|
Was it mentioned in any of the hundreds of CH related threads that the bodies of the four victims of the Kosher market massacre are going to be shipped to Israel for burial on the mount of olives?
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
blowfish posted:
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Is this a response to Bibi's comments that French Jews should leave france and migrate to Israel for their safety? quote:Doesn't look like that's what he expected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Netanyahu is taking some flak domestically for supposedly being impolite and pushy in the CH march, the video of him forcing his way to the frontline at the march is making waves and Yair Lapid called it "an example of the impolite Israeli". Netanyahu was also seen trying to get into the first bus leaving for the march. On a related story, it's been confirmed that Hollande asked Netanyahu not to come to the march in the first place: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.636557
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Netanyahu is taking some flak domestically for supposedly being impolite and pushy in the CH march, the video of him forcing his way to the frontline at the march is making waves and Yair Lapid called it "an example of the impolite Israeli". Netanyahu was also seen trying to get into the first bus leaving for the march. You gotta hand it to him: he is really trying to represent the typical Israeli to the best of his abilities! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Well, in other news that is admittedly a lot less amusing than Netanyahu acting like a buffoon (for those who needed a link with some pictures btw: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4614347,00.html), the Israeli media is reporting that the Attorney General of Israel Mr. Yehuda Weinstein has reviewed the confidential text of the "Hannibal Directive" and determined that it is in fact impermissible and illegal to use lethal fire against IDF soldiers in case of a possible capture by enemy combatants according to the text of the directive and IDF laws, he's using weasel language a bit cause he says "It is permissible to try to prevent the kidnap attempts through the use of violence even if the life of the captive is endangered through these attempts, however, the operational directive expressly forbids intentionally attempting to end the life of the kidnapped soldier". I think that this leaves sufficient leeway for the investigators and attorneys who'll be dealing with the case of First Lieutenant Goldin's death to find the commanders on the scene not guilty as while some of them have made statements to the media to the effect of "a dead soldier is preferable to a kidnapped one" it will probably be hard to produce sufficient evidence that demonstrates that they intentionally tried to kill him. Worth noting again that while this review was instigated by a complaint made by Israeli human rights groups concerning the massive Palestinian civilian casualties that were caused by the application of the Hannibal directive following Goldin's possible capture, those casualties are not even addressed and it seems like the investigation is solely focused on the killing of First Lieutenant Goldin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:Well, in other news that is admittedly a lot less amusing than Netanyahu acting like a buffoon (for those who needed a link with some pictures btw: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4614347,00.html), the Israeli media is reporting that the Attorney General of Israel Mr. Yehuda Weinstein has reviewed the confidential text of the "Hannibal Directive" and determined that it is in fact impermissible and illegal to use lethal fire against IDF soldiers in case of a possible capture by enemy combatants according to the text of the directive and IDF laws, he's using weasel language a bit cause he says "It is permissible to try to prevent the kidnap attempts through the use of violence even if the life of the captive is endangered through these attempts, however, the operational directive expressly forbids intentionally attempting to end the life of the kidnapped soldier". Man, I remember back when I was in high school, even in basic, there was all this "purity of the weapon" talk. I guess they got rid of that sometime during the Second Intifada. It's like they're not even trying anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
How is that even up for debate, I mean what legal standing could it possibly have? Pretend its a battlefield execution for abandoning your post? An officer can't just have a man shot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
You know, even with all the poo poo Israel regularly pulls, when this thread started talking about the Hannibal Directive during the last Gaza war, I kind of dismissed it as people taking some hyperbolic political statement literally. I just assumed that the whole idea wasn't serious operational strategy, but just a ploy to intimidate Palestinians. Even with all the killings, the maimings, the straight up atrocities that Israel commits against people who are not Israeli jews, I just assumed there was some line they wouldn't cross and Hannibal was one of those things that us leftists sometimes tend to freak out about, but that aren't really real. I would like to apologize, I was obviously naive. I think I'll have a drink now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
bpower posted:How is that even up for debate, I mean what legal standing could it possibly have? Pretend its a battlefield execution for abandoning your post? An officer can't just have a man shot. Well, honestly I have no problem with that aspect of the whole thing, a soldier on the battlefield is a resource to be used for tactical and strategic gain, when what little gains from an asinine campaign such as "Protective Edge" can be undone through the capture of one soldier it makes complete sense to sacrifice the soldier. My problem is really with the whole "kill everyone including civilians in a half a kilometer radius to make sure that he's really dead" aspect which is rather ignored by the Israeli media. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Well, what I know of Gilaad Shalit (?) he was treated humanely and used as a bargaining chip in a bunch of negotiations that Israel consistently refused to follow through on, until they ultimately agreed to release a bunch of prisoners, some of which were never released, and most of which they retroactively made legal to rearrest after they'd been released. E: Er, the point I wanted to make there was that if he'd just been taken prisoner, there's no reason to believe he'd be treated inhumanely, unlike, say a US citizen in Israeli custody or a wrongfully arrested Gitmo prisoner. 
