danivon wrote:So, let me get this straight. All wars are the same, and we can shrug off (or wait for 'hindsight') what the IDF does as down to individual soldiers not following the rules...

But we can't possibly draw any useful analogies from the heavy handed way that another Western democracy tried to deal with terrorism, because it was a 'colonial' dispute and there is little in common with Israel/Palestine (notwithstanding the influx of 'settlers' or colonists into the West Bank, or a longstanding occupation militarily in both the West Bank and Gaza)?

Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems that you guys are using generalised truisms on the vague idea of war, and specific differences with other conflicts involving terrorism and insurgency as simultaneous means of handwaving away criticism of IDF strategy and tactics. Correct me if I am wrong there.

I get your points on Hamas. Whether the 1988 Covenant still stands or has been superceded by changrs in the leadership, approach and commitments of Hamas since could be debated, but let us assume that it.does, and they are intent on destroying Israel not just as a Jewish state but as a people, and all other Jews into the bargain. Let us agree that while they target the IDF or other military assets, they also have and continue to target civilians

We should not judge Israeli actions by their enemy. We should judge them by yhe standard Israel sets itself. In this article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... man-rights an Israeli government official describes the IDF as "the most moral of armies".

Now whether it is right for someone to be able to avoid military service by working for B'Tselem is debateable, and even though the timing of the move to ban is more significant than the impact (apparently only.one person is taking advantage of it at the present time), but there is a worrying trend here to not only censor dissent, but to frame it as subversive. This is not the act of a liberal democracy.

I feel you did not answer.my question, RJ. When I asked what options you had rejected to conclude that the action taken was the 'only' course, I was hoping for more than a vague mention of trading lives. How about this: would the change of policy to cease or reduce the use of fragmentation warheads when firing into a built up residential area where civilians are likely to be lead to more IDF casualties? If so, why? If you don't know, why present your 'thinking' in such terms?

I'm having a hard time trying to follow your post because it is not clear who or what you are responding to, and it is a complex conversation. Maybe you can quote in particular to what you are responding?

To your last set of questions, I want to answer them. I'm talking strategically that Israel's best option is to respond to Hamas violence by A. Destroying the rockets that are being aimed and fired at it and B. Destroy the tunnels that are built to kill soldiers and/or civilians. Although cease fires are possible and preferable to trying to forever destroy Hamas because of the intolerable casualties on both sides (tens of thousands for Palestinians and maybe 1,000 Israelis), there is no real option to negotiate real peace with Hamas.

As to the tactics of using artillery vs. precision guided missiles, I don't know enough to say. I'd like to cut through all the political bull from both sides and get to the truth of that. Is Israel using artillery because (a) it is the safest think to do when soldiers are in harms way and being fired on and precision guided missiles cannot do the job in time, or (b) because it is cost effective, or (c) because they want to kill innocent children? What do you think?

Now that I've tried to answer your question, how about answering mine. When people talk about the density of Gaza what is their solution for solving it?

danivon wrote:By the way, the claim that the IDF is "the most moral of armies" does not.just come from the guy in charge of who and how one can avoid conscription.

Ehud Olmert claimed it in 2006 Ehud Barak claimed it in 2009. FrontPage Magazine claimed it in 2011. It seems to be a popular mantra among Israelis.

This article from a former air-force officer challenges whether that can still be the case, and describes how it is not about individual soldiers, but about the policies and commands. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... difference

This is a bit of a straw man, no? I don't think anyone on these pages has claimed that the IDF is the most moral of armies. I do think its morality is comparable to other western countries. They probably are doing a better job than the US and UK did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe they are doing worse then what the U.S. did in Serbia and is doing in Yemen (although it is hard to say because info isn't always forthcoming). But I think Israel is in the range of western nations in trying to minimize civilian casualties, but not doing a perfect job.

That's in contrast to what we see by Russia (Chechnya) and elsewhere in the Middle east where government behave horrifically.

rickyp wrote:ray

Based on what I've read about in the Israeli press and the Israelis that I have spoken to, Israel is very interested in a just peace. Absolutely, and to the core, for the majority.

Sure. But is the definition of what the Isrelis and Palestinians call a just peace have any similarity?

Frankly I don't think the Palestinians have ever put forth a credible and just peace. They've talked about the West Bank being Jew free while they have full rights of return to Israel proper. They name streets and other landmarks after people who blow up civilians, and they cheer when innocents are killed (including 9/11). They invariably say that a 2 state solution is a tactic on a path to eradicate Israel. They preach so much hate against Israel and Jews.

