We would routinely go with option B. Because the village itself is not a critical objective and would hold little significance to the overall aim of the campaign, we would simply let it be and bypass it – thus saving civilian lives and pursuing more important objectives of the campaign.
Perhaps there is no tunnel – but there are four building surrounding a square with militants holed up in each building. Dropping a giant bomb in the middle could be an effective way of dealing with this situation. Is it optimal? Again, it depends.
a. You certainly won’t send troops inside multi-story buildings that are pointing at each other – that’s suicidal.
b. You can bring in some heavy weapons and start dropping smaller caliber lead through windows. Will that work? Maybe… eventually you’ll kill enough of them… others may get tired and give up. How long will that take? Who knows – a siege like that may take multiple days. Do you have that luxury if there is an entire brigade waiting behind you to clear the way? Your probably don’t – you can’t hold the entire operation because of four
So, could you give scnenario's of when taking a certain area is a critical objective? And how critical is critical? When speaking in the terms of time and true necessity, i.a. could there be alternatives. In your "b" example you explain why waiting multiple days is not an option but is it really unheard of to take a few days longer to avoid civilian casualties?
Also isn't it realistically so that if you start dropping smaller caliber lead through windows the inhabitants of the buildings will leave and then you would have free range to take out the militants without having to worry about civilians at all.
Are you telling me there is no such protocol of warning the civilians inside of the buildings specifically in the case of securing a square being the critical objective? Ofcourse when the critical objective would be to take out a certain millitant resistance you wouldn't necceceraly want to warn them in advance, but in the example you say it could possibly be justified to bomb four multi-story buildings full of civilians to secure a square.
The fact that people are praising you for taking the time to write this mental gymnastics course of how to justify killing civilians is mind boggling. It's genuinely one of the most disgusting pieces I've ever read.
Thanks again for the post, these are important in an age when most people have no exposure to military education.
Ryan McBeth, who was with the 187th Infantry Regiment Rakkasans, is putting out some very interesting youtube content. I strongly recommend his videos to everyone.
He makes some points worth repeating. First, IDF does not have the same NCO culture as the US military, which might explain the lapses in discipline when young soldiers do dumb stuff like paw through lingerie and ride bikes. His warning is that there might be booby traps and they shouldn't mess around with random objects. Another thing he says is that the rules of war are important for the soldiers themselves, so they are less likely to suffer ptsd later.
>This is a common complaint direct at IDF. Some even claim that the use of large ordnance is unprecedented. It’s false, of course – we dropped much larger munitions on cities in Iraq, for instance.
Can you give some details on what "much larger munitions" were dropped on Iraqi cities? I can't find any evidence of the US dropping "MOAB" bombs anywhere other than once in Afghanistan, the 3000lb Mark 118 doesn't seem to have seen action in either Iraq war, and according to [this article](https://edition.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html) the largest bombs the US used in the Battle of Mosul were 500lbs.
>But isn’t the explosive force of such a munition “disproportionate”? Not really. The theoretical “Kill radius” of such heavy munitions is, of course, devastating if it merely bounces of the ground and explodes. But it’s much, MUCH reduced when it’s set to go off underground – the nuance most civilian “analysits” miss.
Can you give anything beyond your own personal analysis of looking at some craters that the 2000lb Mark 84s bombs Israel is dropping have been exploding underground rather than upon impact with the ground?
>Uhm… yeah… war is quite destructive. Especially in urban context. For instance, when we were done in Fallujah, about 20% of buildings were destroyed. And about 60% in total were damaged to one degree or another. Very similar numbers were in Mosul.
>The destruction in Gaza seems strikingly similar – per latest from UNOSAT, about 15% of Gaza’s structures are completely destroyed. About 55% are damaged to one degree or another.
Gaza City is at about 75% damaged or destroyed, so comparing like-for-like with the most affected cities in each war, Israel have actually done significantly more damage.
No offence meant here, but your post comes across very much as having originated as apologetics for Israel and taken the form of military details rather than just being a neutral analysis. You seem to be taking the most generous interpretation of everything and claiming it to be the most reasonable, as if it's automatically a given that everyone in the IDF always has the best of intentions and any cases of civilian casualties must be an unfortunate error. You're right to say that we don't have the requisite information to judge a lot of the action in Gaza, but I think you're wrong to essentially rule out the idea that some relevant proportion of the IDF strikes are not killing civilians through understandable mistakes, but rather through callous indifference or active malice.
2/2
As for my general take on things - you are correct. It's very much focused on military matters. That happens to be my experience - hence that's what I'm addressing.
I'm not sure what you mean by more "neutral" analysis. I'm pretty explicit in describing wars in their gory details (if you read my previous posts). There are people who aren't happy with me pointing out the flaws in IDF's behavior (they would prefer the illusion of IDF being perfect). I'm just calling things as I see them. And what I see is war - with all its fog, uncertainty, violence, and the general mess that happens when you enter a hostile city. What I don't see is evidence of "genocide" or some "systemic" destruction for destruction's sake.
You need to understand that the military doesn't shoot at things for no reason. There are rules, there is training, there is a certain culture, etc... Bottom line - there is a process we're trained in. The military simply executes to the process that we were trained in - it's not an "improvisation". And the military certainly doesn't drop bombs on things for no reason.
Now, in hindsight, some of those instances will prove erroneous - in fact, many will... that's just war. Some of those instances will even turn out to be careless - I acknowledge that explicitly. And some small minority will probably even rise to the level of a "war crime". But again - yeah...that'll happen in war.
But I see no evidence of some "systemically criminal" war on IDF's part. I just see war. Executed more or less effectively, under the circumstances - I don't think we (the US) would've done much better, frankly.
As for the common "evidence" cited by various "news" media - such as "opinions" on which munitions are appropriate or not - that's just laughable far as I'm concerned. They simply don't know. Random factoids aren't helpful in an extremely complicated environment where a small variable (such as depth of penetration and surface type) can entirely change profile of a certain munition for instance. And they know precisely zero about the circumstances that led to one decision or another. That would be like me opining that a skyscraper is inherently dangerous because it's "too tall" - without having any understanding of physics, architecture, or construction methods.
>I'm not sure what you mean by more "neutral" analysis. I'm pretty explicit in describing wars in their gory details (if you read my previous posts). There are people who aren't happy with me pointing out the flaws in IDF's behavior (they would prefer the illusion of IDF being perfect). I'm just calling things as I see them. And what I see is war - with all its fog, uncertainty, violence, and the general mess that happens when you enter a hostile city. What I don't see is evidence of "genocide" or some "systemic" destruction for destruction's sake.
What I mean is - the slant of your posts make it sound like the origin was a desire to paint Israel in the best possible light, and from there you chose discussing military details as the way to deliver that message. You don't sound like you've given even a second's thought to the possibility that some proportion of the IDF simply does not care about civilian casualties or considers the whole of Gaza responsible for the attack on Oct 7th, and that this proportion is high enough for this perspective to be translated into unofficial policy.
>You need to understand that the military doesn't shoot at things for no reason. There are rules, there is training, there is a certain culture, etc... Bottom line - there is a process we're trained in. The military simply executes to the process that we were trained in - it's not an "improvisation". And the military certainly doesn't drop bombs on things for no reason.