Zulily Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:To be honest I think an Ak47 would be a better weapon than an ICC referal. To my mind the ideal response would be midway between Hamas and Fatah; a military resistance that did not commit war crimes along with a separate political wing to use those military actions to push for political concessions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem with an insurgency that doesn't commit war crimes is that would mean things like not using human shields, separating themselves from the civilian populace, wearing a fixed sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, not misusing hospitals, schools or mosques, and limiting attacks to recognized military targets. It would be immediately stomped by the IDF. Agreed, the IDF would never officially stop using human shields, misusing hospitals and schools, or only attacking recognized military targets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:Well, what I know of Gilaad Shalit (?) he was treated humanely and used as a bargaining chip in a bunch of negotiations that Israel consistently refused to follow through on, until they ultimately agreed to release a bunch of prisoners, some of which were never released, and most of which they retroactively made legal to rearrest after they'd been released. For the longest time there was no information about Shalit, and the Red Cross/Crescent was not allowed to visit him. His captures was a terrible blow to morale, and people are really unhappy with all the imprisoned Palestinians that were released in exchange. It doesn't matter that they can be (and were) retaken on a whim. It's a price the Israeli public would rather not pay. emanresu, what do you think is the actual public view of Hannibal as a doctrine, beyond the legal issue? On the one hand, we're talking about making sure we can keep those bloody-handed terrorists in prison, on the other, this is the life of the most sacred soul to an Israeli Jew: our brave little baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
The ynet talkbacks section is always a good barometer. It seems our commanders on the battlefield are the bravest and always make the right decisions regardless of how difficult those may be, the IDF are heroes and if you think it's appropriate to question anything they do why don't you go and fight our many enemies yourself, or better yet go live in Gaza and cozy up to your friends in Hamas. And the such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:The ynet talkbacks section is always a good barometer. It seems our commanders on the battlefield are the bravest and always make the right decisions regardless of how difficult those may be, the IDF are heroes and if you think it's appropriate to question anything they do why don't you go and fight our many enemies yourself, or better yet go live in Gaza and cozy up to your friends in Hamas. And the such. Are they a good barometer, though? You're basically filtering for the most obnoxious, lifeless trolls. There isn't even an entry fee. I have the impression it's mostly stupid teenagers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You gotta hand it to him: he is really trying to represent the typical Israeli to the best of his abilities! On a related note is this article pretty accurate then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22089936 quote:But, on a recent reporting trip to Israel, I did encounter that special trait for which Israelis have gained a bit of a reputation - a certain, shall we say, straightforwardness, a brusqueness of manner, so familiar to frequent visitors to Israel that they treat it as a source of humour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Are they a good barometer, though? You're basically filtering for the most obnoxious, lifeless trolls. There isn't even an entry fee. I have the impression it's mostly stupid teenagers. Sure there are tons of trolls and sock puppets, but read the 'Facebook comments' section and it's all the same, it's not just a vocal minority, people do not question the IDF around here. True the people who'd ship you to Gaza are a vocal minority that's more openly racist but the consensus opinion about the IDF is pretty much the same for anyone's whose opinions are to the right of meretz. Not saying that there aren't you know, clever and informed people on both sides of the political map, I've seen right wing criticisms of IDF policy but we were talking on (what I perceive to be) the common perception. The death of every IDF soldier is of course a national tragedy but people know that a captured soldier is pretty much tantamount to a Hamas victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:On a related note is this article pretty accurate then? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22089936 Absolutely accurate. emanresu tnuocca posted:Sure there are tons of trolls and sock puppets, but read the 'Facebook comments' section and it's all the same, it's not just a vocal minority, people do not question the IDF around here. True the people who'd ship you to Gaza are a vocal minority that's more openly racist but the consensus opinion about the IDF is pretty much the same for anyone's whose opinions are to the right of meretz. Not saying that there aren't you know, clever and informed people on both sides of the political map, I've seen right wing criticisms of IDF policy but we were talking on (what I perceive to be) the common perception. So The Military worship is beating back Our Baby Soldier worship? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:emanresu, what do you think is the actual public view of Hannibal as a doctrine, beyond the legal issue? On the one hand, we're talking about making sure we can keep those bloody-handed terrorists in prison, on the other, this is the life of the most sacred soul to an Israeli Jew: our brave little baby There's a reason they teach you “Let me die with the Philistines” since kindergarten. The only thing better than a living Jewish soldier is one who dies in glorious combat in the name of
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem with an insurgency that doesn't commit war crimes is that would mean things like not using human shields, separating themselves from the civilian populace, wearing a fixed sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, not misusing hospitals, schools or mosques, and limiting attacks to recognized military targets. It would be immediately stomped by the IDF. Those rules were written by powers to basically criminalize insurgency. In fact in many of the meetings that established the rules, the Germans, who were notorious in their hatred of franc-tireurs, did everything they could to criminalize guerrilla tactics. It's not as though the IDF doesn't keep HQs and barracks in urban areas where they can use civilians as cover, and has actually had recorded instances of the use of human shields. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
This is something I have become increasingly aware of in France too. Casernes (barracks) are often located centrally and have been since Napoleon, the cities are designed to facilitate pacification. The army actually still owns a considerable amount of real estate in many French cities.