In any case, I'm intrigued by your questions so I'll offer my view on the details, for what it is worth. I have no idea what all Israelis think, I presume that on average I am left of center in this (which you might find incredible).

Does the notion of an ISraelis just peace include the annexation of the "settlements"? ?

Yes for the most part. There could be land swaps to compensate. I wouldn't recommend the ethnic cleansing of 350,000 Jewish people. Would you?

Does it include jeruselum as an Israelis city. Perhaps Capital.

Jerusalem is already the capital of Israel and it always shall be.

Does it include access to water resources beyond what was negotiated in theb Oslo accords>?

I have no idea what was negotiated at the Oslo accords. Absolutely the Palestinians should have plenty of water and water rights.

Does it allow the right of return or at least compensation for arabs who lost land in 47?

Compensation, yes; right of return on an extremely limited basis only. Would your country take in refugees that represented 50% of the population, were against the country and its institutions, often wanted (and have tried) to kill the existing people of Canada? What about Jews who lost land in 1947 and 1948? Do they have a right to return?

(by the way, apparently polls have shown that most Palestinians would accept some from of compensation and decide to remain in Jordan .... Only a few would accept living in Israel and no compesation other than a return of their land ...

I suspect that's not true, but maybe you can find a source or two to back up your claim?

I suspect that Palestinians idea of just peace is very different.

Yes, you can see it right now in Syria and Iraq.

And I suspect neutral third parties are somewhere in between.
But Israel isn't interested in somewhere in between.

Nor are the Palestinians.

And as they feel they are in the adcendancy will not compromise.
Which makes me suspicious of their general aspirations for a Just Peace.
(I also exclude the crazies who lead Hamas from consideration as potential partners in a slotuion.

How convenient to ignore the views of a large % of Palestinians. That may be relevant in what happens next.

But unless Israel bends and accepts something less then their "ideal solution",

Every day Israel accepts something less than their ideal solution. In an ideal world they would annex Judea and Samaria including the holy city of Hebron and all of the fertile and more easily defensible Jordan Valley. it's very tempting but they do not because they are moral. As far as I can tell they are the only country in the Middle East that doesn't take whatever they can.

Palestinians will sympathize with the crazies and many will follow as they become more and more embittered.
What about the following as a definition of a just peace?
http://afsc.org/document/principles-jus ... d-israelis

Overall I think there is so much skepticism that the Palestinians and Arabs can ever deliver a just peace that it isn't worth removing 350,000 settlers from the west bank and opening up Israel to terrorism. It ain't perfect by any means but there hasn't been a credible offer of peace.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm having a hard time trying to follow your post because it is not clear who or what you are responding to, and it is a complex conversation. Maybe you can quote in particular to what you are responding?

It is to both you and Freeman. re-reading your posts and his from the past few days may perhaps give you a clue.

To your last set of questions, I want to answer them. I'm talking strategically that Israel's best option is to respond to Hamas violence by A. Destroying the rockets that are being aimed and fired at it and B. Destroy the tunnels that are built to kill soldiers and/or civilians. Although cease fires are possible and preferable to trying to forever destroy Hamas because of the intolerable casualties on both sides (tens of thousands for Palestinians and maybe 1,000 Israelis), there is no real option to negotiate real peace with Hamas.

I disagree, respectfully, that there is no option at all. I don't have a problem with removing the tunnels, but I would support at the same time allowing more open trade at the borders. I agree that weaponry can be a target, but there are times not to fire into civilian zones. And there is an option to negotiate peace all the time. If both sides insist there cannot be, then obviously it won't happen. But never say never.

As to the tactics of using artillery vs. precision guided missiles, I don't know enough to say. I'd like to cut through all the political bull from both sides and get to the truth of that. Is Israel using artillery because (a) it is the safest think to do when soldiers are in harms way and being fired on and precision guided missiles cannot do the job in time, or (b) because it is cost effective, or (c) because they want to kill innocent children? What do you think?

I think it's more complicated that just those three options. I think it's less that they 'want' to kill innocent civilians, and more than they care less than they used to about it happening. There is 'safety', there is 'cost-effective' and there is 'militarily effective', but all should be balanced against the impact on civilians.

I didn't ask about artillery, but in particular the kind of warhead. Yeah, I know you don't know enough to say. So I ask again (because it's not clear to me) - if you don't know enough about it, why are you so keen to defend it?

Now that I've tried to answer your question, how about answering mine. When people talk about the density of Gaza what is their solution for solving it?

The density of Gaza as a problem only becomes a real issue when it's being bombed. I'm not for 'solving' the problem in peacetime, although it probably would be an idea to allow people from Gaza to move to the West Bank, and also to improve the infrastructure in Gaza.