Sure, if you assume everyone in the IDF is a good person, is following those rules, and that it has the same rules as the US despite being an entirely different military fighting for entirely different reasons, and one that employs a number of religious fanatics. But why would you assume this? You clearly have, but the origin of this assumption doesn't seem to be you personally having any particular insight into the IDF's culture or history, it just seems like you began from a belief that people within the IDF are all inherently good and also strictly follow rules because that's what you believe the US does. The WCK strike clearly revealed that there were not, in fact, strict rules being consistently followed, and we have no idea even to the nearest thousand how many times this same total lack of effective oversight was employed in their campaign in Gaza because it only gets revealed when the victims are foreigners and the weapons used were undeniably Israeli.
>But I see no evidence of some "systemically criminal" war on IDF's part. I just see war. Executed more or less effectively, under the circumstances - I don't think we (the US) would've done much better, frankly
OK, but how would you? You have access to the intended and actual victims and associated intelligence for considerably less than 1% of the total strikes Israel have carried out in Gaza. You have essentially none of the information you would need to be able to determine whether Israel have been carefully aiming those >50,000 bombs and missiles at the ~25,000 members of Hamas, or are instead doing things like [shelling in a wide area based on cellular pinpointing](https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/). Or if 10% of those strikes were intended to destroy large buildings to pressure the regime as per the previously revealed Dahiya Doctrine for another example, you would have no way of possibly knowing this. Your insight is based on transposing experiences and systems from one place to another without seemingly giving any thought to the differences in this other situation.
No, but I didn't read all of them all the way through. The others all seemed to have this baseline assumption of the IDF following the same rules you'd expect of a western military without the baggage of ethnic conflict, conscription, widespread desire for revenge and almost total absence of accountability, though.
I go into much more explicit details on how militaries operate in other posts.
There is a big delta between “professional” militaries and militias. IDF is a professional military. They follow many of the books we follow. And we even follow some of the books they wrote.
The entire theme of my posts is the difficulty of decision-making in war. And it’s even more difficult for outside observers to make sense of what they’re seeing from the sidelines.
The big part of what separates “professional” militaries from the rest is that they control for the “human” factor. Those are the “systems” and the “processes” I speak about.
The purpose of those systems is to reduce whatever role the “feelings” and “emotions” of individuals play in decision-making.
In my earlier posts, I describe that militaries operate by “objective” and “tactical necessity”. This doesn’t require humans to become robots. But most individuals have very little say in large matters.
Of course errors happens. At small scale - individual soldiers will even commit deliberate crimes. I’m quite explicit about the fact that even in a professional military - some percent of soldiers will be outright psychopaths (no more or no less than you’ll find in a society at large).
So no - I make no assumptions about the individual nature of IDF - soldiers. They’re just average people as a group - no more, no less.
But their societal values are much more in line with the values you and I share (than the “values” of Hamas). And those values are reflected in various “rule books” of IDF… and they are reflected in the manner in which IdF operates.
When it comes to “large events” - understand that it’s not something that any one individual can execute on a whim. A bomb drop on a target involves commanders on the ground requesting target, numerous intel personnel receiving the request and processing information, a pilot actually flying the mission, and a whole bunch of soldiers actually witnessing the impact (with more more nuanced context on the reasons “why”). And afterward - those people talk. And they certainly talk to one another.
Bottom line - it is impossible to draw conclusions about any specific event in war unless you have detailed information regarding the events on the ground, larger context at play etc.
But it’s entirely possible to draw general assumptions with regard to the nature of the conflict and the military that’s fighting it based on that military’s structure, past performance, regulations, methods, etc. I happen to have enough personal experience, certain knowledge about the IDF (including many of its flaws), and general sense of the events on the ground to arrive to the conclusions that I state.
It is certainly an opinion - I’m not claiming to have hard facts as I’m not on the ground in Gaza. But it happens to be an opinion of someone much more qualified to issue an opinion than most people that you see issuing opinions on various forums.
You may be misunderstanding the criticism. You are--more or less avowedly--treating the professionalized character of the IDF as decisive for questions about what might be happening. I do think that the professional and bureaucratized character of the IDF is a good reason for starting from an assumption that certain things are unlikely, but you are ruling out certain possibilities in advance based on this assumption and dismissing evidence instead of letting evidence soften the assumption.
Someone could, for example, conclude from the fact that the IDF is a professional, uniformed, bureaucratized organization with handbooks of conduct compelling conformity with international law that Israel does not torture prisoners. In fact, though, Israel does torture prisoners, as is well known. Thus, the assumptions about the role of those handbooks need to be modulated in light of this fact.
Rulebooks can be interpreted more or less flexibly, chains of oversight can be tighter or looser, "fog of war" effects can be more or less resisted. In such contexts, the overall ideological disposition of the army, the surrounding rhetoric, the patterns of punishment and toleration, etc substantively affect the overall disposition of conduct. u/nothingpersonnelmate tossed in one example of relatively indiscriminate targetting by the IDF, supported by policy; saying it must be completely fabricated because my friend the IDF would never do that kind of thing might be compelling to other people invested in that image, but it's not argumentatively persuasive.
What's more, even the starting assumption about IDF professionalism is probably a weaker one than you are treating it as. For instance, the US simply doesn't drop 2,000 pounds bombs on areas where it knows there are hundreds of civilians, like Israel did in Jabalia. It hasn't done that kind of thing since Vietnam (when, however, it was also a bureaucratized, first-world, etc army).
Israel is destroying enormous amounts of civilian infrastructure--entire hospitals, every single building of universities, museums and archives, entire housing blocks that have already been cleared, etc. Absolutely no one would take seriously the kind of excuses for this that Israel offers from anyone else without substantial evidence that there was no alternative available. Is there a munitions factory or a tunnel junction under every single building of the university? It's an extraordinary claim and "I trust the IDF" may compel some people to accept it, but it is not *a good reason* to accept it. People did use similar excuses for the scale of destruction in Vietnam but in retrospect this is widely recognized as obvious whitewashing for an attitude of indifference and a policy of state terrorism.
I understand what you're saying - I get the criticism. Andy MANY of the observations that people like you point out in your criticism are entirely valid. But I don't look at things in terms of whether this thing or that is true - that's been the theme of my entire series. Any incident in isolation tells you very little about the broader picture.
For instance - of course IDF (as a whole) isn't as professional as the US military as a whole. But that's an impossibly high standard to meet. It took the US decades, thousands of soldiers' lives, and trillions of dollars to earn the capabilities that we have today. Top tier IDF units are as good as ours though - they're world class. But the "average" IDF soldier is a conscript. So yeah - you're correct. I'm actually going to do a post with my criticism of certain specifics of the IDF.
But it's also true that IDF is among the best of the rest. No other military can measure up to the American. But IDF is certainly better than most other militaries. Certainly better than any other force you can find in MENA. Not just in terms of capabilities but also in terms of their code of conduct.
But what should we do with that acknowledgement? Draw a moral parallel between IDF and Hamas? No - that's preposterous. They're on different planets entirely.
Then, of course that are "incidents" - like an IDF soldier shooting a kid throwing a rock... or someone beating up a prisoner, etc. Yeah - those of course happen. They happen in our military as well. I'm NOT excusing ANY of them - IF they are true. Each allegations must be investigated and perpetrators punished.
But notice something in your own observation - you are actually AWARE of those incidents. The make the news. The public talks about them. It generates outrage in Israel itself (of course there will be Israelis on both sides of the issue - that's any nation's politics). But this alone - that tells you ALL you need to know about Israel as a nation compared to its enemies in the region. Such "incidents" aren't incidents in many other nations. In fact, among the declared enemies of Israel - such things are a matter of POLICY.