Flaky fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jan 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
The issue of 'military installations in civilian concentrations' is overstated and misrepresented by both sides of the conflict for different reasons. For starters, let's get the "IDF bases in Israeli cities" thing out of the way, it's not incorrect it's just worth noting that those are not combatant bases, after all 75% of IDF personnel are non combatants, of course the IDF HQ can be considered a valid military objective and in case it does get heavily bombed there are multiple civilian structures that are likely to be damaged (not least of which the Ichilov hospital which is the probably the largest hospital in Israel, and also the Azriely towers and mall which probably have thousands upon thousands of civilians in them during work hours), but still, there are no tanks or infantry brigades in those bases and neither do they serve as launch sites for planes or missiles. Now this brings us to the way Hamas fights in Gaza, there is no doubt that Hamas is fighting and launching rockets from a rather close vicinity to civilian residences, this has been also stated by the various fact finding missions that looked into Cast Lead and other such campaigns, it is not classified as "Human Shielding" but Amnesty notes for instance that in many cases civilians are not warned in advance that their close vicinity is going to be used for warfare purposes and this in itself is indeed a war crime, now, I definitely agree with Panzeh's point that the rules were written in a way that is supposed to criminalize the tactics used by the insurgents, I do not condone Hamas' tactics I just think it's both hypocritical and somewhat ignorant to focus on these particular infractions while ignoring the reality of their situation, their tactics are chosen for their efficacy and fighting from within the cities is pretty much forced upon them due to the complete and utter superiority of the IDF everywhere other than within the streets of Gaza. From an IDF/Western perspective it's easy to consider fighting from within the civilian population to be cowardice but I think it's hypocritical to expect any combatant to fight in a way that minimizes his combat effectiveness and guarantees he'd get rolled over by the far superior arms of the enemy. I feel like we've had this discussion many times before in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
There's also the fact that Gaza's high population density and the Israeli blockade mean that there are very few places Hamas can operate that aren't in civilian areas. Hell, the stated goal of the construction materials ban is specifically to prevent Hamas from building any kind of base or fortification that might be able to withstand Israeli artillery or airstrikes. Of course, the real goal is collective punishment, just like Israeli strikes against rocket launch sites or their practice of blowing up the civilian homes of suspected militants. In the first place, it's ridiculous to speak of pinpoint aerial bombings in densely-packed civilian areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem with an insurgency that doesn't commit war crimes is that would mean things like not using human shields, separating themselves from the civilian populace, wearing a fixed sign recognizable at a distance, carrying arms openly, not misusing hospitals, schools or mosques, and limiting attacks to recognized military targets. It would be immediately stomped by the IDF. There hasn't been any time the Islamic militants have been shown to use human shields. The Goldstone Report for instance specifically condemned the Israelis for using human shields but said they did not find the Palestinians guilty of such crimes. Not misusing mosques, hospitals, etc should be very easy as there have been almost no solid reports of that actually happening. We know that some militant group did it a couple of times with vacant schools in Operation Protective Edge, but any other actual occurrences tend to get drowned out by the IDF propoganda. Militants also very frequently operate while clearly showing who they are:  Additionally I don't think you quite understand what it means to separate yourself from the civilian population. International Military Law isn't some ideal that can never be reached, but is usually fairly pragmatic. Urban warfare has been part of how we try and kill each other for millennia and no-one is expecting the Palestinians and Israelis to march out into an empty field and shoot each other at 300 paces like 17th century line infantry. As I have it open to check my previous point, let me quote from the UN's Goldstone Report: "The Mission finds it useful to clarify what is meant, from a legal perspective, by using civilians or a civilian population as a human shield. Parties to a conflict are not permitted to use a civilian population or individual civilians in order to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. It is not in dispute that both Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces were fighting within an area populated by civilians. Fighting within civilian areas is not, by itself, sufficient for a finding that a party is using the civilian population living in the area of the fighting as a human shield. As the words of article 57 (1) show (“shall not be used to render”, “in order to attempt to shield”), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required." The reason I suggested this is because honestly, it doesn't seem that hard to change up their strategy to not include any war crimes. They wouldn't be able to fire rockets, but they could still fire mortars. They wouldn't be able to cause explosions of any kind in a market place, but they could use suicide bombers in a specifically military area (although probably best not to, even if suicide bombing isn't a war crime it has very negative connotations). They can fire on IDF soldiers, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
More love for Netanyahu from Eretz Nehederet's Facebook page: emanresu tnuocca posted:Was it mentioned in any of the hundreds of CH related threads that the bodies of the four victims of the Kosher market massacre are going to be shipped to Israel for burial on the mount of olives? Apparently they want to charge their families for the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