Ray Jay wrote:This is a bit of a straw man, no? I don't think anyone on these pages has claimed that the IDF is the most moral of armies.

Not here, no, but certainly an Israeli PM, and Israeli Defence Minister, a senior Israeli civil servant, and a lot of ordinary Israelis do claim it. It would be a straw man if no-one ever made the claim.

My point is that if Israel stands by the claim, it should allow itself to be judged on that claim.

I do think its morality is comparable to other western countries. They probably are doing a better job than the US and UK did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe they are doing worse then what the U.S. did in Serbia and is doing in Yemen (although it is hard to say because info isn't always forthcoming). But I think Israel is in the range of western nations in trying to minimize civilian casualties, but not doing a perfect job.

Ok, but we are allowed to criticise our governments and their tactics without it being suggested that they have 'no choice'. And we are allowed to criticise each others' governments and their actions without it necessarily being seen as some kind of hostile act.

What we are seeing in Israel is a will to ignore criticism from inside - you can't publish a list of child casualties in Gaza.

That's in contrast to what we see by Russia (Chechnya) and elsewhere in the Middle east where government behave horrifically.

Indeed. But again we should judge by our standards, and the standards that Israel and the West aspire to (and often claim to be fighting for) rather than those of people and governments we regard as immoral.

If all we can say is that we are 'better' than nasty regimes, it's not that much.

We started out this thread talking about the high casualties, particularly children, in relation to Israel trying to take out the tunnels. My opinion is still that they are higher than they needed to be. RJ has stated that they are comparable to other operations by the US, but I have to say that I cannot recall a similar example with such a high proportion of civilian casualties to military ones.
I also think that Israel has difficulty accepting criticism regarding its treatment of Palestinians but, then again, any admission can and will be used against them. One can only hope that while they are not openly admitting mistakes in Gaza, they are internally reassessing their methods.
Ricky's rather one-sided support of the Palestinians turned the thread in a certain direction. When you think over recent history--Israel making a serious attempt at peace in 2000, the Second Intifada, the election of Hamas in 2006, the firing of missiles into Israel by Hamas from Gaza in recent years--it is hard to think that things are going in the right direction. I was thinking of arguing Israel could have given Hamas time to moderate when it turned to politics (I think Owen might have suggested this) but then I found myself asking myself why would the Palestians elect Hamas? Was it because they thought Hamas provided better social services or that they thought Fatah was corrupt? I did not find those proffered explanations to be credible. The most likely reason that Hamas was elected was that the Palestinians wanted a "war" party not a perceived collaborator with Israel like Fatah.
So I really cannot fault Israel for acting accordingly. Given the reaction of the Palestinians since 2000, it does not appear that the Palestinians want peace, at least any kind of reasonable peace. So right now my sympathies are predominantly with Israel ( though to be sure I am sympathetic as well the innocents caught in the cross-fire). If the Palestinians change to a " peace" party--recognition of Israel, willing to live in peace with a new country situated on the West Bank, moderate the right of return demands to be mostly financial--and Israel refuses to discuss peace then my sympathies will change. The high civilian casualties in Gaza--while unfortunate--should not affect the overall placement of blame here. When you let loose the dogs of war, bad stuff happens. (See Hiroshima, fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, etc--and that was by the "good guys").

Freeman:

We started out this thread talking about the high casualties, particularly children, in relation to Israel trying to take out the tunnels. My opinion is still that they are higher than they needed to be. RJ has stated that they are comparable to other operations by the US, but I have to say that I cannot recall a similar example with such a high proportion of civilian casualties to military ones.

I don't think the best way to look at this is % of civilian casualties / total casualties. It depends on all sorts of factors. We can spend a lot of time trying to figure that out taking into account military objectives, geography, density, topography, enemy actions, etc. It's complicated and all western forces are dealing with these issues. Let's just say that the civilian deaths from the NATO action in Afghanistan and the US/UK/others action in Iraq are much higher than what we are seeing in Gaza.

Danivon:

What we are seeing in Israel is a will to ignore criticism from inside - you can't publish a list of child casualties in Gaza.

It's certainly hard to reconcile that comment with the fact that there was a large protest rally in Tel Aviv last night of up to 10,000 Israelis.