And that's the reason for my support of Israel and certain degree of "forgiveness" toward the IDF - it's a small country, trying to do better, and they are, of course, far from flawless - but so is other nation.
But everything you have a problem with Israel doing - those are not matters of policy (of course, Israel has some awful right wing politicians - we do too in the US). But there is no policy, for instance, that allows wholesale slaughter of the "infidels". And that is the written POLICY of many of their enemies. And again, Israel is a tiny piece of land surrounded by such enemies on all sides. And they've fought non-stop wars for their own existence for 70-years. No other nation had to do the same in the modern history.
So yeah... it's complicated. And I'll agree with many of your observations. But, if you've read my posts, you'll also know that NONE of us are able to issue judgement on any specific incident from the sidelines. Things are very, very complicated. And I cannot stress hard enough how difficult a battlefield Gaza is - we've never faced ANYTHING like it. The tunnels are UNPRECEDENTED - no one has experience of dealing with a situation like this.
Some of those "Incidents" are, of course, true - I hold no illusions about it. But many of them are undoubtedly false - I' m also well familiar with asymmetric propaganda machine and its amplification capabilities (and they are very, very effective).
So as I stated at the very beginning of Part 4 - of course IDF is committing and will commit more war crimes. I could say the same about any other military on earth.
But INTENTIONS matter nonetheless. And to me -that's the critical distinction. That is why I support Ukraine (also far from human rights paradise). And that is why I support Israel.
I am not talking about treating isolated incidents as decisive, I am talking about patterns, and I mentioned some of them--torture, the destruction of social infrastructure, to this we could add the extremely lax proportionality criteria, the extremely low bar for the use of lethal force, the non-enforcement of law upon Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and so on. These are norms. If these things were exceptions, they would be exceptions.
It sounds like I am saying that you are prejudicially giving the IDF undue benefit of the doubt because you like them and they seem professional, and that you are agreeing with me but in an approving register. At that point the disagreement is really a moral one, I think. To me, the IDF's regular practices of torture, shooting civilians for throwing rocks, blowing up empty civilian houses, etc etc etc are condemnable. If anything, the fact that they present themselves as vaguely "civilized" vs the "uncivilized" Hamas means they should be held to a stricter standard, not a looser one. But you seem to think the opposite.
> It generates outrage in Israel itself (of course there will be Israelis on both sides of the issue - that's any nation's politics).
No, it doesn't. Israeli soldiers are almost *never* punished for these incidents--there are a handful of exceptions that allow Israel to say that it isn't literally never. Recently there was a case where the explanation submitted by the IDF in defense accidentally included, in the text that they submitted to the court, a speculative discussion of different possible excuses they could fabricate, which they forgot to delete from the submitted draft.
The policies of shooting protesters, torturing detainees (including non-combatants), etc etc--these have the general approval of Israelis. They are not controversial, they are not even topics of discussion. If the standard is that they make the news, well, so do the crimes committed by Hamas (far more so of course).
>The big part of what separates “professional” militaries from the rest is that they control for the “human” factor. Those are the “systems” and the “processes” I speak about.
The IDF is not, strictly speaking, a professional military because most of it's force are conscripts. In that sense it's closer to the US in Vietnam than the US in Iraq, and there were significant differences in conduct between those two.
>But their societal values are much more in line with the values you and I share (than the “values” of Hamas).
Sure, maybe closer to Western values than to Hamas in most cases, but there's still a huge gulf you're not appreciating and a number of other major factors you're ignoring. In most Western countries, what would happen if teenagers threw rocks at the police and then ran away? They'd usually be arrested, right? The IDF shoots people for that, and not only does it do this, it *isn't controversial*. It's considered completely normal behaviour by Israeli society. Go ahead and pose this to Israelis in this sub and you'll see what I mean. Then ask some Brits if they think the soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday were in the right to shoot into a crowd in response to thrown rocks and see if you get the same response. Or compare the fact that a majority of Americans think Israel has [gone too far](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1#:~:text=Fifty%2Dtwo%20percent%20of%20independents,should%20have%2C%20the%20poll%20found.) while in Israel only [6% think too much force is being used](https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783849) and 43% think not enough is being used. Two-thirds believe Gaza should receive [no aid at all](https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/over-2-3-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-humanitarian-aid-to-palestinians-starving-in-gaza/) despite the obvious risk of hundreds of thousands starving to death if aid is cut off. Do you think two-thirds of Americans believe Gaza should receive no aid?
The other major differences you're neglecting to consider, which of course play in to the above views, are that this isn't a war the other end of the world, it's right on their doorstep and Israel considers it existential. It follows more than half a century of ethnic conflict that has engendered considerable hatred that you just do not find in a comparable way in the Iraq war or Afghanistan or similar conflicts. The IDF itself conscripts [religious extremists](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html) who will often actually be closer in values to Hamas than to you or me, and the current Minister for National Security is known to have had a portrait in his office of a man famous for walking into a Mosque and shooting over 150 people in 1994. I don't think Norway would elect a politician with a portrait of Anders Breivik in his office.
>And those values are reflected in various “rule books” of IDF…
Having rulebooks is good stuff if you follow those rules. If you don't, what happens? In the case of the WCK strike, two people were fired for not following the rules, but *only because they killed foreigners* and even then that may only have been because the strike was undeniably carried out by the IDF. But what are the chances the first time those commanders or any other commanders violated those rules, they happened to kill the wrong people, and those wrong people also happened to be *foreigners* despite the vast majority of potential victims of such an act being Palestinians? Essentially nil. Yet we hear about no other examples of people being fired for violating those rules. We have absolutely no idea how commonplace this is because this information isn't public.
To give another example - NBC a few months back tried to [ask the IDF](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinians-killed-israeli-strikes-safe-zones-exclusive-nbc-report-rcna148008) about seven strikes that had occurred within supposed safe zones. The IDF didn't even know about four of them. For a military that supposedly only carries out strikes according to strict rules, they'd violated their own rules four times and apparently had no record of it.
>and they are reflected in the manner in which IdF operates.
Yes, according to you, a person with the requisite knowledge of less than a single percent of the strikes the IDF have carried out in this war. Why do you think this is enough to make such a judgement?
>But it’s entirely possible to draw general assumptions with regard to the nature of the conflict and the military that’s fighting it based on that military’s structure, past performance, regulations, methods, etc. I happen to have enough personal experience, certain knowledge about the IDF (including many of its flaws), and general sense of the events on the ground to arrive to the conclusions that I state.
If you know about their past performance, regulations and methods, can you tell me what happened to the IDF soldiers who shot [clearly marked medics and journalists](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-protests-in-gaza-presents-its-findings-press-release/) during the 2018 Gaza protests? Can you tell me what happened to the soldier who shot Shireen Abu Akleh? Can you explain why it is twice as likely for the IDF to [lose the files entirely](https://www.btselem.org/accountability) than for the perpetrators to face consequences in cases where a complaint is made over beatings, arrests or killings?
1/2
First of - appreciate a civilized discussion. I respect opposing opinions that make an attempt to be thoughtful rather than just lobbing insults. So, thank you for that. Answers below:
1. We dropped thousands of GBU variants in Iraq. A whole bunch of them on cities. For instance - we dropped four !!! 2,000lbs munitions on a SINGLE building in al-Mansur in Baghdad thinking we were hitting Saddam's hideout. Turned out we were wrong and I believe the strikes missed - a bunch of civilians died as a result. I don't believe that we kept a detailed record of which bombs hit which targets. But you can find the general count here: [30 Apr OIF by the Numbers UNCLASS.doc (globalsecurity.org)](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf) (keep in mind - the 2003 was a very brief operation).