quote:Not to mention being barked at ("Wodyawant?") by a stony-faced girl serving ice-cream at a parlour in Jerusalem, after having been queue-jumped by an elderly Israeli unimpressed by my patient waiting. Absurd Alhazred posted:Apparently they want to charge their families for the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
Hey AbdulAlhazred, emanresu tnuocca, have you guys seen any Israeli news covering the MLI stuff? Here in the American Muslim community there are some big fights going down about it. MLI ("Muslim Leadership Initiative") is a program run by the Shalom Hartman Institute that brings American Muslim community leaders to Israel for "interfaith discussion." It's faced some pretty heavy criticism for being funded by the same groups that fund a lot of American anti-Muslim campaigns and caused a ruckus when one of it's big name participants (Rabia Chaudry, who's gained a following because of the NPR show "Serial") wrote an article about "What A Muslim American Learned From Zionists." The trip was supposed to happen in two parts, one last year, and one this year. One of the most important parts of the program is that it's supposed to be anonymous - only a few of the people who have accepted and gone have been named. Well, when the second part of the trip happened this week, a Palestinian living in Jerusalem decided to record himself publically questioning the MLI participants during a part of their tour. It appears that one of the American Muslims on the trip decided he didn't want to be filmed and became involved in an altercation with the guy at Al-Aqsa. This has already been a bit of a landmine and it's kind of exploding here, wondering if it's getting any press at all over there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Let's all get nude and shake our dongs at each other. We can have a singalong! I will dance my special dance. The clouds will open and champagne will pour out. I am already naked. I have always been naked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:The reason I suggested this is because honestly, it doesn't seem that hard to change up their strategy to not include any war crimes. I disagree rather strongly with this, removing 'war crimes' from their dossier would render Hamas completely toothless. I mean, do you think Hamas are naturally predisposed towards ruthlessness or warcrimes and that they're fighting the way they do because it appeals to their own personal sensibilities? my take on the situation is quite different, Hamas is trying to find ways in which it can fight the occupation in a way that stands a chance to affect change, their tactics are determined by their efficacy and indeed their options are quite limited due to the tactical superiority of the IDF. What's the difference between rockets and mortars anyway, why do you state that one is permissible and the other isn't, mortars are a lot more dangerous either way and both are used in a rather similar fashion which is the indiscriminate shelling of civilian population centers, mortars killed 3 times more civilians than the artillery rockets did during protective edge (that is, mortars killed 3 civilians). Firing at IDF troopers? There's a big gently caress off wall surrounding gaza, IDF has hundreds of heavily armored modern APCs, Merkava Mk.IV tanks, UAVs, unmanned sentry towers etc etc. And lastly, suicide bombers are only effective when used against unsuspecting civilian concentrations, you cannot expect a guy wearing a suicide vest to be able to march inside a military encampment and detonate himself inside the mess hall, he'll be stopped before he even reaches the gates and even if he wasn't he's still not going to kill more than a handful of a soldiers, and it will only work once (if at all). Mormon Star Wars posted:Hey AbdulAlhazred, emanresu tnuocca, have you guys seen any Israeli news covering the MLI stuff? This wasn't covered at all in the Israeli media, all I can find is one article on ynetnews (english version) which mentions the program but of course doesn't say anything about the altercation, maybe if it gains more press abroad it will get some screen time here, or maybe I'm just missing it. Avshalom posted:Let's all get nude and shake our dongs at each other. We can have a singalong! I will dance my special dance. The clouds will open and champagne will pour out. I am already naked. I have always been naked. I tried to channel you in GBS by posting pics of hunky israeli war criminals wearing uniforms but you didn't show up, it made me sad. Here's a young strapping Bibi for you: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:What's the difference between rockets and mortars anyway, why do you state that one is permissible and the other isn't, mortars are a lot more dangerous either way and both are used in a rather similar fashion which is the indiscriminate shelling of civilian population centers, mortars killed 3 times more civilians than the artillery rockets did during protective edge (that is, mortars killed 3 civilians). With the lovely rear end rockets Hamas and other militants use, they have no precision. Like at all. Even if they are aimed at a military target they are more likely to hit a field than an actual person or object, but if they do hit a person or object then it is far more likely to be civilian than military just based on the fact that the former vastly outnumbers the latter. The arguement against rockets is their disproportional casualty rate. It's not a war crime just because some civilians die because that is an unfortunate inevitability in war, it's that they mostly kill civilians. Rockets (although they don't kill many) are about 20 times more likely to kill a civilian than a soldier. Combatants are required to make sure that attacks are concentrated against opposing armed forces rather than civilians (The principles of distinction and proportionality), hence rockets being war crimes by default. The reason this arguement doesn't extend to mortars is because they are fairly accurate (although have much shorter range and so aren't at tactically useful) and have mostly caused military deaths. They can be used without inherently being a war crime because although some civilians die they meet the criteria of proportionality in terms of mostly killing combatants. Source for death stats. Now if someone purposely fires a mortar shell at a family having a picnic, sure a war crime, but if they aim it at a military target and there is no reason to think it will