[cardcrimson]

Daytime images do not seem to accord with an airstrike or the multiple hundreds of deaths reported by Palestinian authorities. The hospital appears pretty much undamaged. There are some burnt cars but no significant impact crater.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/17145...34678?s=20[/tweet]

Of course whatever the truth of the matter, the minds of many are already made up.

This. A combination of geolocated video showing a rocket fragment and then striking the hospital along with analysis of the damage, which looks far more along the lines of fire damage from a propellant then a big boom from a JDAM has me quite convinced. IDF also published signals intelligence of conversations supporting this, though that is less compelling. As you say, however, it will not convince those who already believe that israel is at fault, or who may not have a belief but are happy to seize the moment for political purposes.

Circling back to media concerns, it is incredible to me that major news outlets will almost uncritically report claims made by a terrorist organization.  

A lot of news organizations were saying things like "IDF bombs hospital, according to local authorities." When the local authorities are a terrorist organization that has just recently murdered over a thousand people and kidnapped others, maybe you should be a little more careful about what you report? IS that just me?

Something like "Gaza hospital destroyed, cause unclear, investigation ongoing" seems a lot more accurate to me.

It's not just you, but I fear that commenting further would get me banned. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Daytime images do not seem to accord with an airstrike or the multiple hundreds of deaths reported by Palestinian authorities. The hospital appears pretty much undamaged. There are some burnt cars but no significant impact crater.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/17145...34678?s=20[/tweet]

Of course whatever the truth of the matter, the minds of many are already made up.

This. A combination of geolocated video showing a rocket fragment and then striking the hospital along with analysis of the damage, which looks far more along the lines of fire damage from a propellant then a big boom from a JDAM has me quite convinced. IDF also published signals intelligence of conversations supporting this, though that is less compelling. As you say, however, it will not convince those who already believe that israel is at fault, or who may not have a belief but are happy to seize the moment for political purposes.

Circling back to media concerns, it is incredible to me that major news outlets will almost uncritically report claims made by a terrorist organization.  

A lot of news organizations were saying things like "IDF bombs hospital, according to local authorities." When the local authorities are a terrorist organization that has just recently murdered over a thousand people and kidnapped others, maybe you should be a little more careful about what you report? IS that just me?

Something like "Gaza hospital destroyed, cause unclear, investigation ongoing" seems a lot more accurate to me.

It's not just you, but I fear that commenting further would get me banned. . . .

[Bampa]

Video posted without comment:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-tv...ian-rocket

[Bampa]

Video posted without comment:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-tv...ian-rocket

[Goose]

According to Biden today, Hamas taking a page from the revolutionary notebook. The hospital explosion apparently was caused by a Palestinian rocket. Nevertheless, the Arab world, at least, still seems to blame Israel.

Hopefully Biden (and the rest of the administration) has independent confirmation of at least the "fact" Israel didn't do it. If we are going to take the position that is true, we need more than Israel's word. I am quite confident our surveillance of that airspace is very, very good. There are probably so many elint, comint, and AWACS aircraft in the area that the US has an aircraft there whose sole job is to de-conflict them. (Yes, this has happened before). That is setting aside the many other nations doing somewhat the same, as well as LEO coverage. We should "know" by now, one way or the other.

Biden was always in a "no-win" situation when he went. None of the alleged "participants" in the meeting with the Arab states really wanted to be there, and have made it totally clear they aren't accepting refugees. They bailed because it was a good excuse. If they really wanted to talk to Biden, they would have at least started a meeting and then walked out if they felt it necessary. I understand that the US needed to "do something" to de-fuse the situation, but I half believe that our diplomats believe they can actually negotiate something "soon". Not probable, and we don't want to be looking as if we have no clue.

Agree completely with your comments.  The hospital disaster just gave everyone a nice way to say goodbye.  Proving something like this has to be difficult at the same time as you say, the skies over that area are blanketed with so many intelligence gathering planes and satellites there probably isn't room for another one. If we had hard proof Israel was innocent I do not see why it hasn't been publicized.

The US is (fortunately) still in the habit of not releasing "high grade" intelligence that would expose capabilities and methods to future countermeasures. It is probably true we are "spying" on Israel much more than they know/wish.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident.
It is also probably true that what we know is technical enough that only people with the right background can interpret it. Tweeting it would be meaningless.

If the "other guy" did it and we know it, we are probably keeping silent until we can't.
How big is the war head on the rockets Hamas/Jihad are using?  How much explosive is probably required to cause the damage that was incurred?
Having no clue as to the answers to these questions, instinct tells me that it is unlikely a Hamas rocket had enough power to cause the damage that took place.  Which gets us back to maybe "what was in the basement". 
Lacking concrete proof of who did what, we now have multiple Arab countries gathering and assuming more aggressive positions against Israel. 

This then brings up the big question as to how far the USA is willing to get involved.  I do not think the answer to this question is so clear cut as it was say 20 years ago.

I think it is still true that the US is willing to get involved up to but not including participating in hostilities. We aren't going to war in Gaza, period. If Russia intervenes directly, that won't be true.  If Iran intervenes directly, what the US will do is unclear. We might just "donate" the several C-135s on their way to Davis-Montham to Israel. I am sure Israel can scare up the required crews :-).  C-130s aren't all that great to refuel a strike on Iran. Possible, but not ideal.