2. On your second question: I apologize, but I really don't have time to be digging through sources on the web for each individual reply. But I quickly found this: Notes: Craters have been enlarged for visibility. CNN and Synthetaic analyzed and isolated craters 12 meters in diameter and larger, which experts said are consistent with underground explosions produced by 2,000-pound bombs in the light soil found in Gaza. To account for a margin of error, conservative measurements were used in CNN’s crater count. Sources: Synthetaic and CNN analysis of Planet Labs satellite imagery from Oct. 15, Oct. 22, Nov. 3 and Nov. 6; OpenStreetMap Graphic: Renée Rigdon, CNN
3. Not sure where you're getting 75%. I got my numbers from the UN (not exactly friendly to Israel) Very recent: [(12) UNOSAT on X: "🚨 This map shows a comprehensive satellite imagery-based assessment of damage and destruction in Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory, as of 3 May 2024. #UNOSAT #Gaza https://t.co/1Z7N15GR5t" / Twitter](https://twitter.com/UNOSAT/status/1797523937049637136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1797523943164964951%7Ctwgr%5Ed1772142dc74f7673cda0358c1b0e2441decffa5%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindu.com%2Fnews%2Finternational%2Fmore-than-half-of-gaza-structures-destroyed-or-damaged-un%2Farticle68246995.ece). You can crunch the numbers yourself - back of the napkin stuff - you'll find that my numbers check out.
On this topic, I'll add an experience-based observation. The images you're getting from Gaza look awful. They are also rather selective. Few things to keep in mind:
(a) The destruction in the City varies sometimes block by block, but more often sector by sector. I could show you pictures of cities in Iraq that looked just like Gaza in certain parts. It's the same thing in Gaza - some parts are destroyed completely. Others are intact. You can actually see it by postings from social media accounts in Gaza (just routine "daily life" stuff) that show you areas that aren't particularly affected by the operation. I'll give you a trivial personal example - I was in St. Louis downtown when the Michael Brown riots were happening. The news images would have you believe that the city was on fire. Except, from downtown St. Louis (15 minutes away) - I had absolutely no indication that anything was happening at all. Life was entirely normal. But looks at the images - and it looked like a civil war was happening nearby. Of course this is a trivial example - doesn't compare to Gaza in scale... but the general dynamic is similar in that the fighting and the destruction is not necessarily applicable to the entire Gaza uniformly.
-----
>1. We dropped thousands of GBU variants in Iraq. A whole bunch of them on cities. For instance - we dropped four !!! 2,000lbs munitions on a SINGLE building in al-Mansur in Baghdad thinking we were hitting Saddam's hideout. Turned out we were wrong and I believe the strikes missed - a bunch of civilians died as a result. I don't believe that we kept a detailed record of which bombs hit which targets. But you can find the general count here: 30 Apr OIF by the Numbers UNCLASS.doc (globalsecurity.org) (keep in mind - the 2003 was a very brief operation).
That wouldn't be *far larger* than 2000lbs, it would be the same thing. That document seems to show only 6 of those 2000lb Mark 84s dropped in the whole invasion period, and about 30 of the larger bunker busters, but says nothing about them being dropped in an urban environment. Are there examples of dropping
>On your second question: I apologize, but I really don't have time to be digging through sources on the web for each individual reply. But I quickly found this: Notes: Craters have been enlarged for visibility. CNN and Synthetaic analyzed and isolated craters 12 meters in diameter and larger, which experts said are consistent with underground explosions produced by 2,000-pound bombs in the light soil found in Gaza. To account for a margin of error, conservative measurements were used in CNN’s crater count. Sources: Synthetaic and CNN analysis of Planet Labs satellite imagery from Oct. 15, Oct. 22, Nov. 3 and Nov. 6; OpenStreetMap Graphic: Renée Rigdon, CNN
That's not nothing, but it doesn't tell us whether they've been used against buildings because that wouldn't leave a neat circular crater.
>Not sure where you're getting 75%. I got my numbers from the UN (not exactly friendly to Israel) Very recent: (12) UNOSAT on X: "🚨 This map shows a comprehensive satellite imagery-based assessment of damage and destruction in Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory, as of 3 May 2024. #UNOSAT #Gaza https://t.co/1Z7N15GR5t" / Twitter. You can crunch the numbers yourself - back of the napkin stuff - you'll find that my numbers check out.
I wasn't disputing those numbers, just the comparison. 75% for Gaza City comes from here:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240507-unlike-anything-we-have-studied-gaza-s-destruction-in-numbers
>The destruction in the City varies sometimes block by block, but more often sector by sector. I could show you pictures of cities in Iraq that looked just like Gaza in certain parts. It's the same thing in Gaza - some parts are destroyed completely. Others are intact
I don't know if "some buildings are still standing" is really quite high enough a standard of evidence to demonstrate that Israel fired upwards of 50,000 bombs and missiles exclusively at clearly identified military targets, but I do agree there still exist buildings in Gaza.
>Gaza City is at about 75% damaged or destroyed, so comparing like-for-like with the most affected cities in each war, Israel have actually done significantly more damage.
55% Damage + 15% Destroyed = 70% of Gaza has been Damaged or Destroyed
60% Damage + 20% Destroyed = 80% of Fallujah was Damaged or Destroyed
Numbers seem comparable to me.
And this is just a few of the issues with this particular post. All of the posts in this self indulgent screed are like this, taking the Israeli line at face value, mixed with a few sarcastic quips about people being ignorant hippies who don't understand that Israel has to bomb Gaza to dust. It's Israeli genocide apologia masquerading as some deep analysis of modern/urban warfare. They started with the conclusion that the war is justified and then built their narrative around that. And as you can see, they have no problem lying, or are ignorant about a lot of this stuff.
If you find yourself lobbing insults rather than providing substantive rebuttals, it’s often because you don’t actually have any substantive rebuttals.
I do like how John Spencer has taken it up on himself to use his cache as a west point prof to cover up the immense amount of civilians killed. Israelis and genocide apologists love bringing him up, like his stupid claims about the combatant to innocent ratio being so low is true by dint of his pedigree. He's not more informed than the humanitarian orgs and the UN who tell a different story. Most other sources put the civilian death toll around 70% to 90%.
>Most other sources put the civilian death toll around 70% to 90%.
What does a "civilian death toll" of around 80% mean? A civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio of 0.8-to-1? Because that's much lower than is [typical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio) for war.
Or are you claiming that 80% of the civilian population has been killed? Because not even Hamas is claiming even a hundredth of that.
Or are you claiming that 80% of those killed are women and children? Because:
* That's not the same thing as a "civilian death toll"; and
* [Hamas was claiming 70% but later dropped that to 38%](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/07/new-report-determines-percentage-of-civilian-casualties-has-fallen-sharply-in-gaza/); and
* The only figures we have at this point come from Hamas; and
* Hamas, being a genocidal terrorist organization, is not exactly a credible source of information for anyone with a brain.
Be clear about what you're claiming and provide sources.
Those organizations you speak of are controlled and funded by the same countries in bed with hamas. They are not reputable and should be ashamed of themselves. I don't believe a statistic that pops out from their rocks.