disproportionately hurt civilians then it wouldn't be a war crime if a civilian happens to die. You mention Protective Edge, so take the first Israeli civilian to die in it as an example. He was taking food to soldiers at a military position at Erez Crossing and got killed by the shell. In that instance the militants were able to perform an accurate strike on a military objective and it was just bad luck that a civilian happened to be in that area and take the brunt of the attack. They made a distinction between civilians and the military, they chose to target the latter and in all likelihood (based on common sense and their historical records with these attacks) the risk of civilian harm was proportional to the military goal. It was just bad luck that in that particular instance a civilian died instead of an IDF soldier. That comes under the tragedy of war rather than a war crime. quote:Firing at IDF troopers? There's a big gently caress off wall surrounding gaza, IDF has hundreds of heavily armored modern APCs, Merkava Mk.IV tanks, UAVs, unmanned sentry towers etc etc. The discussion was based on Fatah and the West Bank, not Hamas and Gaza. I was pointing out that I didn't believe their tactics of trying to use international organisations like the ICC would amount to much and they would be better placed to engage in armed struggle. The West Bank has a great deal more involvement with the IDF on a daily basis in their role protecting settlements, running checkpoints, etc than Gaza which gives much more opportunity for these kind of attacks. quote:And lastly, suicide bombers are only effective when used against unsuspecting civilian concentrations, you cannot expect a guy wearing a suicide vest to be able to march inside a military encampment and detonate himself inside the mess hall, he'll be stopped before he even reaches the gates and even if he wasn't he's still not going to kill more than a handful of a soldiers, and it will only work once (if at all). There is a distinction between infiltrating the heart of a military base and attacking a military position where you can make sure you can get rid of or at least minimize civilian casualties while focusing on attacking legitimate targets. This is something Palestinian militants have actually done before so I'm not sure why you're trying to naysay it, although as I said I wouldn't really want them to do this anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:With the lovely rear end rockets Hamas and other militants use, they have no precision. Like at all. Even if they are aimed at a military target they are more likely to hit a field than an actual person or object, but if they do hit a person or object then it is far more likely to be civilian than military just based on the fact that the former vastly outnumbers the latter. The mortars were only effectively used against soldiers due to IDF commanders being idiots and allowing troops to assemble in open areas with no fortifications, it's been suggested during the campaign that Hamas were using RF monitors to triangulate cell phone activity to discover concentration of troops within mortar range, it is said that this is the reason why only soldiers from one single brigade were effectively targerted by the mortars, the commander of the brigade didn't issue orders to take away the phones from the soldiers. Might just be a conspiracy theory though I don't know. Regardless mortars can only be used effectively against IDF troops once said troops are already assembled within mortar range, which only happens once you draw the IDF into a full scale engagement, on most days the majority of targets within mortar range would be the kibbutzim on the border, so Hamas would still need to crack a few eggs to make the non-warcrime omelette. quote:The discussion was based on Fatah and the West Bank, not Hamas and Gaza. I was pointing out that I didn't believe their tactics of trying to use international organisations like the ICC would amount to much and they would be better placed to engage in armed struggle. I didn't follow the entirety of the discussion obviously. It's true that the IDF might be more vulnerable in the west bank but they also have a greater degree of control and better intelligence, maybe that wouldn't be so once security coordination with the PA is gone but it seems like amassing sufficient armaments to be more than a nuisance to IDF infantry in the west bank is not that trivial, IDF already fought Hamas/PLO during 'Defensive Shield' and didn't have any significant difficulties. As for the efficacy of going to the ICC, it's funny but the Israeli Foreign Ministry actually sees it a rather a considerable threat: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4614611,00.html quote:There is a distinction between infiltrating the heart of a military base and attacking a military position where you can make sure you can get rid of or at least minimize civilian casualties while focusing on attacking legitimate targets. This is something Palestinian militants have actually done before so I'm not sure why you're trying to naysay it, although as I said I wouldn't really want them to do this anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks Seems like suicide attacks on military checkpoints are both relatively rare and rather ineffective, many of them were foiled with little to no casualties. Once again, from the perspective of 'affecting change to the status quo' they alone would probably not do the trick. Not that I myself would like to see more buses go off you know, just trying to look at things from Hamas/Insurgency perspective. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:16
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:
I'd just like to point out that suicide attacks have been used to great effect in Syria by opposition and Daesh forces against regime military bases and checkpoints to great effect, especially after the regime mass-deployed RF jammers in all their bases and convoys, but that is a totally different battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:44
