force neutral.

There could also be troops from other countries. I think there are several South Asian countries with a lot of experience in these operations.

My understanding is that the Arab states would place conditions on their participation, including Israel taking concrete steps towards restarting the peace process. So I suspect this arrangement would only become feasible after Israel goes to elections.