---

“Negotiate something” is pretty broad language. Framed that way, Biden may be able to achieve the goal. 

I don’t think Biden is so proud as to think he can negotiate an end to hostilities. 

Can he negotiate safe passage for the relatively small number of American nationals trapped in Gaza?  If so, that alone would make the trip worthwhile. 

Can he convince Israel that it’s in Israel’s own interest to allow water into Gaza?  If so, that would mitigate the humanitarian effects of the war. 

Can he convince Israel that it’s in Israel’s own interest to further delay a ground invasion?  Delay alone might save lives by creating space for the regional players to get civilians to safe® locations. 

There are other possible outcomes that would make the trip worthwhile. And what’s the downside?  The US government isn’t passing any legislation anyway right now. Biden may as well make this diplomatic mission. It’s not doing any harm.

Yes, IMO it is doing significant harm. US diplomacy has over many, many, years demonstrated an alarming lack of understanding of what is happening in the middle east and what the "goals" of the participants are. We are considered well-meaning amateurs by many of the participants. The laundry list of objectives above is a valid set of "goals" for us, but it is imperative that they not be publicly revealed.  When some of them don't happen, it gives the impression we are diplomatic Pollyannas, have "failed" again, and don't have a clue. That causes many of the participants to not trust us and to fear we will sell them out without even realizing it.

[Goose]

According to Biden today, Hamas taking a page from the revolutionary notebook. The hospital explosion apparently was caused by a Palestinian rocket. Nevertheless, the Arab world, at least, still seems to blame Israel.

Hopefully Biden (and the rest of the administration) has independent confirmation of at least the "fact" Israel didn't do it. If we are going to take the position that is true, we need more than Israel's word. I am quite confident our surveillance of that airspace is very, very good. There are probably so many elint, comint, and AWACS aircraft in the area that the US has an aircraft there whose sole job is to de-conflict them. (Yes, this has happened before). That is setting aside the many other nations doing somewhat the same, as well as LEO coverage. We should "know" by now, one way or the other.

Biden was always in a "no-win" situation when he went. None of the alleged "participants" in the meeting with the Arab states really wanted to be there, and have made it totally clear they aren't accepting refugees. They bailed because it was a good excuse. If they really wanted to talk to Biden, they would have at least started a meeting and then walked out if they felt it necessary. I understand that the US needed to "do something" to de-fuse the situation, but I half believe that our diplomats believe they can actually negotiate something "soon". Not probable, and we don't want to be looking as if we have no clue.

Agree completely with your comments.  The hospital disaster just gave everyone a nice way to say goodbye.  Proving something like this has to be difficult at the same time as you say, the skies over that area are blanketed with so many intelligence gathering planes and satellites there probably isn't room for another one. If we had hard proof Israel was innocent I do not see why it hasn't been publicized.

The US is (fortunately) still in the habit of not releasing "high grade" intelligence that would expose capabilities and methods to future countermeasures. It is probably true we are "spying" on Israel much more than they know/wish.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident.
It is also probably true that what we know is technical enough that only people with the right background can interpret it. Tweeting it would be meaningless.

If the "other guy" did it and we know it, we are probably keeping silent until we can't.
How big is the war head on the rockets Hamas/Jihad are using?  How much explosive is probably required to cause the damage that was incurred?
Having no clue as to the answers to these questions, instinct tells me that it is unlikely a Hamas rocket had enough power to cause the damage that took place.  Which gets us back to maybe "what was in the basement". 
Lacking concrete proof of who did what, we now have multiple Arab countries gathering and assuming more aggressive positions against Israel. 

This then brings up the big question as to how far the USA is willing to get involved.  I do not think the answer to this question is so clear cut as it was say 20 years ago.

I think it is still true that the US is willing to get involved up to but not including participating in hostilities. We aren't going to war in Gaza, period. If Russia intervenes directly, that won't be true.  If Iran intervenes directly, what the US will do is unclear. We might just "donate" the several C-135s on their way to Davis-Montham to Israel. I am sure Israel can scare up the required crews :-).  C-130s aren't all that great to refuel a strike on Iran. Possible, but not ideal.

---

“Negotiate something” is pretty broad language. Framed that way, Biden may be able to achieve the goal. 

I don’t think Biden is so proud as to think he can negotiate an end to hostilities. 

Can he negotiate safe passage for the relatively small number of American nationals trapped in Gaza?  If so, that alone would make the trip worthwhile. 

Can he convince Israel that it’s in Israel’s own interest to allow water into Gaza?  If so, that would mitigate the humanitarian effects of the war. 

Can he convince Israel that it’s in Israel’s own interest to further delay a ground invasion?  Delay alone might save lives by creating space for the regional players to get civilians to safe® locations. 

There are other possible outcomes that would make the trip worthwhile. And what’s the downside?  The US government isn’t passing any legislation anyway right now. Biden may as well make this diplomatic mission. It’s not doing any harm.