Where are you getting the figures for Afghanistan, RJ? According to this article , 21,000 civilians had died in Afghanistan as of February, 2014. http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians ... nd-wounded
What percentage of that came from US/ NATO raids is not clear. Estimates of 20-35K Taliban have been killed in the past 13 years. http://m.voanews.com/a/despite-massive- ... 66009.html
Some more info on Gaza:
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium- ... 0E05DAD2E4
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/tally-arent-children.html
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

If the estimates are correct--1,500 civilians killed to 700 fighters--that does not seem like a good ratio. Do you have statistics regarding US raids in Afghanistan showing similar or worse ratios? To me, this appears to be an outlier as far as civilian/ military casualty ratios go but I am certainly open to being shown incorrect. If you are looking at over time , 21,000 civilian casualties in 13 years is a lot lower rate than 1,500 in a month. Of course, you have to look at all kinds off factors in assessing whether civilian casualties are reasonable, but finding similar US operations where there was such a high proportion of civilian casualties would be a good start. Given how when a US raid kills 5 Aghans it's a big deal, I doubt Afghanistan is the place to look...

freeman3 wrote:Where are you getting the figures for Afghanistan, RJ? According to this article , 21,000 civilians had died in Afghanistan as of February, 2014. http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians ... nd-wounded
What percentage of that came from US/ NATO raids is not clear. Estimates of 20-35K Taliban have been killed in the past 13 years. http://m.voanews.com/a/despite-massive- ... 66009.html
Some more info on Gaza:
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium- ... 0E05DAD2E4
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/tally-arent-children.html
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

If the estimates are correct--1,500 civilians killed to 700 fighters--that does not seem like a good ratio. Do you have statistics regarding US raids in Afghanistan showing similar or worse ratios? To me, this appears to be an outlier as far as civilian/ military casualty ratios go but I am certainly open to being shown incorrect.

I don't think you are hearing my point. There's not just 1 calculation (such as % of civilian deaths relative to total deaths) that defines morality. It is complex and depends on many things. It depends on (1) objectives. For example, the U.S./U.K./NATO chose regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were a lot of civilian deaths as a result. Israel has purposefully not chosen regime change in Gaza presumably because of the resulting civilian deaths. (2) You have to factor in treatment of captured soldiers; Israel does not allow waterboarding; the U.S. did; the U.S. allowed for the torture at Abu Ghraib. (3) You have to factor in discipline of your forces. there were cases of a U.S. soldier indiscriminately shooting civilians in Afghanistan. We haven't seen that in Gaza. (4) You have to factor in capability; (5) you have to factor in density; (6) you have to factor in the extent to which combatants are embedded with civilians.

I'm just saying that Israel's actions are roughly comparable to what we have seen from the US and UK. If someone wants to do a 10 factor analysis we can compare and contrast, but using one statistic is problematic.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What we are seeing in Israel is a will to ignore criticism from inside - you can't publish a list of child casualties in Gaza.

It's certainly hard to reconcile that comment with the fact that there was a large protest rally in Tel Aviv last night of up to 10,000 Israelis.

My comment is based on this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... illed-gaza

The Israeli Broadcasting Authority has banned a radio advertisement from a human rights organisation which listed the names of some of the scores of children killed in Gaza since the conflict began 17 days ago.

B'Tselem's appeal against the decision was rejected on Wednesday. It intends to petition Israel's supreme court on Sunday in an effort to get the ban overturned.

The IBA said the ad's content was "politically controversial". The broadcast refers to child deaths in Gaza and reads out some of the victims' names.

ray

1) objectives. For example, the U.S./U.K./NATO chose regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. There were a lot of civilian deaths as a result. Israel has purposefully not chosen regime change in Gaza presumably because of the resulting civilian deaths.

Are you saying that there would be more cviilian deaths in Gaza if Israel were demanding a change of government in Gaza? What would change about IDF tactics?
ray

(2) You have to factor in treatment of captured soldiers; Israel does not allow waterboarding; the U.S. did; the U.S. allowed for the torture at Abu Ghraib.

Israel has been accussed of torture often. Sometimes of torturing children.
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Poli ... ren-317210

(3) You have to factor in discipline of your forces. there were cases of a U.S. soldier indiscriminately shooting civilians in Afghanistan. We haven't seen that in Gaza

.
http://www.newsweek.com/graphic-video-a ... per-260122

Didn't take long to find. Whats worse is the bombing of UN schools with children in them .
And know that the schools were bombed because Hamas was hiding rockets there.
I liken it to a terrorist hiding behind hostages. Most police don't shoot if there are hostages. They wait and find an oportune moment to act where the hostages won't be harmed.
ray

(4) You have to factor in capability;