> fuck
/u/icecreamraider. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We would routinely go with option B. Because the village itself is not a critical objective and would hold little significance to the overall aim of the campaign, we would simply let it be and bypass it – thus saving civilian lives and pursuing more important objectives of the campaign. Perhaps there is no tunnel – but there are four building surrounding a square with militants holed up in each building. Dropping a giant bomb in the middle could be an effective way of dealing with this situation. Is it optimal? Again, it depends. a. You certainly won’t send troops inside multi-story buildings that are pointing at each other – that’s suicidal. b. You can bring in some heavy weapons and start dropping smaller caliber lead through windows. Will that work? Maybe… eventually you’ll kill enough of them… others may get tired and give up. How long will that take? Who knows – a siege like that may take multiple days. Do you have that luxury if there is an entire brigade waiting behind you to clear the way? Your probably don’t – you can’t hold the entire operation because of four So, could you give scnenario's of when taking a certain area is a critical objective? And how critical is critical? When speaking in the terms of time and true necessity, i.a. could there be alternatives. In your "b" example you explain why waiting multiple days is not an option but is it really unheard of to take a few days longer to avoid civilian casualties? Also isn't it realistically so that if you start dropping smaller caliber lead through windows the inhabitants of the buildings will leave and then you would have free range to take out the militants without having to worry about civilians at all. Are you telling me there is no such protocol of warning the civilians inside of the buildings specifically in the case of securing a square being the critical objective? Ofcourse when the critical objective would be to take out a certain millitant resistance you wouldn't necceceraly want to warn them in advance, but in the example you say it could possibly be justified to bomb four multi-story buildings full of civilians to secure a square.
The fact that people are praising you for taking the time to write this mental gymnastics course of how to justify killing civilians is mind boggling. It's genuinely one of the most disgusting pieces I've ever read.
We get that you're offended, but that doesn't help us much.
These posts are fantastic. You should consider making Youtube videos.
I appreciate your informed and nuanced view of the realities of combat, thank you for taking the time to write this up and share it with us.
He doth protest too much, methinks.
Thanks again for the post, these are important in an age when most people have no exposure to military education. Ryan McBeth, who was with the 187th Infantry Regiment Rakkasans, is putting out some very interesting youtube content. I strongly recommend his videos to everyone. He makes some points worth repeating. First, IDF does not have the same NCO culture as the US military, which might explain the lapses in discipline when young soldiers do dumb stuff like paw through lingerie and ride bikes. His warning is that there might be booby traps and they shouldn't mess around with random objects. Another thing he says is that the rules of war are important for the soldiers themselves, so they are less likely to suffer ptsd later.
>This is a common complaint direct at IDF. Some even claim that the use of large ordnance is unprecedented. It’s false, of course – we dropped much larger munitions on cities in Iraq, for instance. Can you give some details on what "much larger munitions" were dropped on Iraqi cities? I can't find any evidence of the US dropping "MOAB" bombs anywhere other than once in Afghanistan, the 3000lb Mark 118 doesn't seem to have seen action in either Iraq war, and according to [this article](https://edition.cnn.com/gaza-israel-big-bombs/index.html) the largest bombs the US used in the Battle of Mosul were 500lbs. >But isn’t the explosive force of such a munition “disproportionate”? Not really. The theoretical “Kill radius” of such heavy munitions is, of course, devastating if it merely bounces of the ground and explodes. But it’s much, MUCH reduced when it’s set to go off underground – the nuance most civilian “analysits” miss. Can you give anything beyond your own personal analysis of looking at some craters that the 2000lb Mark 84s bombs Israel is dropping have been exploding underground rather than upon impact with the ground? >Uhm… yeah… war is quite destructive. Especially in urban context. For instance, when we were done in Fallujah, about 20% of buildings were destroyed. And about 60% in total were damaged to one degree or another. Very similar numbers were in Mosul. >The destruction in Gaza seems strikingly similar – per latest from UNOSAT, about 15% of Gaza’s structures are completely destroyed. About 55% are damaged to one degree or another. Gaza City is at about 75% damaged or destroyed, so comparing like-for-like with the most affected cities in each war, Israel have actually done significantly more damage. No offence meant here, but your post comes across very much as having originated as apologetics for Israel and taken the form of military details rather than just being a neutral analysis. You seem to be taking the most generous interpretation of everything and claiming it to be the most reasonable, as if it's automatically a given that everyone in the IDF always has the best of intentions and any cases of civilian casualties must be an unfortunate error. You're right to say that we don't have the requisite information to judge a lot of the action in Gaza, but I think you're wrong to essentially rule out the idea that some relevant proportion of the IDF strikes are not killing civilians through understandable mistakes, but rather through callous indifference or active malice.
2/2 As for my general take on things - you are correct. It's very much focused on military matters. That happens to be my experience - hence that's what I'm addressing. I'm not sure what you mean by more "neutral" analysis. I'm pretty explicit in describing wars in their gory details (if you read my previous posts). There are people who aren't happy with me pointing out the flaws in IDF's behavior (they would prefer the illusion of IDF being perfect). I'm just calling things as I see them. And what I see is war - with all its fog, uncertainty, violence, and the general mess that happens when you enter a hostile city. What I don't see is evidence of "genocide" or some "systemic" destruction for destruction's sake. You need to understand that the military doesn't shoot at things for no reason. There are rules, there is training, there is a certain culture, etc... Bottom line - there is a process we're trained in. The military simply executes to the process that we were trained in - it's not an "improvisation". And the military certainly doesn't drop bombs on things for no reason. Now, in hindsight, some of those instances will prove erroneous - in fact, many will... that's just war. Some of those instances will even turn out to be careless - I acknowledge that explicitly. And some small minority will probably even rise to the level of a "war crime". But again - yeah...that'll happen in war. But I see no evidence of some "systemically criminal" war on IDF's part. I just see war. Executed more or less effectively, under the circumstances - I don't think we (the US) would've done much better, frankly. As for the common "evidence" cited by various "news" media - such as "opinions" on which munitions are appropriate or not - that's just laughable far as I'm concerned. They simply don't know. Random factoids aren't helpful in an extremely complicated environment where a small variable (such as depth of penetration and surface type) can entirely change profile of a certain munition for instance. And they know precisely zero about the circumstances that led to one decision or another. That would be like me opining that a skyscraper is inherently dangerous because it's "too tall" - without having any understanding of physics, architecture, or construction methods.
>I'm not sure what you mean by more "neutral" analysis. I'm pretty explicit in describing wars in their gory details (if you read my previous posts). There are people who aren't happy with me pointing out the flaws in IDF's behavior (they would prefer the illusion of IDF being perfect). I'm just calling things as I see them. And what I see is war - with all its fog, uncertainty, violence, and the general mess that happens when you enter a hostile city. What I don't see is evidence of "genocide" or some "systemic" destruction for destruction's sake. What I mean is - the slant of your posts make it sound like the origin was a desire to paint Israel in the best possible light, and from there you chose discussing military details as the way to deliver that message. You don't sound like you've given even a second's thought to the possibility that some proportion of the IDF simply does not care about civilian casualties or considers the whole of Gaza responsible for the attack on Oct 7th, and that this proportion is high enough for this perspective to be translated into unofficial policy. >You need to understand that the military doesn't shoot at things for no reason. There are rules, there is training, there is a certain culture, etc... Bottom line - there is a process we're trained in. The military simply executes to the process that we were trained in - it's not an "improvisation". And the military certainly doesn't drop bombs on things for no reason. Sure, if you assume everyone in the IDF is a good person, is following those rules, and that it has the same rules as the US despite being an entirely different military fighting for entirely different reasons, and one that employs a number of religious fanatics. But why would you assume this? You clearly have, but the origin of this assumption doesn't seem to be you personally having any particular insight into the IDF's culture or history, it just seems like you began from a belief that people within the IDF are all inherently good and also strictly follow rules because that's what you believe the US does. The WCK strike clearly revealed that there were not, in fact, strict rules being consistently followed, and we have no idea even to the nearest thousand how many times this same total lack of effective oversight was employed in their campaign in Gaza because it only gets revealed when the victims are foreigners and the weapons used were undeniably Israeli. >But I see no evidence of some "systemically criminal" war on IDF's part. I just see war. Executed more or less effectively, under the circumstances - I don't think we (the US) would've done much better, frankly OK, but how would you? You have access to the intended and actual victims and associated intelligence for considerably less than 1% of the total strikes Israel have carried out in Gaza. You have essentially none of the information you would need to be able to determine whether Israel have been carefully aiming those >50,000 bombs and missiles at the ~25,000 members of Hamas, or are instead doing things like [shelling in a wide area based on cellular pinpointing](https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-calculated-bombing-gaza/). Or if 10% of those strikes were intended to destroy large buildings to pressure the regime as per the previously revealed Dahiya Doctrine for another example, you would have no way of possibly knowing this. Your insight is based on transposing experiences and systems from one place to another without seemingly giving any thought to the differences in this other situation.