Yes, IMO it is doing significant harm. US diplomacy has over many, many, years demonstrated an alarming lack of understanding of what is happening in the middle east and what the "goals" of the participants are. We are considered well-meaning amateurs by many of the participants. The laundry list of objectives above is a valid set of "goals" for us, but it is imperative that they not be publicly revealed.  When some of them don't happen, it gives the impression we are diplomatic Pollyannas, have "failed" again, and don't have a clue. That causes many of the participants to not trust us and to fear we will sell them out without even realizing it.

[TrumpCard]

I hope the revelation that Hamas reported fake news regarding the blast at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital will help change the narrative about how Israel is prosecuting this war.    

Per this CNN article, Gazan authorities (i.e. Hamas) now claim that Israel has killed 3,478 Gazans (including 471 that they still falsely attribute to Israel):  https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeas...index.html.  

To what extent should we trust this data, and if it is useful at all, how should we interpret it?

As a starting point, it's important to note that we're now 11 days into the war and Israel's air force has launched thousands of strikes at military targets in Gaza.  If Israel were targeting civilians, I would expect to see reporting about specific incidents in which Israel's air strikes hit civilian targets.  To date, I've seen almost no such reporting, except for the reporting about the al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which was false.  

In addition, I do not think it's safe to assume that Israel is responsible for 3,000 deaths (besides the hospital incident, which is plainly false) that we're seeing reported.  Like the reporting about the hospital incident, this data comes from Gazan health authorities (i.e. Hamas), so it is inherently suspect.  

Also, we can reasonably expect that many of the deaths in Gaza are deaths of terrorists whom Israel properly targeted.  

We also have good reason to believe that Hamas is continuing its long standing practice of using civilians as human shields and that there have been other "friendly fire" incidents like the hospital incident, and that, as a result, Hamas bears responsibility for many of the civilians who have died.  

In sum, the top line data about the number of Gazans who have died is notable, but many caveats are appropriate.  As with US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, attribution for civilian deaths will remain elusive, but is best determined on a case-by-case basis, looking at what happened in each incident.  So far, I have seen lots of numbers reported, but no specific facts suggesting that Israel is targeting civilians or that Israel is callous about the collateral effects on civilians resulting from this war.  If anything, the top line numbers undermine that Hamas-created narrative.

[TrumpCard]

I hope the revelation that Hamas reported fake news regarding the blast at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital will help change the narrative about how Israel is prosecuting this war.    

Per this CNN article, Gazan authorities (i.e. Hamas) now claim that Israel has killed 3,478 Gazans (including 471 that they still falsely attribute to Israel):  https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/18/middleeas...index.html.  

To what extent should we trust this data, and if it is useful at all, how should we interpret it?

As a starting point, it's important to note that we're now 11 days into the war and Israel's air force has launched thousands of strikes at military targets in Gaza.  If Israel were targeting civilians, I would expect to see reporting about specific incidents in which Israel's air strikes hit civilian targets.  To date, I've seen almost no such reporting, except for the reporting about the al-Ahli Arab Hospital, which was false.  

In addition, I do not think it's safe to assume that Israel is responsible for 3,000 deaths (besides the hospital incident, which is plainly false) that we're seeing reported.  Like the reporting about the hospital incident, this data comes from Gazan health authorities (i.e. Hamas), so it is inherently suspect.  

Also, we can reasonably expect that many of the deaths in Gaza are deaths of terrorists whom Israel properly targeted.  

We also have good reason to believe that Hamas is continuing its long standing practice of using civilians as human shields and that there have been other "friendly fire" incidents like the hospital incident, and that, as a result, Hamas bears responsibility for many of the civilians who have died.  

In sum, the top line data about the number of Gazans who have died is notable, but many caveats are appropriate.  As with US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, attribution for civilian deaths will remain elusive, but is best determined on a case-by-case basis, looking at what happened in each incident.  So far, I have seen lots of numbers reported, but no specific facts suggesting that Israel is targeting civilians or that Israel is callous about the collateral effects on civilians resulting from this war.  If anything, the top line numbers undermine that Hamas-created narrative.

[dabigv13]

The amount of bombs being dropped in a densely populated area pretty much guarantees civilian casualties, even if we don't have to trust the specific numbers coming from Palestinian authorities.

And I keep coming back to the incredibly stupid messaging coming from IDF, who have been caught lying plenty of times as well regarding Palestine, notably about the murder of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by IDF soldiers. 

So if IDF says they are focused on damage not accuracy, and then they drop thousands of bombs, and every Palestinian is familiar with IDF's previous lies, it's no surprise that they would believe the IDF bombed the hospital.

I don't trust IDF, I don't trust Hamas. However I am certain that many innocent Palestinians are dying and I am skeptical that the IDF bombing campaign or an upcoming ground invasion will do anything to eliminate Hamas or reduce the threats to Israel in the future. This is cathartic violence. 

BTW while it is certainly the case that Hamas uses "human shields" it does not make it lawful or moral to kill civilians in order to also kill Hamas or destroy their weaponry.

[dabigv13]

The amount of bombs being dropped in a densely populated area pretty much guarantees civilian casualties, even if we don't have to trust the specific numbers coming from Palestinian authorities.

And I keep coming back to the incredibly stupid messaging coming from IDF, who have been caught lying plenty of times as well regarding Palestine, notably about the murder of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh by IDF soldiers. 

