5 ms·

Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothi

Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. If there are insurgents among civilians, they either have logistics and communication networks to conduct operations, or they're unable to operate effectively. Weapons do not materialize from nowhere, they must be smuggled into the country and distributed. Operations do not materialize from nowhere, they must be coordinated. If they have logistics, we can leverage that against them. We saw this when Israel expected their pager attack. They've already proven that they can exercise their creativity to conduct effective attacks with great precision. If they lack logistics and communication networks - then they can't conduct effective operations against us. There's little to fear and no reason to shoot through human shields. This is some armchair strategy a nonexpert came up with on the spot. Consider that real military strategists and intelligence agencies are better at coming up with ways to find and kill their enemies than we are. Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to.

edanm 2y ago
> Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. No, you're the one making imaginary false dichotomies. See your last paragraph: > Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to. You're now making a false dichotomy - Israel can choose to prosecute the war differently, but it doesn't, implying that they are choosing to kill human shields on purpose. The reality is that you're coming up on the spot with a dozen ways to defeat an insurgency, without taking into account that they are just as smart and just as motivated as you, and planned for years to make them impossible to hit without significant civilian casualties. This is incredibly well documented. Sure, you can pretend there is always a secret third option - and there sometimes is. And there sometimes isn't. And the more you let militants using civilians as human shields deter you, the more the militants are incentivized to use human shields, so even in a best case scenario, you're kicking the can down the road. None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  >None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect. The way isn't "magic" or "secret". It's a combination of the following: 1. Restrict the types of ordnance used to prosecute air attacks on Gaza. Emphasize cannon fire and Hellfires from AH-64s attack helicopters, as well as UAVs. These are utilized to engage insurgents on the surface, in dynamically-tasked missions with timely and accurate observation of insurgent heavy armaments. 2. Employ proper usage of restrictive fire support coordination measures to protect sensitive sites such as aid distribution locations, hospitals, and places of worship. Bombing them is bad publicity. Reference No-Fire Areas and Restrictive Fire Areas, page B-7, here: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCWP%203-25%20Control%20of%20Aircraft%20and%20Missiles.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCWP%203-25%2... 3. Establish a large number of checkpoints along the Gazan-Israeli border. Establish refugee areas INSIDE OF ISRAEL for the Gazan population. Distribute leaflets, social media messages, etc...welcoming the entire Gazan population into Israeli borders, provided they come to the checkpoints unarmed and only with the belongings they can personally carry. 4. After conditions are set (which needs to be determined, how much of the population Israel will allow to remain in place/not cooperate before it attacks)....then go into Gaza with a drastically larger (easy given Israel's ability to rapidly mobilize) but primarily light-infantry / dismounted force, slowly moving house-to-house with small arms in an incremental clear & hold approach. This is SIGNIFICANTLY less destructive on both the civilian population AND the urban infrastructure, but does incur much higher casualties for the attacking force. This would probably cost thousands of additional Israeli (military) lives.....but save tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. And also save Israel's international reputation.
  - edanm 2y ago
    I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know, and have spoken about what Israel is doing. Regarding your point of putting refugees inside of Israel - I don't know if there's any practical way to do this. It is impossible to tell apart Hamas militants and normal civilians. Even if you somehow made a vast area inside of Israel to house the refugees, you're all but guaranteeing thousands of Hamas operatives getting into Israel as well. Do you similarly support the idea of letting the refugees into Egyp in a similar manner? Cause that seems like the obvious solution to the problem from my perspective (and is the "usual" solution in urban war situations). Except Egypt absolutely refused to allow this, and almost no one pushed them on this, often claiming it was an attempt at more ethnic cleansing from Israel. (Apparently sacrificing Palestinian lives to prevent ethnic cleansing, without asking them, is somehow moral?)

edanm 2y ago

> Take a step back and observe you've erected a mental block for yourself. We've got a false dichotomy here - either we shoot through human shields or we do nothing. No, you're the one making imaginary false dichotomies. See your last paragraph: > Do not accept that these people cannot solve these problems without bulldozing through human shields. Do not accept the notion that a powerful military and intelligence apparatus is helpless. They could prosecute this war differently. They have made a choice not to. You're now making a false dichotomy - Israel can choose to prosecute the war differently, but it doesn't, implying that they are choosing to kill human shields on purpose. The reality is that you're coming up on the spot with a dozen ways to defeat an insurgency, without taking into account that they are just as smart and just as motivated as you, and planned for years to make them impossible to hit without significant civilian casualties. This is incredibly well documented. Sure, you can pretend there is always a secret third option - and there sometimes is. And there sometimes isn't. And the more you let militants using civilians as human shields deter you, the more the militants are incentivized to use human shields, so even in a best case scenario, you're kicking the can down the road. None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
>None of this is to say that Israel's actions are perfect or even good - that's a separate argument. But imagining that Israel has a magic way to do what it wants to do and eliminate Hamas - which many people support it doing and agree it has a right to do - imagining there is some magic way this could get done without hurting civilians is, frankly, incorrect. The way isn't "magic" or "secret". It's a combination of the following: 1. Restrict the types of ordnance used to prosecute air attacks on Gaza. Emphasize cannon fire and Hellfires from AH-64s attack helicopters, as well as UAVs. These are utilized to engage insurgents on the surface, in dynamically-tasked missions with timely and accurate observation of insurgent heavy armaments. 2. Employ proper usage of restrictive fire support coordination measures to protect sensitive sites such as aid distribution locations, hospitals, and places of worship. Bombing them is bad publicity. Reference No-Fire Areas and Restrictive Fire Areas, page B-7, here: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCWP%203-25%20Control%20of%20Aircraft%20and%20Missiles.pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCWP%203-25%2... 3. Establish a large number of checkpoints along the Gazan-Israeli border. Establish refugee areas INSIDE OF ISRAEL for the Gazan population. Distribute leaflets, social media messages, etc...welcoming the entire Gazan population into Israeli borders, provided they come to the checkpoints unarmed and only with the belongings they can personally carry. 4. After conditions are set (which needs to be determined, how much of the population Israel will allow to remain in place/not cooperate before it attacks)....then go into Gaza with a drastically larger (easy given Israel's ability to rapidly mobilize) but primarily light-infantry / dismounted force, slowly moving house-to-house with small arms in an incremental clear & hold approach. This is SIGNIFICANTLY less destructive on both the civilian population AND the urban infrastructure, but does incur much higher casualties for the attacking force. This would probably cost thousands of additional Israeli (military) lives.....but save tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. And also save Israel's international reputation.
- edanm 2y ago
  I can't speak to the more military/combat aspects of this - I honestly know very little about it personally. I'm leaning on analyses done by people who do know, and have spoken about what Israel is doing. Regarding your point of putting refugees inside of Israel - I don't know if there's any practical way to do this. It is impossible to tell apart Hamas militants and normal civilians. Even if you somehow made a vast area inside of Israel to house the refugees, you're all but guaranteeing thousands of Hamas operatives getting into Israel as well. Do you similarly support the idea of letting the refugees into Egyp in a similar manner? Cause that seems like the obvious solution to the problem from my perspective (and is the "usual" solution in urban war situations). Except Egypt absolutely refused to allow this, and almost no one pushed them on this, often claiming it was an attempt at more ethnic cleansing from Israel. (Apparently sacrificing Palestinian lives to prevent ethnic cleansing, without asking them, is somehow moral?)