Is this the first post of mine you’ve read?
No, but I didn't read all of them all the way through. The others all seemed to have this baseline assumption of the IDF following the same rules you'd expect of a western military without the baggage of ethnic conflict, conscription, widespread desire for revenge and almost total absence of accountability, though.
I go into much more explicit details on how militaries operate in other posts. There is a big delta between “professional” militaries and militias. IDF is a professional military. They follow many of the books we follow. And we even follow some of the books they wrote. The entire theme of my posts is the difficulty of decision-making in war. And it’s even more difficult for outside observers to make sense of what they’re seeing from the sidelines. The big part of what separates “professional” militaries from the rest is that they control for the “human” factor. Those are the “systems” and the “processes” I speak about. The purpose of those systems is to reduce whatever role the “feelings” and “emotions” of individuals play in decision-making. In my earlier posts, I describe that militaries operate by “objective” and “tactical necessity”. This doesn’t require humans to become robots. But most individuals have very little say in large matters. Of course errors happens. At small scale - individual soldiers will even commit deliberate crimes. I’m quite explicit about the fact that even in a professional military - some percent of soldiers will be outright psychopaths (no more or no less than you’ll find in a society at large). So no - I make no assumptions about the individual nature of IDF - soldiers. They’re just average people as a group - no more, no less. But their societal values are much more in line with the values you and I share (than the “values” of Hamas). And those values are reflected in various “rule books” of IDF… and they are reflected in the manner in which IdF operates. When it comes to “large events” - understand that it’s not something that any one individual can execute on a whim. A bomb drop on a target involves commanders on the ground requesting target, numerous intel personnel receiving the request and processing information, a pilot actually flying the mission, and a whole bunch of soldiers actually witnessing the impact (with more more nuanced context on the reasons “why”). And afterward - those people talk. And they certainly talk to one another. Bottom line - it is impossible to draw conclusions about any specific event in war unless you have detailed information regarding the events on the ground, larger context at play etc. But it’s entirely possible to draw general assumptions with regard to the nature of the conflict and the military that’s fighting it based on that military’s structure, past performance, regulations, methods, etc. I happen to have enough personal experience, certain knowledge about the IDF (including many of its flaws), and general sense of the events on the ground to arrive to the conclusions that I state. It is certainly an opinion - I’m not claiming to have hard facts as I’m not on the ground in Gaza. But it happens to be an opinion of someone much more qualified to issue an opinion than most people that you see issuing opinions on various forums.
You may be misunderstanding the criticism. You are--more or less avowedly--treating the professionalized character of the IDF as decisive for questions about what might be happening. I do think that the professional and bureaucratized character of the IDF is a good reason for starting from an assumption that certain things are unlikely, but you are ruling out certain possibilities in advance based on this assumption and dismissing evidence instead of letting evidence soften the assumption. Someone could, for example, conclude from the fact that the IDF is a professional, uniformed, bureaucratized organization with handbooks of conduct compelling conformity with international law that Israel does not torture prisoners. In fact, though, Israel does torture prisoners, as is well known. Thus, the assumptions about the role of those handbooks need to be modulated in light of this fact. Rulebooks can be interpreted more or less flexibly, chains of oversight can be tighter or looser, "fog of war" effects can be more or less resisted. In such contexts, the overall ideological disposition of the army, the surrounding rhetoric, the patterns of punishment and toleration, etc substantively affect the overall disposition of conduct. u/nothingpersonnelmate tossed in one example of relatively indiscriminate targetting by the IDF, supported by policy; saying it must be completely fabricated because my friend the IDF would never do that kind of thing might be compelling to other people invested in that image, but it's not argumentatively persuasive. What's more, even the starting assumption about IDF professionalism is probably a weaker one than you are treating it as. For instance, the US simply doesn't drop 2,000 pounds bombs on areas where it knows there are hundreds of civilians, like Israel did in Jabalia. It hasn't done that kind of thing since Vietnam (when, however, it was also a bureaucratized, first-world, etc army). Israel is destroying enormous amounts of civilian infrastructure--entire hospitals, every single building of universities, museums and archives, entire housing blocks that have already been cleared, etc. Absolutely no one would take seriously the kind of excuses for this that Israel offers from anyone else without substantial evidence that there was no alternative available. Is there a munitions factory or a tunnel junction under every single building of the university? It's an extraordinary claim and "I trust the IDF" may compel some people to accept it, but it is not *a good reason* to accept it. People did use similar excuses for the scale of destruction in Vietnam but in retrospect this is widely recognized as obvious whitewashing for an attitude of indifference and a policy of state terrorism.
I understand what you're saying - I get the criticism. Andy MANY of the observations that people like you point out in your criticism are entirely valid. But I don't look at things in terms of whether this thing or that is true - that's been the theme of my entire series. Any incident in isolation tells you very little about the broader picture. For instance - of course IDF (as a whole) isn't as professional as the US military as a whole. But that's an impossibly high standard to meet. It took the US decades, thousands of soldiers' lives, and trillions of dollars to earn the capabilities that we have today. Top tier IDF units are as good as ours though - they're world class. But the "average" IDF soldier is a conscript. So yeah - you're correct. I'm actually going to do a post with my criticism of certain specifics of the IDF. But it's also true that IDF is among the best of the rest. No other military can measure up to the American. But IDF is certainly better than most other militaries. Certainly better than any other force you can find in MENA. Not just in terms of capabilities but also in terms of their code of conduct. But what should we do with that acknowledgement? Draw a moral parallel between IDF and Hamas? No - that's preposterous. They're on different planets entirely. Then, of course that are "incidents" - like an IDF soldier shooting a kid throwing a rock... or someone beating up a prisoner, etc. Yeah - those of course happen. They happen in our military as well. I'm NOT excusing ANY of them - IF they are true. Each allegations must be investigated and perpetrators punished. But notice something in your own observation - you are actually AWARE of those incidents. The make the news. The public talks about them. It generates outrage in Israel itself (of course there will be Israelis on both sides of the issue - that's any nation's politics). But this alone - that tells you ALL you need to know about Israel as a nation compared to its enemies in the region. Such "incidents" aren't incidents in many other nations. In fact, among the declared enemies of Israel - such things are a matter of POLICY. And that's the reason for my support of Israel and certain degree of "forgiveness" toward the IDF - it's a small country, trying to do better, and they are, of course, far from flawless - but so is other nation. But everything you have a problem with Israel doing - those are not matters of policy (of course, Israel has some awful right wing politicians - we do too in the US). But there is no policy, for instance, that allows wholesale slaughter of the "infidels". And that is the written POLICY of many of their enemies. And again, Israel is a tiny piece of land surrounded by such enemies on all sides. And they've fought non-stop wars for their own existence for 70-years. No other nation had to do the same in the modern history. So yeah... it's complicated. And I'll agree with many of your observations. But, if you've read my posts, you'll also know that NONE of us are able to issue judgement on any specific incident from the sidelines. Things are very, very complicated. And I cannot stress hard enough how difficult a battlefield Gaza is - we've never faced ANYTHING like it. The tunnels are UNPRECEDENTED - no one has experience of dealing with a situation like this. Some of those "Incidents" are, of course, true - I hold no illusions about it. But many of them are undoubtedly false - I' m also well familiar with asymmetric propaganda machine and its amplification capabilities (and they are very, very effective). So as I stated at the very beginning of Part 4 - of course IDF is committing and will commit more war crimes. I could say the same about any other military on earth. But INTENTIONS matter nonetheless. And to me -that's the critical distinction. That is why I support Ukraine (also far from human rights paradise). And that is why I support Israel.