So if IDF says they are focused on damage not accuracy, and then they drop thousands of bombs, and every Palestinian is familiar with IDF's previous lies, it's no surprise that they would believe the IDF bombed the hospital.

I don't trust IDF, I don't trust Hamas. However I am certain that many innocent Palestinians are dying and I am skeptical that the IDF bombing campaign or an upcoming ground invasion will do anything to eliminate Hamas or reduce the threats to Israel in the future. This is cathartic violence. 

BTW while it is certainly the case that Hamas uses "human shields" it does not make it lawful or moral to kill civilians in order to also kill Hamas or destroy their weaponry.

[TrumpCard]

The United States has killed many more civilians over the years than Israel has.  The Afghanistan War and Iraq War are recent examples of conflicts where many thousands of civilians died, a significant portion of them in US strikes.  In Iraq, the US struck electricity infrastructure, which caused hardship to civilians.  That does not make recent US government officials guilty of war crimes.  The mainstream media certainly does not portray the US as a rogue state that intentionally harms civilians.  That's appropriate because international law does not say that a nation has acted unlawfully when civilians die as a result of defensive military operations.  Yet the media treats Israel very different from how it treats the US.  

You say that Israel has a history of targeting civilians and lying about it.  The example you provided, however, is far from conclusive on that point.  The US government agency that investigated the death of Shireen Abu Akleh concluded that there was "no reason to believe that this [the shooting] was intentional."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/middleeas...index.html.  CNN conducted a separate investigation, which CNN said suggested that the soldier intentionally shot the journalist.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeas...index.html.  I am not sure that the intent of the Israeli soldier who fired the shot is knowable, but even assuming murderous intent (which the US government disputed), unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's strong evidence that the IDF lied about the incident.  To the contrary, the CNN article above states that the IDF conducted an investigation, acknowledged it was likely that one of its soldiers shot the journalist, and told the media that the solider was sorry that it happened.  

Nevertheless, I'm not saying that you should blindly trust the IDF or blindly accept that Israel has not targeted civilians.  I'm saying that we should look at the specific facts on a case-by-case basis to reach our own judgment as to whether Israel's government and/or individual Israeli soldiers have acted illegally.

With all that said, I definitely understand your point about the IDF's statements to the press that it is not going to be so careful of civilians.  I've previously speculated in this thread that the IDF made statements like that as a scare tactic to cause civilians to leave northern Gaza.  If that was the purpose (which is unclear), then I can understand Israel's reasoning, but I still probably would conclude that the statements to the press were a PR blunder.  The same is true for statements by the IDF that it would not allow humanitarian aid or even re-start running water in Gaza until all hostages were returned.  But I note that Israel has now allowed some humanitarian aid and has resumed water in some areas despite the fact that no hostages have been released.  I would argue that this is evidence that Israel's bluff has been called, but also that Israel never really intended for Gazan civilians to die from lack of water or food.

[TrumpCard]

The United States has killed many more civilians over the years than Israel has.  The Afghanistan War and Iraq War are recent examples of conflicts where many thousands of civilians died, a significant portion of them in US strikes.  In Iraq, the US struck electricity infrastructure, which caused hardship to civilians.  That does not make recent US government officials guilty of war crimes.  The mainstream media certainly does not portray the US as a rogue state that intentionally harms civilians.  That's appropriate because international law does not say that a nation has acted unlawfully when civilians die as a result of defensive military operations.  Yet the media treats Israel very different from how it treats the US.  

You say that Israel has a history of targeting civilians and lying about it.  The example you provided, however, is far from conclusive on that point.  The US government agency that investigated the death of Shireen Abu Akleh concluded that there was "no reason to believe that this [the shooting] was intentional."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/middleeas...index.html.  CNN conducted a separate investigation, which CNN said suggested that the soldier intentionally shot the journalist.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeas...index.html.  I am not sure that the intent of the Israeli soldier who fired the shot is knowable, but even assuming murderous intent (which the US government disputed), unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's strong evidence that the IDF lied about the incident.  To the contrary, the CNN article above states that the IDF conducted an investigation, acknowledged it was likely that one of its soldiers shot the journalist, and told the media that the solider was sorry that it happened.  

Nevertheless, I'm not saying that you should blindly trust the IDF or blindly accept that Israel has not targeted civilians.  I'm saying that we should look at the specific facts on a case-by-case basis to reach our own judgment as to whether Israel's government and/or individual Israeli soldiers have acted illegally.

With all that said, I definitely understand your point about the IDF's statements to the press that it is not going to be so careful of civilians.  I've previously speculated in this thread that the IDF made statements like that as a scare tactic to cause civilians to leave northern Gaza.  If that was the purpose (which is unclear), then I can understand Israel's reasoning, but I still probably would conclude that the statements to the press were a PR blunder.  The same is true for statements by the IDF that it would not allow humanitarian aid or even re-start running water in Gaza until all hostages were returned.  But I note that Israel has now allowed some humanitarian aid and has resumed water in some areas despite the fact that no hostages have been released.  I would argue that this is evidence that Israel's bluff has been called, but also that Israel never really intended for Gazan civilians to die from lack of water or food.