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:The mortars were only effectively used against soldiers due to IDF commanders being idiots and allowing troops to assemble in open areas with no fortifications, it's been suggested during the campaign that Hamas were using RF monitors to triangulate cell phone activity to discover concentration of troops within mortar range, it is said that this is the reason why only soldiers from one single brigade were effectively targerted by the mortars, the commander of the brigade didn't issue orders to take away the phones from the soldiers. Might just be a conspiracy theory though I don't know. They can be used most effectively in terms of killing troops when there are large massed groups of troops yes, but they can still be used against the soldiers stationed around he strip ordinarily. Even when being used less effectively, we're talking about relative effectiveness in comparison to rockets. If Hamas would be rendered toothless by focusing as you claim, that would rely on mortars being significantly less effective than rockets. As rockets are notably ineffective anyway, I don't buy it. Besides, with mortar attacks the focus has never really been on the number of casualties. The main effects of rockets are: 1) It's been a symbol of resistance as people know that something has been done and a blow has been struck for freedom, even if it was just a rocket landing in an empty field. 2) It disrupts the status quo and put pressure on Israel, as even if no-one dies the falling rockets and sirens and the like as the sirens and falling rockets create trouble even when no-one is killed. 3) It is in turn used as a tool against the Palestinians to point out how poor Israel faces hundreds of rocket attacks per year aimed at its civilians, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. Switching to mortars doesn't effect point one, that remains the same. Now pressure put on the status quo mentioned in point 2 will be reduced somewhat as mortars should hopefully be less scary and disruptive to the civilian population if they are targeted at military objectives and will cover a much smaller area, but in turn it also reduces Israel's ability to turn it around against the Palestinians and paint them as bloodthirsty militants. It's different, but stopping using rockets and going 100% mortars shouldn't cause any big drop in direct military effectiveness (Qassam effectiveness, lol) and the overall strategic net gain remains about the same in my eyes. quote:I didn't follow the entirety of the discussion obviously. It's true that the IDF might be more vulnerable in the west bank but they also have a greater degree of control and better intelligence, maybe that wouldn't be so once security coordination with the PA is gone but it seems like amassing sufficient armaments to be more than a nuisance to IDF infantry in the west bank is not that trivial, IDF already fought Hamas/PLO during 'Defensive Shield' and didn't have any significant difficulties. Well what do you mean by nuisance? I'm not talking about trying to defeat the IDF in a pitched battle, which is a fool's errand considering the differences in material resources. To my mind the nature of the game is making continuing the occupation as directly unpalatable as possible for Israel so that pressure builds behind a serious political settlement. That pressure needs to be put on by domestic resistance and international diplomatic pressure. To that end a single guy with a rifle taking a few potshots at a passing IDF soldier and then running away constitutes an effective level of resistance. If he wounds or kills the soldier, that single action would be the equivalent of firing like 500 rockets and would make it into all the Israeli papers the next day, almost certainly as a front page story if the soldier was killed and nothing else major happened. Get that happening regularly? That puts a lot of pressure on them. quote:As for the efficacy of going to the ICC, it's funny but the Israeli Foreign Ministry actually sees it a rather a considerable threat: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4614611,00.html That article doesn't mention the ICC at all. Also I think it's a sign of the general trend (and the way Palestine needs to continue pushing) but also partly needless hangwringing. For instance some of the dread things that could potentially happen are that if they blow up things belonging to the EU then they might have to pay for them and that there might be "debates on sanctions against Israel". Not actual sanctions, but there could be debates about sanctions which is bad. quote:Seems like suicide attacks on military checkpoints are both relatively rare and rather ineffective, many of them were foiled with little to no casualties. Once again, from the perspective of 'affecting change to the status quo' they alone would probably not do the trick. Not that I myself would like to see more buses go off you know, just trying to look at things from Hamas/Insurgency perspective. From your link there haven't been any suicide bombs for years (although I thought I recalled at least one 2014 attempt) and as I said it's best that it stays that way. However I'm not suggesting any one tactic will alone be a sudden catalyst for change and anything thing which makes continuing the occupation more unpalatable for Israel is an option and suicide bombs against military targets are a possibility which automatically doesn't count as a de facto war crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:3) It is in turn used as a tool against the Palestinians to point out how poor Israel faces hundreds of rocket attacks per year aimed at its civilians, which is a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. This is a bit of a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario, though, given Israel's penchant for launching artillery attacks and airstrikes in highly-concentrated civilian areas without much regard for that they're attacking. I think they'd be hard-pressed to defend their strikes against rocket launch sites as genuine military targets, especially given the portability of the rockets and the very low chance that whoever fired the rocket will stick around long enough to get killed by the retaliatory strike. team overhead smash posted:To that end a single guy with a rifle taking a few potshots at a passing IDF soldier and then running away constitutes an effective level of resistance. If he wounds or kills the soldier, that single action would be the equivalent of firing like 500 rockets and would make it into all the Israeli papers the next day, almost certainly as a front page story if the soldier was killed and nothing else major happened. Get that happening regularly? That puts a lot of pressure on them. You strongly underestimate the racial tensions