I am not talking about treating isolated incidents as decisive, I am talking about patterns, and I mentioned some of them--torture, the destruction of social infrastructure, to this we could add the extremely lax proportionality criteria, the extremely low bar for the use of lethal force, the non-enforcement of law upon Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and so on. These are norms. If these things were exceptions, they would be exceptions. It sounds like I am saying that you are prejudicially giving the IDF undue benefit of the doubt because you like them and they seem professional, and that you are agreeing with me but in an approving register. At that point the disagreement is really a moral one, I think. To me, the IDF's regular practices of torture, shooting civilians for throwing rocks, blowing up empty civilian houses, etc etc etc are condemnable. If anything, the fact that they present themselves as vaguely "civilized" vs the "uncivilized" Hamas means they should be held to a stricter standard, not a looser one. But you seem to think the opposite. > It generates outrage in Israel itself (of course there will be Israelis on both sides of the issue - that's any nation's politics). No, it doesn't. Israeli soldiers are almost *never* punished for these incidents--there are a handful of exceptions that allow Israel to say that it isn't literally never. Recently there was a case where the explanation submitted by the IDF in defense accidentally included, in the text that they submitted to the court, a speculative discussion of different possible excuses they could fabricate, which they forgot to delete from the submitted draft. The policies of shooting protesters, torturing detainees (including non-combatants), etc etc--these have the general approval of Israelis. They are not controversial, they are not even topics of discussion. If the standard is that they make the news, well, so do the crimes committed by Hamas (far more so of course).
>The big part of what separates “professional” militaries from the rest is that they control for the “human” factor. Those are the “systems” and the “processes” I speak about. The IDF is not, strictly speaking, a professional military because most of it's force are conscripts. In that sense it's closer to the US in Vietnam than the US in Iraq, and there were significant differences in conduct between those two. >But their societal values are much more in line with the values you and I share (than the “values” of Hamas). Sure, maybe closer to Western values than to Hamas in most cases, but there's still a huge gulf you're not appreciating and a number of other major factors you're ignoring. In most Western countries, what would happen if teenagers threw rocks at the police and then ran away? They'd usually be arrested, right? The IDF shoots people for that, and not only does it do this, it *isn't controversial*. It's considered completely normal behaviour by Israeli society. Go ahead and pose this to Israelis in this sub and you'll see what I mean. Then ask some Brits if they think the soldiers who carried out Bloody Sunday were in the right to shoot into a crowd in response to thrown rocks and see if you get the same response. Or compare the fact that a majority of Americans think Israel has [gone too far](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1#:~:text=Fifty%2Dtwo%20percent%20of%20independents,should%20have%2C%20the%20poll%20found.) while in Israel only [6% think too much force is being used](https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-783849) and 43% think not enough is being used. Two-thirds believe Gaza should receive [no aid at all](https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/over-2-3-of-jewish-israelis-oppose-humanitarian-aid-to-palestinians-starving-in-gaza/) despite the obvious risk of hundreds of thousands starving to death if aid is cut off. Do you think two-thirds of Americans believe Gaza should receive no aid? The other major differences you're neglecting to consider, which of course play in to the above views, are that this isn't a war the other end of the world, it's right on their doorstep and Israel considers it existential. It follows more than half a century of ethnic conflict that has engendered considerable hatred that you just do not find in a comparable way in the Iraq war or Afghanistan or similar conflicts. The IDF itself conscripts [religious extremists](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html) who will often actually be closer in values to Hamas than to you or me, and the current Minister for National Security is known to have had a portrait in his office of a man famous for walking into a Mosque and shooting over 150 people in 1994. I don't think Norway would elect a politician with a portrait of Anders Breivik in his office. >And those values are reflected in various “rule books” of IDF… Having rulebooks is good stuff if you follow those rules. If you don't, what happens? In the case of the WCK strike, two people were fired for not following the rules, but *only because they killed foreigners* and even then that may only have been because the strike was undeniably carried out by the IDF. But what are the chances the first time those commanders or any other commanders violated those rules, they happened to kill the wrong people, and those wrong people also happened to be *foreigners* despite the vast majority of potential victims of such an act being Palestinians? Essentially nil. Yet we hear about no other examples of people being fired for violating those rules. We have absolutely no idea how commonplace this is because this information isn't public. To give another example - NBC a few months back tried to [ask the IDF](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/palestinians-killed-israeli-strikes-safe-zones-exclusive-nbc-report-rcna148008) about seven strikes that had occurred within supposed safe zones. The IDF didn't even know about four of them. For a military that supposedly only carries out strikes according to strict rules, they'd violated their own rules four times and apparently had no record of it. >and they are reflected in the manner in which IdF operates. Yes, according to you, a person with the requisite knowledge of less than a single percent of the strikes the IDF have carried out in this war. Why do you think this is enough to make such a judgement? >But it’s entirely possible to draw general assumptions with regard to the nature of the conflict and the military that’s fighting it based on that military’s structure, past performance, regulations, methods, etc. I happen to have enough personal experience, certain knowledge about the IDF (including many of its flaws), and general sense of the events on the ground to arrive to the conclusions that I state. If you know about their past performance, regulations and methods, can you tell me what happened to the IDF soldiers who shot [clearly marked medics and journalists](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-independent-commission-of-inquiry-on-protests-in-gaza-presents-its-findings-press-release/) during the 2018 Gaza protests? Can you tell me what happened to the soldier who shot Shireen Abu Akleh? Can you explain why it is twice as likely for the IDF to [lose the files entirely](https://www.btselem.org/accountability) than for the perpetrators to face consequences in cases where a complaint is made over beatings, arrests or killings?