[GK3]

The United States has killed many more civilians over the years than Israel has.  The Afghanistan War and Iraq War are recent examples of conflicts where many thousands of civilians died, a significant portion of them in US strikes.  In Iraq, the US struck electricity infrastructure, which caused hardship to civilians.  That does not make recent US government officials guilty of war crimes.  The mainstream media certainly does not portray the US as a rogue state that intentionally harms civilians.  That's appropriate because international law does not say that a nation has acted unlawfully when civilians die as a result of defensive military operations.  Yet the media treats Israel very different from how it treats the US.  

You say that Israel has a history of targeting civilians and lying about it.  The example you provided, however, is far from conclusive on that point.  The US government agency that investigated the death of Shireen Abu Akleh concluded that there was "no reason to believe that this [the shooting] was intentional."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/middleeas...index.html.  CNN conducted a separate investigation, which CNN said suggested that the soldier intentionally shot the journalist.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeas...index.html.  I am not sure that the intent of the Israeli soldier who fired the shot is knowable, but even assuming murderous intent (which the US government disputed), unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's strong evidence that the IDF lied about the incident.  To the contrary, the CNN article above states that the IDF conducted an investigation, acknowledged it was likely that one of its soldiers shot the journalist, and told the media that the solider was sorry that it happened.  

Nevertheless, I'm not saying that you should blindly trust the IDF or blindly accept that Israel has not targeted civilians.  I'm saying that we should look at the specific facts on a case-by-case basis to reach our own judgment as to whether Israel's government and/or individual Israeli soldiers have acted illegally.

With all that said, I definitely understand your point about the IDF's statements to the press that it is not going to be so careful of civilians.  I've previously speculated in this thread that the IDF made statements like that as a scare tactic to cause civilians to leave northern Gaza.  If that was the purpose (which is unclear), then I can understand Israel's reasoning, but I still probably would conclude that the statements to the press were a PR blunder.  The same is true for statements by the IDF that it would not allow humanitarian aid or even re-start running water in Gaza until all hostages were returned.  But I note that Israel has now allowed some humanitarian aid and has resumed water in some areas despite the fact that no hostages have been released.  I would argue that this is evidence that Israel's bluff has been called, but also that Israel never really intended for Gazan civilians to die from lack of water or food.

Facts don't count any longer for the Arab World.  They all seem to report the hospital disaster as being the result of an Israeli bomb.  That seems to be what they want to believe, so it must be true.

[GK3]

The United States has killed many more civilians over the years than Israel has.  The Afghanistan War and Iraq War are recent examples of conflicts where many thousands of civilians died, a significant portion of them in US strikes.  In Iraq, the US struck electricity infrastructure, which caused hardship to civilians.  That does not make recent US government officials guilty of war crimes.  The mainstream media certainly does not portray the US as a rogue state that intentionally harms civilians.  That's appropriate because international law does not say that a nation has acted unlawfully when civilians die as a result of defensive military operations.  Yet the media treats Israel very different from how it treats the US.  

You say that Israel has a history of targeting civilians and lying about it.  The example you provided, however, is far from conclusive on that point.  The US government agency that investigated the death of Shireen Abu Akleh concluded that there was "no reason to believe that this [the shooting] was intentional."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/middleeas...index.html.  CNN conducted a separate investigation, which CNN said suggested that the soldier intentionally shot the journalist.  https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeas...index.html.  I am not sure that the intent of the Israeli soldier who fired the shot is knowable, but even assuming murderous intent (which the US government disputed), unless I'm missing something, I don't think there's strong evidence that the IDF lied about the incident.  To the contrary, the CNN article above states that the IDF conducted an investigation, acknowledged it was likely that one of its soldiers shot the journalist, and told the media that the solider was sorry that it happened.  

Nevertheless, I'm not saying that you should blindly trust the IDF or blindly accept that Israel has not targeted civilians.  I'm saying that we should look at the specific facts on a case-by-case basis to reach our own judgment as to whether Israel's government and/or individual Israeli soldiers have acted illegally.

With all that said, I definitely understand your point about the IDF's statements to the press that it is not going to be so careful of civilians.  I've previously speculated in this thread that the IDF made statements like that as a scare tactic to cause civilians to leave northern Gaza.  If that was the purpose (which is unclear), then I can understand Israel's reasoning, but I still probably would conclude that the statements to the press were a PR blunder.  The same is true for statements by the IDF that it would not allow humanitarian aid or even re-start running water in Gaza until all hostages were returned.  But I note that Israel has now allowed some humanitarian aid and has resumed water in some areas despite the fact that no hostages have been released.  I would argue that this is evidence that Israel's bluff has been called, but also that Israel never really intended for Gazan civilians to die from lack of water or food.

Facts don't count any longer for the Arab World.  They all seem to report the hospital disaster as being the result of an Israeli bomb.  That seems to be what they want to believe, so it must be true.

[g1313]

From what I can tell a lot of the progressive voices that are against Israel's bombing regime are also opposed to previous US wars and wartime conduct so at least it is a consistent POV. Hard for me to draw generalizations about "mainstream media" as that covers a range from NYT to Fox News. I do agree that the left-leaning publications were irresponsible in reporting the hospital explosions as Israeli airstrikes without corroboration.