in play here if you think a group of Palestinians (armed or not) can get anywhere near an IDF soldier without taking fire. Since the beginning of 2015, at least five Palestinians (none of whom were militants) have been shot by the IDF, at least three have been kidnapped, and at least two groups/gatherings of Palestinians have been tear gassed. And that's just in two weeks, and only in the West Bank (though a Gazan was reportedly shot by the Egyptian military for coming too close to the Egyptian border too). There are no "passing IDF soldiers" in Gaza, and in fact the IDF is likely to fire at and drive off any approaching Palestinian, since thanks to the blockade there is no reason for a Palestinian to be anywhere near most of the border. Even in the case of assault-in-force, the IDF border guards have cover, most likely armored reinforcements, and definitely artillery+air support; their tactical superiority is overwhelming in a case like that, which is why Hamas doesn't do it despite the fact that they've demonstrated a preference for targeting IDF units when they have the opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is a bit of a "pot calling the kettle black" scenario, though, given Israel's penchant for launching artillery attacks and airstrikes in highly-concentrated civilian areas without much regard for that they're attacking. I think they'd be hard-pressed to defend their strikes against rocket launch sites as genuine military targets, especially given the portability of the rockets and the very low chance that whoever fired the rocket will stick around long enough to get killed by the retaliatory strike. Yes, agreed 100%. It's completely hypocritical and should not be a valid arguement. However when a talking head on TV can (technically) truthfully say that Israeli towns and villages are under attack from hundreds of missiles fired at them from Palestine, all that comes across is that the Palestinians are the bad guys and Israel is under attack. The fight to win over the international community is in large part a propaganda battle, so I don't see any need to hand Israel their campaigns on a silver platter. quote:You strongly underestimate the racial tensions in play here if you think a group of Palestinians (armed or not) can get anywhere near an IDF soldier without taking fire. Since the beginning of 2015, at least five Palestinians (none of whom were militants) have been shot by the IDF, at least three have been kidnapped, and at least two groups/gatherings of Palestinians have been tear gassed. And that's just in two weeks, and only in the West Bank (though a Gazan was reportedly shot by the Egyptian military for coming too close to the Egyptian border too). There are no "passing IDF soldiers" in Gaza, and in fact the IDF is likely to fire at and drive off any approaching Palestinian, since thanks to the blockade there is no reason for a Palestinian to be anywhere near most of the border. Even in the case of assault-in-force, the IDF border guards have cover, most likely armored reinforcements, and definitely artillery+air support; their tactical superiority is overwhelming in a case like that, which is why Hamas doesn't do it despite the fact that they've demonstrated a preference for targeting IDF units when they have the opportunity. This seems to be almost exclusively about Gaza, but as I pointed out in my last post I was talking about Fatah turning away from their mixture of collaborationism and pushing for international help. Hebron for instance, a city in the West bank, has a quarter of a million people and has around 3,000 IDF soldiers stationed in and around it to protect a small settler community. Although it is very segregated, the IDF very much do have a presence and if anything are overbearing and ever present rather than invisible - at least according to what I've read.. I'm not Israeli or Palestinian myself but if you could explain how people are currently able to get close enough to throw stones at the IDF but not to fire rifles at them, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Yes, agreed 100%. It's completely hypocritical and should not be a valid arguement. Since Israeli towns and villages are within Palestinian territory, the same talking point about Israeli civilians being in danger would be just as valid in any hypothetical conventional war between Israel and the West Bank. Hell, it's even more or less usable even in periods of peace, given the seemingly ceaseless violent clashes between settlers and Palestinians. There's no way that a Palestinian army closing in on an Israeli settlement (or the IDF base next to it) wouldn't be more than enough of justification for Israel, since as we all know, all Palestinians are anti-semitic murder terrorists who don't recognize Israel and intend to push the Jews into the sea. Besides, the rubble hasn't even been cleared from the recent Protective Edge, in which Israeli forces killed over a thousand people in Gaza because three people were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank. I said it then and I'll say it again now: when a colonizing power needs an excuse or justification to take military action against the natives, they will find one, no matter how hard the natives work to avoid giving them that excuse. It's not really worth sacrificing most of your options and dooming yourself to tactical inferiority just to delay the inevitable uppity native suppression operation by a couple of months. It's literally impossible to deprive an occupying power of violent incidents they can use to justify their own violence and suppression of the natives. quote:This seems to be almost exclusively about Gaza, but as I pointed out in my last post I was talking about Fatah turning away from their mixture of collaborationism and pushing for international help. I'm pretty sure at least three of the six Palestinians killed during the last two weeks were in fact shot for throwing stones. Or maybe that was the group that got tear gassed. Extend it another two weeks and we find not only another Palestinian shot by the IDF for throwing stones (among numerous other Palestinian fatalities), but an incident in which the IDF attempted to arrest two preschoolers for throwing stones. The IDF isn't exactly restrained about shooting Palestinians! More importantly, it goes both ways. There are thousands of IDF soldiers in the West Bank, who have demonstrated the ability to operate with effective