PAstrychef wrote:The whole idea that because Israel has this sophisticated defense against rockets it should just ignore the attacks confuses me.
It's as if I had to build a garage to protect my car from sprays of acid, and because I keep my car in the garage, I have no right to complain about the acid spray coming from next door.
I'm also confounded by the fact there are whole crowds of folks who see the *amazing progress* made over the years by using this tactic and still think it's a functional way to get anywhere.
I hate analogies, but that's not how I'm reading most of the criticism of Israel. If Hamas is the guy spraying acid at your car, Israel's response has been to build a garage AND bulldoze the house next door. There are options between "do nothing" and "level Gaza with air strikes".
Honestly, if the dude next door to you has sprayed acid at you endlessly, and will not stop no matter what, the cops probably would come for him. If bulldozing the house is required to get to him, that'd be what happens.
That's...sort of how society deals with someone who will not stop initiating violence. Eventually you escalate until the violence is stopped.
I agree that the analogy is somewhat tenuous, but Pastrychef's point about expectations is perfectly valid. The expectations for Israel seem unusually high compared to elsewhere.
natraj wrote:that still doesn't actually prove anything except that israel is doing a better job of targeting males of a certain age? which only matters if you assume by definition that males of a certain age are combatants. so yeah if you define "being a gazan young adult male" as "being a combatant" then they're doing a better job of not targeting civilians.
which is a thing that happens; it's the same way obama tried to claim drone strikes in pakistan weren't killing many civilians: by redefining all males of a certain age who died as militants inherently. so yes if we use that same logic on this conflict then there are minimal civilian casualties. but i'm not really comfortable with making the inherent assumption that obviously all young gazan males are militant by definition.
Not everyone in that demographic is a combatant, no. But this is consistent with Hamas reporting military combatants as civilian(which, as someone pointed out, is policy), and Israel targetting combatants.
You could probably decently spitball the number of combatants by assuming that the quantity of noncombatants in that demographic are roughly equal to an equal demographic outside of it(women of the same age, for instance). That still leaves you with a significant number of probable combatants.
As for what is effective...well, perceptions vary. What you see as a worthwhile cost may not be the same as what another party sees as a worthwhile cost. Additionally, there is the troublesome factor that if "killing attackers" is considered a cost, then a cost-averse country can be effectively controlled by a power willing to spend lives freely. Giving power to such leaders seems...unwise.
Paul in Saudi wrote:The rockets are smuggled in and stored at great danger and cost. Others are hand-made at great danger and cost. Now the Palestinians are in a "use it or lose it" situation and are popping them off like mad. Eventually the number fired goes down. Is that because they ran out of rockets or, as you maintain, because of Israeli actions?
Almost certainly both. Any rocket captured before firing, blown up, not made due to destroyed or captured supplies, etc...cannot be fired. So, from a supply perspective, the Israeli actions are almost certainly causing some reduction. I don't have any great way to measure exactly how much, though.
I do not understand how people can say "it's not about rockets", though. Even if deaths are low, injuries happen. Property damage happens. Look, if the Mexico started firing rockets across the border into the US...we'd have us an international incident. Even if nobody died. Life isn't just about deaths.
yedidyak wrote:Imagine if Al-Qaeda had a tunnel that opened into a town in the US, what lengths would the US go to to stop that?
A single attack that was essentially unrepeatable was enough for them to spend billions of dollars invading and occupying two countries on the opposite side of the world; I can't imagine they'd be any more tolerant than Israel has been were they under constant fire.
I suspect we would have responded with utterly ludicrous amounts of force, and the problem would have eventually been solved by nobody standing to shoot back.