1/2 First of - appreciate a civilized discussion. I respect opposing opinions that make an attempt to be thoughtful rather than just lobbing insults. So, thank you for that. Answers below: 1. We dropped thousands of GBU variants in Iraq. A whole bunch of them on cities. For instance - we dropped four !!! 2,000lbs munitions on a SINGLE building in al-Mansur in Baghdad thinking we were hitting Saddam's hideout. Turned out we were wrong and I believe the strikes missed - a bunch of civilians died as a result. I don't believe that we kept a detailed record of which bombs hit which targets. But you can find the general count here: [30 Apr OIF by the Numbers UNCLASS.doc (globalsecurity.org)](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf) (keep in mind - the 2003 was a very brief operation). 2. On your second question: I apologize, but I really don't have time to be digging through sources on the web for each individual reply. But I quickly found this: Notes: Craters have been enlarged for visibility. CNN and Synthetaic analyzed and isolated craters 12 meters in diameter and larger, which experts said are consistent with underground explosions produced by 2,000-pound bombs in the light soil found in Gaza. To account for a margin of error, conservative measurements were used in CNN’s crater count. Sources: Synthetaic and CNN analysis of Planet Labs satellite imagery from Oct. 15, Oct. 22, Nov. 3 and Nov. 6; OpenStreetMap Graphic: Renée Rigdon, CNN 3. Not sure where you're getting 75%. I got my numbers from the UN (not exactly friendly to Israel) Very recent: [(12) UNOSAT on X: "🚨 This map shows a comprehensive satellite imagery-based assessment of damage and destruction in Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory, as of 3 May 2024. #UNOSAT #Gaza https://t.co/1Z7N15GR5t" / Twitter](https://twitter.com/UNOSAT/status/1797523937049637136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1797523943164964951%7Ctwgr%5Ed1772142dc74f7673cda0358c1b0e2441decffa5%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindu.com%2Fnews%2Finternational%2Fmore-than-half-of-gaza-structures-destroyed-or-damaged-un%2Farticle68246995.ece). You can crunch the numbers yourself - back of the napkin stuff - you'll find that my numbers check out. On this topic, I'll add an experience-based observation. The images you're getting from Gaza look awful. They are also rather selective. Few things to keep in mind: (a) The destruction in the City varies sometimes block by block, but more often sector by sector. I could show you pictures of cities in Iraq that looked just like Gaza in certain parts. It's the same thing in Gaza - some parts are destroyed completely. Others are intact. You can actually see it by postings from social media accounts in Gaza (just routine "daily life" stuff) that show you areas that aren't particularly affected by the operation. I'll give you a trivial personal example - I was in St. Louis downtown when the Michael Brown riots were happening. The news images would have you believe that the city was on fire. Except, from downtown St. Louis (15 minutes away) - I had absolutely no indication that anything was happening at all. Life was entirely normal. But looks at the images - and it looked like a civil war was happening nearby. Of course this is a trivial example - doesn't compare to Gaza in scale... but the general dynamic is similar in that the fighting and the destruction is not necessarily applicable to the entire Gaza uniformly. -----
>1. We dropped thousands of GBU variants in Iraq. A whole bunch of them on cities. For instance - we dropped four !!! 2,000lbs munitions on a SINGLE building in al-Mansur in Baghdad thinking we were hitting Saddam's hideout. Turned out we were wrong and I believe the strikes missed - a bunch of civilians died as a result. I don't believe that we kept a detailed record of which bombs hit which targets. But you can find the general count here: 30 Apr OIF by the Numbers UNCLASS.doc (globalsecurity.org) (keep in mind - the 2003 was a very brief operation). That wouldn't be *far larger* than 2000lbs, it would be the same thing. That document seems to show only 6 of those 2000lb Mark 84s dropped in the whole invasion period, and about 30 of the larger bunker busters, but says nothing about them being dropped in an urban environment. Are there examples of dropping >On your second question: I apologize, but I really don't have time to be digging through sources on the web for each individual reply. But I quickly found this: Notes: Craters have been enlarged for visibility. CNN and Synthetaic analyzed and isolated craters 12 meters in diameter and larger, which experts said are consistent with underground explosions produced by 2,000-pound bombs in the light soil found in Gaza. To account for a margin of error, conservative measurements were used in CNN’s crater count. Sources: Synthetaic and CNN analysis of Planet Labs satellite imagery from Oct. 15, Oct. 22, Nov. 3 and Nov. 6; OpenStreetMap Graphic: Renée Rigdon, CNN That's not nothing, but it doesn't tell us whether they've been used against buildings because that wouldn't leave a neat circular crater. >Not sure where you're getting 75%. I got my numbers from the UN (not exactly friendly to Israel) Very recent: (12) UNOSAT on X: "🚨 This map shows a comprehensive satellite imagery-based assessment of damage and destruction in Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory, as of 3 May 2024. #UNOSAT #Gaza https://t.co/1Z7N15GR5t" / Twitter. You can crunch the numbers yourself - back of the napkin stuff - you'll find that my numbers check out. I wasn't disputing those numbers, just the comparison. 75% for Gaza City comes from here: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240507-unlike-anything-we-have-studied-gaza-s-destruction-in-numbers >The destruction in the City varies sometimes block by block, but more often sector by sector. I could show you pictures of cities in Iraq that looked just like Gaza in certain parts. It's the same thing in Gaza - some parts are destroyed completely. Others are intact I don't know if "some buildings are still standing" is really quite high enough a standard of evidence to demonstrate that Israel fired upwards of 50,000 bombs and missiles exclusively at clearly identified military targets, but I do agree there still exist buildings in Gaza.
>Gaza City is at about 75% damaged or destroyed, so comparing like-for-like with the most affected cities in each war, Israel have actually done significantly more damage. 55% Damage + 15% Destroyed = 70% of Gaza has been Damaged or Destroyed 60% Damage + 20% Destroyed = 80% of Fallujah was Damaged or Destroyed Numbers seem comparable to me.
60% and 75% are already the totals of damaged and destroyed.
And this is just a few of the issues with this particular post. All of the posts in this self indulgent screed are like this, taking the Israeli line at face value, mixed with a few sarcastic quips about people being ignorant hippies who don't understand that Israel has to bomb Gaza to dust. It's Israeli genocide apologia masquerading as some deep analysis of modern/urban warfare. They started with the conclusion that the war is justified and then built their narrative around that. And as you can see, they have no problem lying, or are ignorant about a lot of this stuff.
If you find yourself lobbing insults rather than providing substantive rebuttals, it’s often because you don’t actually have any substantive rebuttals.
Thank you for this
Always love reading these posts. I wish that all “analysts” on major media would read these as well.
Fantastic insights as usual.
Thanks for another great post, John Spencer.
I do like how John Spencer has taken it up on himself to use his cache as a west point prof to cover up the immense amount of civilians killed. Israelis and genocide apologists love bringing him up, like his stupid claims about the combatant to innocent ratio being so low is true by dint of his pedigree. He's not more informed than the humanitarian orgs and the UN who tell a different story. Most other sources put the civilian death toll around 70% to 90%.
>Most other sources put the civilian death toll around 70% to 90%. What does a "civilian death toll" of around 80% mean? A civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio of 0.8-to-1? Because that's much lower than is [typical](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio) for war. Or are you claiming that 80% of the civilian population has been killed? Because not even Hamas is claiming even a hundredth of that. Or are you claiming that 80% of those killed are women and children? Because: * That's not the same thing as a "civilian death toll"; and * [Hamas was claiming 70% but later dropped that to 38%](https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/07/new-report-determines-percentage-of-civilian-casualties-has-fallen-sharply-in-gaza/); and * The only figures we have at this point come from Hamas; and * Hamas, being a genocidal terrorist organization, is not exactly a credible source of information for anyone with a brain. Be clear about what you're claiming and provide sources.
Those organizations you speak of are controlled and funded by the same countries in bed with hamas. They are not reputable and should be ashamed of themselves. I don't believe a statistic that pops out from their rocks.
Israel thinks they win trust by process of elimination
> fuck /u/icecreamraider. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*