impunity in Palestinian areas - raiding homes and businesses, abducting or killing people by the hundreds, and in one recent incident, closing the main entrance of a Palestinian neighborhood for three weeks in retaliation for Palestinian attacks on the checkpoint there. Israel also controls the West Bank's borders and could trivially impose an embargo if necessary. Much of the West Bank is under effective Israeli control. This means that IDF soldiers are more vulnerable to Fatah, true, but it also means that Fatah are more vulnerable to Israeli strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Since Israeli towns and villages are within Palestinian territory, the same talking point about Israeli civilians being in danger would be just as valid in any hypothetical conventional war between Israel and the West Bank. Hell, it's even more or less usable even in periods of peace, given the seemingly ceaseless violent clashes between settlers and Palestinians. There's no way that a Palestinian army closing in on an Israeli settlement (or the IDF base next to it) wouldn't be more than enough of justification for Israel, since as we all know, all Palestinians are anti-semitic murder terrorists who don't recognize Israel and intend to push the Jews into the sea. Literally committing war crimes due to disproportionately targeting civilians and specifically not doing that do not both give equally valid claims about someone trying to kill civilians. I have no doubt that no matter what people will try and make that arguement, but it detracts from their ability to make it in the same way not having a holocaust denyer as a spokesman comparatively helps stop claims of anti-semitism and plenty of people would appreciate the difference. quote:Besides, the rubble hasn't even been cleared from the recent Protective Edge, in which Israeli forces killed over a thousand people in Gaza because three people were kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank. I said it then and I'll say it again now: when a colonizing power needs an excuse or justification to take military action against the natives, they will find one, no matter how hard the natives work to avoid giving them that excuse. It's not really worth sacrificing most of your options and dooming yourself to tactical inferiority just to delay the inevitable uppity native suppression operation by a couple of months. It's literally impossible to deprive an occupying power of violent incidents they can use to justify their own violence and suppression of the natives. I'm specifically arguing for an an armed conflict, as Palestinians have a right to resistance, not trying to argue against it. All I'm advocating is not committing war crimes when they're doing so because they can still be pretty much just as effective and it leaves the other arena, international diplomacy, much more favourably disposed to the Palestinians. quote:I'm pretty sure at least three of the six Palestinians killed during the last two weeks were in fact shot for throwing stones. Or maybe that was the group that got tear gassed. Extend it another two weeks and we find not only another Palestinian shot by the IDF for throwing stones (among numerous other Palestinian fatalities), but an incident in which the IDF attempted to arrest two preschoolers for throwing stones. The IDF isn't exactly restrained about shooting Palestinians! So we agree that the IDF are actually in a position where someone could throw stones and shoot at them, not elusive never seen shadows that no-one would possibly be able to shoot at? quote:More importantly, it goes both ways. There are thousands of IDF soldiers in the West Bank, who have demonstrated the ability to operate with effective impunity in Palestinian areas - raiding homes and businesses, abducting or killing people by the hundreds, and in one recent incident, closing the main entrance of a Palestinian neighborhood for three weeks in retaliation for Palestinian attacks on the checkpoint there. Israel also controls the West Bank's borders and could trivially impose an embargo if necessary. Much of the West Bank is under effective Israeli control. This means that IDF soldiers are more vulnerable to Fatah, true, but it also means that Fatah are more vulnerable to Israeli strikes. Well, yes, engaging in military action rather than taking a fairly collaborationist approach is going to see more reprisals. That's an obvious consequence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I tried to channel you in GBS by posting pics of hunky israeli war criminals wearing uniforms but you didn't show up, it made me sad. Here's a young strapping Bibi for you:  Also I can't be summoned; I descend on threads of my own volition like a butterfly, scattering microscopic breasts from my gossamer wings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Good article on Mondoweiss about Mohammad Saba’aneh who is a caricaturist who spent some time in Israeli prisons for the crime of signing a book deal (and also about the daily show). http://mondoweiss.net/2015/01/references-palestinian-cartoonist Sabaaneh seems like a pretty cool guy: https://twitter.com/Sabaaneh/status/554620967515738112 team overhead smash posted:I'm specifically arguing for an an armed conflict, as Palestinians have a right to resistance, not trying to argue against it. All I'm advocating is not committing war crimes when they're doing so because they can still be pretty much just as effective and it leaves the other arena, international diplomacy, much more favourably disposed to the Palestinians. Well, I guess we'll just have to see where the winds blow, ultimately I think that there is more hope following Abbas' diplomatic route than by giving Israel the pretext to further dissect the West Bank into bantustans, the relative calm in the West Bank since the second intifada is in many ways a major inconvenience for the likes of Bennet and all of those whose long term plans include an annexed and possibly ethnically cleansed West Bank. In the event that a full scale armed conflict emerges, assuming the now militant PA tries to 'fight clean' the question is merely how long will it take the IDF to adapt to these tactics, I don't think low-intensity guerrilla warfare tactics focused against IDF soldiers will suffice to actually drive the IDF out, nor am I certain whether the world won't tolerate a harsh Israeli response regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:17
|
|