[g1313]

From what I can tell a lot of the progressive voices that are against Israel's bombing regime are also opposed to previous US wars and wartime conduct so at least it is a consistent POV. Hard for me to draw generalizations about "mainstream media" as that covers a range from NYT to Fox News. I do agree that the left-leaning publications were irresponsible in reporting the hospital explosions as Israeli airstrikes without corroboration.

[dabigv13]

I'm not sure what "examine on a case by case basis" really means in this setting. Who can possibly examine the results of thousands of air strikes in a week in any meaningful way?

Satellite imaging cited in this Economist article (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/...on-in-gaza ) suggests over 4.3% of buildings in Gaza, 11k+ buildings, home to ~92,000, have been damaged or destroyed since start of bombing campaign. I'm pretty skeptical that all 11,000 buildings were housing Hamas fighters or weapons. It is obviously impossible to know for certain what percentage of these were legitimate military targets, but the real issue is that it is pretty plainly obvious to me that there is no way even the IDF can know that given the volume of attacks.

The Israeli Air Force claims to have dropped nearly 6,000 bombs on the narrow strip of land in the first week of the war—more than the yearly rate of American forces in their operation against Islamic State in 2014-17.

Do we think that the IDF had up to date, accurate targeting data for all 6,000 of those bombs? Doesn't seem possible.

[dabigv13]

I'm not sure what "examine on a case by case basis" really means in this setting. Who can possibly examine the results of thousands of air strikes in a week in any meaningful way?

Satellite imaging cited in this Economist article (https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/...on-in-gaza ) suggests over 4.3% of buildings in Gaza, 11k+ buildings, home to ~92,000, have been damaged or destroyed since start of bombing campaign. I'm pretty skeptical that all 11,000 buildings were housing Hamas fighters or weapons. It is obviously impossible to know for certain what percentage of these were legitimate military targets, but the real issue is that it is pretty plainly obvious to me that there is no way even the IDF can know that given the volume of attacks.

The Israeli Air Force claims to have dropped nearly 6,000 bombs on the narrow strip of land in the first week of the war—more than the yearly rate of American forces in their operation against Islamic State in 2014-17.

Do we think that the IDF had up to date, accurate targeting data for all 6,000 of those bombs? Doesn't seem possible.

[TrumpCard]

Hamas has routinely used data (often false) to make it seem as though Israel must have committed war crimes.  The reality is there are tens of thousands of Hamas operatives in Gaza, so the number of strikes and deaths is not necessarily an indication that Israel, or even individual Israeli soldiers, have acted illegally.  Importantly, people and governments accused of war crimes are innocent unless and until proven guilty.  Alleged top line numbers of deaths or buildings destroyed does not even meet the standard for preponderance of the evidence, let alone the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.  It's questionable whether the data Hamas has provided would even be admissible evidence in a trial.  That's a problem for those arguing that Israel has committed war crimes.  

Also, the fact that there have been thousands of air strikes does not make the job of prosecutors harder.  It makes the job easier because there are more potential instances that prosecutors can investigate.  Prosecutors in the Nuremburg trials found a way to get convictions and to show that orders came from the highest levels of command when there were millions of victims in the Holocaust.  Prosecutors just look into whichever cases seem like they might be the most egregious.  Maybe look at schools or hospitals that were bombed first.  I leave the triage to prosecutors, but that has never been a problem in the past.  

I am certain that Hamas is doing its best to collect evidence to submit to the media (and eventually to prosecutors if the evidence could stand up to reasonable challenges).  As of now, however, I see virtually no media coverage of any specific air strikes that were questionable.  That's not definitive, but it's telling.  For now, I just urge caution.

[TrumpCard]

Hamas has routinely used data (often false) to make it seem as though Israel must have committed war crimes.  The reality is there are tens of thousands of Hamas operatives in Gaza, so the number of strikes and deaths is not necessarily an indication that Israel, or even individual Israeli soldiers, have acted illegally.  Importantly, people and governments accused of war crimes are innocent unless and until proven guilty.  Alleged top line numbers of deaths or buildings destroyed does not even meet the standard for preponderance of the evidence, let alone the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.  It's questionable whether the data Hamas has provided would even be admissible evidence in a trial.  That's a problem for those arguing that Israel has committed war crimes.  

Also, the fact that there have been thousands of air strikes does not make the job of prosecutors harder.  It makes the job easier because there are more potential instances that prosecutors can investigate.  Prosecutors in the Nuremburg trials found a way to get convictions and to show that orders came from the highest levels of command when there were millions of victims in the Holocaust.  Prosecutors just look into whichever cases seem like they might be the most egregious.  Maybe look at schools or hospitals that were bombed first.  I leave the triage to prosecutors, but that has never been a problem in the past.  

I am certain that Hamas is doing its best to collect evidence to submit to the media (and eventually to prosecutors if the evidence could stand up to reasonable challenges).  As of now, however, I see virtually no media coverage of any specific air strikes that were questionable.  That's not definitive, but it's telling.  For now, I just urge caution.

[dabigv13]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

[dabigv13]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

[cardbored]

One human being dies at the hand of another. The cause of death is, by definition, homicide. But does that homicide constitute murder? That determination requires application of law to facts and circumstances, to the extent these can be known. But even in the isolated case of a single homicide, occurring at a finite moment of time, with all relevant facts and circumstances proximate in time to the moment of death, determining whether the homicide is criminal can be exceedingly difficult.