Does this include the fact that for all of Hamas rocketing they were not having much effect due to the Iron Dome and the poor quality of the missiles targeting... ?
Unless the IDF made incursions into Gaza, the threat from Gaza was largely contained. Its only when the IDF entered Gaza that they took casualties.
Not disimilar to the arguements that the air blockade of Iraq was effective in protecting the Kurds and the neighbors of Iraq ...before the US invaded Iraq. Israel attacked Gaza in order to eliminate a threat (rockets) that their use of blockade and total isolation had somehow failed to eliminate. Even though that was the purpose of the blockade. They then risked the lives of their miilitary, losing more than 70, even though the actual affect of the Hamas rocketing was virtually nil.
I think you have to factor in an unintelligent use of force that failed to balance the threat with the probable outcome in both personal and civilian casualities. And an understanding that this is the same strategy that hass failed to stop Hamas from rocketing when tried before...

(5) you have to factor in density;
6) you have to factor in the extent to which combatants are embedded with civilians

.
I think its true that the IDf has a much harder job in dealing with Hamas in Gaza then Nato had in Afghanistan. Or the US had in Iraq.
However the failings of the two forces in Afghanistan and Iraq don't excuse or mitigate the failings of the IDF in Gaza.

Look I'm not trying to be bloody minded about this. However, there is a significant bias in the western media that accepts the ISraelis story largely at face value. And diminishes the plight of the Palestinians.
And there's considerable willingness of the part of some of you to accept the Israelis postion and statements with little regard to the possibility that the objective truth is somehow different than the Israelis offer.
The basic problem i have with what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, is that it won;t work. All its doing is creating more embittered hard core enemies.
They need to stop doing this and start trying to create friends. As long as their tactics value the lives of Palestinians less than the lives of israelis, and its easy to demonstrate that they do, then the situation will conrtinue.

Ricky:

Are you saying that there would be more cviilian deaths in Gaza if Israel were demanding a change of government in Gaza? What would change about IDF tactics?

No, I'm saying that there would be many more civilian death if Israel tried to remove Hamas from power. That is what Netanyahu said he would do if there is another war, and members of his coalition are pushing for that. I think he has made the determination that the human loss would be too high.

Ricky:

Does this include the fact that for all of Hamas rocketing they were not having much effect due to the Iron Dome and the poor quality of the missiles targeting... ?

The ground forces that entered Gaza to destroy the tunnels were no longer protected by the Iron Dome because they were no longer in Israeli territory. That's when the civilian casualties ramped up. Facts on the ground ...

Ricky:

Look I'm not trying to be bloody minded about this. However, there is a significant bias in the western media that accepts the ISraelis story largely at face value. And diminishes the plight of the Palestinians.

Yet you and Danivon keep quoting articles in the western media that are critical of Israel. Can we just agree that there is an assortment of views and positions being reported and telling part of the story? It is normal to view those who disagree with you as biased, whereas those who agree with you are objective.

And there's considerable willingness of the part of some of you to accept the Israelis postion and statements with little regard to the possibility that the objective truth is somehow different than the Israelis offer.

And there are more people in the world who demonize Israel no matter what happens. Neither Freeman nor I agree with everything that the Israelis have done. They are a nation; they make mistakes that other nations make.

Ricky:

As long as their tactics value the lives of Palestinians less than the lives of israelis, and its easy to demonstrate that they do, then the situation will conrtinue.

Perhaps the situation will continue no matter what the Israelis do?

Look I'm not trying to be bloody minded about this. However, there is a significant bias in the western media that accepts the ISraelis story largely at face value. And diminishes the plight of the Palestinians.

Maybe that's how it is in Canada, the British media coverage has been the opposite. Every time Hamas broke a ceasefire the headline was "Israel resumes gaza strikes", and the civilian casualty figures were taken at face value and never questioned.

Sassenach wrote:

Look I'm not trying to be bloody minded about this. However, there is a significant bias in the western media that accepts the ISraelis story largely at face value. And diminishes the plight of the Palestinians.

Maybe that's how it is in Canada, the British media coverage has been the opposite. Every time Hamas broke a ceasefire the headline was "Israel resumes gaza strikes", and the civilian casualty figures were taken at face value and never questioned.

I've been very surprised by the British media and British public in general. Many of the comments to publications in the Economist, Guardian, etc. have been very anti-Israel and sometimes anti-Jewish.

Per this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... asion.html

there have been 130 anti-Semitic acts in Britain since the Gaza conflict started.

Do you think the anti-Israel perspective is a function of Brits being sympathetic to underdogs, or a result of a large Muslim population or something else? I'm not saying that it is not a valid perspective. I'm just wondering why it very different then the zeitgeist in North America.