Now lets multiply the homicides a million-fold, spread them out over century, have them arise between warring factions in murky circumstances that defy sound investigative procedure, introduce claims of rights for adjudication purposes that originated thousands of years ago, and attempt to determine right and wrong when even the law itself is in dispute. And for good measure, let's mix in some religious and ethnic bigotry, interference by outside parties pursuing their own agendas, and color the whole mess with sophisticated, twentieth-century, mass-propaganda brushes.

For those of us who sincerely want peace and an end to the bloodshed, especially of innocents, we first have to give up on the childlike notions that we will ever figure out who "started it," is most culpable, or most deserving of punishment or recompense. We have neither the strength nor the wisdom to unravel anything so complex.

But we can agree on principles that exist now. We can agree that every human being has a right to occupy space, and to acquire property, and to move about the earth freely, and to worship and speak freely. And we can agree that no human being has a right to initiate violence against another. These principles apply to us all, including everyone within present-day Palestine and Israel.

A just solution can only be built from this present-day foundation. All of us should support anyone in modern-day Israel or Palestine who is willing to live in accordance with these principles, and to negotiate an end to the bloodshed on the basis of these principles.

For those of us on the outside, let's knock off the finger-pointing, blaming, and shaming. Let's encourage Israelis and Palestinians to agree to live with one another in peace, under longstanding rules of social cooperation. Let's stop supporting further antagonisms. Children are dying. They deserve our best efforts, not those that are beneath us.

[cardbored]

One human being dies at the hand of another. The cause of death is, by definition, homicide. But does that homicide constitute murder? That determination requires application of law to facts and circumstances, to the extent these can be known. But even in the isolated case of a single homicide, occurring at a finite moment of time, with all relevant facts and circumstances proximate in time to the moment of death, determining whether the homicide is criminal can be exceedingly difficult.

Now lets multiply the homicides a million-fold, spread them out over century, have them arise between warring factions in murky circumstances that defy sound investigative procedure, introduce claims of rights for adjudication purposes that originated thousands of years ago, and attempt to determine right and wrong when even the law itself is in dispute. And for good measure, let's mix in some religious and ethnic bigotry, interference by outside parties pursuing their own agendas, and color the whole mess with sophisticated, twentieth-century, mass-propaganda brushes.

For those of us who sincerely want peace and an end to the bloodshed, especially of innocents, we first have to give up on the childlike notions that we will ever figure out who "started it," is most culpable, or most deserving of punishment or recompense. We have neither the strength nor the wisdom to unravel anything so complex.

But we can agree on principles that exist now. We can agree that every human being has a right to occupy space, and to acquire property, and to move about the earth freely, and to worship and speak freely. And we can agree that no human being has a right to initiate violence against another. These principles apply to us all, including everyone within present-day Palestine and Israel.

A just solution can only be built from this present-day foundation. All of us should support anyone in modern-day Israel or Palestine who is willing to live in accordance with these principles, and to negotiate an end to the bloodshed on the basis of these principles.

For those of us on the outside, let's knock off the finger-pointing, blaming, and shaming. Let's encourage Israelis and Palestinians to agree to live with one another in peace, under longstanding rules of social cooperation. Let's stop supporting further antagonisms. Children are dying. They deserve our best efforts, not those that are beneath us.

[TrumpCard]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

I appreciate that you recognize this is a difficult problem.  You aren't one of the people who just tells Israel to sing kumbaya with the terrorists.  Thank you.

As you recognize, Hamas is a terrorist organization with tens of thousands of operatives in Gaza, a densely populated area with 2 million civilians.  The militants conspired to murder more than 1,400 Israelis and abduct 200 more, nearly all of them civilians.  Hamas operatives also intentionally conduct planning of terrorist acts, and hide from the IDF, in schools, hospitals, and other locations that are supposed to be for civilian use.  In light of those problems, Israel spends an inordinate amount of resources on intelligence gathering so that it will be able to defend itself from Hamas and eliminate threats from Hamas.  Israel has used this intelligence in several military engagements in Gaza since the IDF left Gaza in 2006, and Israel always knew of a likelihood that it would have to do so again.  So, although Hamas achieved tactical surprise with the October 7 attack, Israel did already have extensive information about Hamas targets that it would want to destroy if and when another military engagement occurred.

Also, we all know that international law allows the legitimate targeting of terrorists, even though that may cause civilians to die or suffer other harm.  Other countries, like the United States, have relief on the right of self-defense and have largely escaped condemnation for their acts.  So, until we have clear answers to some questions that would put Israel's recent military action into the context of international law and recent precedent, it is impossible to answer the specific questions you asked about whether Israel took sufficient care in selecting targets.  These questions are numerous, but some of them include:

--What level of care is legally required to distinguish between Hamas and civilians when Israel exercises its right to self-defense?  

--What level of care have other countries, such as the United States, actually used, in practice, to distinguish hostile militant forces from civilians?

--How did Israel actually select its targets, not including speculation about what "common sense" tells someone with no experience with target selection in the Israeli military?

--How careful was Israel in conducting its air strikes to ensure that missiles and bombs actually his their targets instead of adjacent structures?

--Were there instances in which individual Israeli soldiers failed to uphold IDF standards for target selection or for conducting an air strike?

--How many of the Gazans who reportedly have died, or been injured, were civilians, and under what circumstances were those civilians killed or injured?

--Given that The Economist reports 6,000 strikes and 11,000 buildings damaged, meaning that many damaged buildings did not suffer direct hits, what is the threshold for "damage," and how many of the damaged buildings were purely civilian in nature? 

--If Israel were to seize the northern portion of the Gaza strip to use as a buffer and restrict all Gazans to the southern portion of the territory (as some are speculating Israel plans to do), would that be a valid exercise of self-defense?  If so, what difference does it make whether Israel destroys buildings in that portion of the territory given that, under this scenario, all Gazans who lived in that area would be displaced anyway?

I, for one, am willing to admit that I don't know the answer to all these questions.  In the absence of that information, and in the absence of any credible investigation into Israel's exercise of self-defense in this military engagement, I am not willing to make assumptions about what "common sense" might tell me.  I simply have no clue and it's a fools errand for me to speculate about what conclusions are, or are not, obvious.  Do you have a basis for reaching conclusions on these points, and if so, what is it?

[TrumpCard]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

I appreciate that you recognize this is a difficult problem.  You aren't one of the people who just tells Israel to sing kumbaya with the terrorists.  Thank you.

As you recognize, Hamas is a terrorist organization with tens of thousands of operatives in Gaza, a densely populated area with 2 million civilians.  The militants conspired to murder more than 1,400 Israelis and abduct 200 more, nearly all of them civilians.  Hamas operatives also intentionally conduct planning of terrorist acts, and hide from the IDF, in schools, hospitals, and other locations that are supposed to be for civilian use.  In light of those problems, Israel spends an inordinate amount of resources on intelligence gathering so that it will be able to defend itself from Hamas and eliminate threats from Hamas.  Israel has used this intelligence in several military engagements in Gaza since the IDF left Gaza in 2006, and Israel always knew of a likelihood that it would have to do so again.  So, although Hamas achieved tactical surprise with the October 7 attack, Israel did already have extensive information about Hamas targets that it would want to destroy if and when another military engagement occurred.

Also, we all know that international law allows the legitimate targeting of terrorists, even though that may cause civilians to die or suffer other harm.  Other countries, like the United States, have relief on the right of self-defense and have largely escaped condemnation for their acts.  So, until we have clear answers to some questions that would put Israel's recent military action into the context of international law and recent precedent, it is impossible to answer the specific questions you asked about whether Israel took sufficient care in selecting targets.  These questions are numerous, but some of them include:

--What level of care is legally required to distinguish between Hamas and civilians when Israel exercises its right to self-defense?  

--What level of care have other countries, such as the United States, actually used, in practice, to distinguish hostile militant forces from civilians?

--How did Israel actually select its targets, not including speculation about what "common sense" tells someone with no experience with target selection in the Israeli military?

--How careful was Israel in conducting its air strikes to ensure that missiles and bombs actually his their targets instead of adjacent structures?

--Were there instances in which individual Israeli soldiers failed to uphold IDF standards for target selection or for conducting an air strike?

--How many of the Gazans who reportedly have died, or been injured, were civilians, and under what circumstances were those civilians killed or injured?

--Given that The Economist reports 6,000 strikes and 11,000 buildings damaged, meaning that many damaged buildings did not suffer direct hits, what is the threshold for "damage," and how many of the damaged buildings were purely civilian in nature? 

--If Israel were to seize the northern portion of the Gaza strip to use as a buffer and restrict all Gazans to the southern portion of the territory (as some are speculating Israel plans to do), would that be a valid exercise of self-defense?  If so, what difference does it make whether Israel destroys buildings in that portion of the territory given that, under this scenario, all Gazans who lived in that area would be displaced anyway?

I, for one, am willing to admit that I don't know the answer to all these questions.  In the absence of that information, and in the absence of any credible investigation into Israel's exercise of self-defense in this military engagement, I am not willing to make assumptions about what "common sense" might tell me.  I simply have no clue and it's a fools errand for me to speculate about what conclusions are, or are not, obvious.  Do you have a basis for reaching conclusions on these points, and if so, what is it?

[GK3]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

+1 Problem  is you make too much sense, that is not permitted.

[GK3]

I'm not trying to lay out a legal basis for charging any Israeli with war crimes. I'm just asking you to use some common sense- do you think IDF could accurately route 6,000 bombs to legitimate military targets within a few days? Are the estimated 11,000 buildings hit all Hamas buildings? Are the 92,000 estimated people who lost their homes (remember these numbers all come from the Economist, not Hamas or Gaza authorities) mostly Hamas fighters?

This matters because military power has to be used for a specific political objective for it to be effective. If Israeli bombing is effectively taking out Hamas fighters and equipment with minimal civilian casualties, that will help achieve their objective. If they are killing lots of innocent civilians and leaving them homeless, they will not accomplish their objective and in fact will only create further destabilization and more future violence.

I want Israel to be safe and Hamas to be eliminated, but I am afraid that the Israeli political and IDF leadership don't really have a good plan to achieve that and are totally fumbling this response.

+1 Problem  is you make too much sense, that is not permitted.