Life Imitates the Volokh Conspiracy

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese states that Israel has no legal right to defend itself.

Me at the VC, February 28: "The IHL [international humanitarian law] community, writ large, had been taken over by the far left, and for a variety of interrelated ideological reasons IHL activists are hostile to Israel's very existence, and do not believe that Israel has any right to defend itself, including from Hamas terrorism. Therefore any civilian casualties caused by Israeli military action were unacceptable."

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese: "There is no war that Israel has ever waged against the Palestinians that can ever be deemed lawful. Israel has no right to wage a war to invoke self defense against the people it maintains under occupation."

It's been obvious to me for years that critics like Albanese, pundits at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, commentators like Glenn Greenwald, and various international law professors share the view that *any* military action by Israel is illegitimate, and simply dress up that prejudice in the language of international law, but I've never seen it acknowledged so explicitly.

Comments

[Sarcastr0]

I continue to find Prof. Bernsteins invocation of the 'far left' as far too protean. Sometimes it's a specific point of view, sometimes it's about violence, sometimes it's wide enough to include like AOC or even Pelosi.

Here, it's not even needed for his thesis: "The IHL [international humanitarian law] community are hostile to Israel's very existence, and do not believe that Israel has any right to defend itself..."

The rest is just mustard to give it some partisan punch that makes the thesis seem less stark.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Way to dodge the subject. Hijack much?

[ReaderY]

A UN official specifically repeats the KKK position on African-Americans almost verbatim - they have no right to defend themselves, they are unassimilable aliens, their Nigger Government is completely illegitimate and propped up by an illegal occupation, any white casualties they cause no matter who started what or why are always illegal and always in violation of good and proper law.

And your response is - Frankly I don’t understand your response.

Are you saying it didn’t really happen, it’s a figment of Professor Bernstein’s imagination?

Or are you saying Professor Bernstein is just a nigger-lover, a corrupt and oppressive Nigger Government supporter, the KKK Redemption people are really very good, moderate, reasonable folks who just want to end the illegal occupation and restore ordinary good white government as things were before Nigger Rule and should be always, and in any event they represent a negligible fringe group and it’s just plain unreasonable for nigger-lovers and trouble-makers like Professor Bernstein, who really want to keep Nigger Government propped up by illegal occupation to rule over and oppress the poor white people, who keep harping all the time on a few isolated, unimportant incidents by a few isolated, unimportant people who don’t really represent the community? Amd the fact that government officials and judgex say these things makes absolutely no difference?

Cause it sounds an awful like what you’re saying is the second, just scratching the words “nigger,” nigger government” wnd “nigger-lover” out and writing the words “Israelite,” “Israel,” and “Zionist” in in crayon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

At the risk of defending the KKK, which I do NOT wish to do, I don't think that they go that far. Hate Blacks, yes, consider themselves superior to, absolutely -- but I don't think they go so far as exterminate.

And what DB points out here is that the Jew haters do.

[Frank Drackman]

That’s a Bingo! Dr Ed finds a Truffle

[David Nieporent]

defending the KKK, which I do NOT wish to do,

[Narrator: he does in fact wish to do that.]

[Frank Drackman]

you're doing fine by yourself

[Purple Martin]

[Narrator: "he does in fact wish to do that."]

[Narrator: ...and does in fact, do.]

[I Callahan]

According to Dave, suggesting that the KKK does not want to exterminate blacks is a defense. Saying that they're horrible, but not as bad as Hamas, is a defense.

Why progressives and libertarians shouldn't be in charge of anything.

[David Nieporent]

No. According to David, Dr. Ed likes defending the KKK. How that manifests on this particular occasion is of only mild interest to psychiatrists.

[ReaderY]

I was giving a take on Sarcastr0’s position, not the KKK’s. The KKK would not have considered themselves isolated, unimportant people. They saw themselves as leaders of the movement. Sarcastr0 dismisses the UN rappateur’s position in somewhat like the way genteel people in the South sometimes dismissed lynchings.

[Don Nico]

Reader Y,
You have exposed S_0's post for just what it is de facto anti-Semitism wrapped in a bureaucrat's bubble.

S_0's denial that anti-Zionism has noting to do with leftist ideologies is laughable. His acceptance of a UN official's claim, when Israel was the only party that accepted the 1948 partition is politically driven delusion. Also the statement of Albanese is just most of a ton of evidence that the US leadership has a deep anti-Israel bias.

[Sarcastr0]

Reflexive accusations of antisemitism damages your credibility and nothing more.
You put a ton of words in my mouth, which further shows your knee-jerking is overtaking any actual thought.

I would argue that my concerns about Israel are shared by plenty of American Jews. Is that wrong, or are there a ton of antisemitic Jews out there?

Bottom line, if this is how you defend Israel, you are doing it no favors.

[neurodoc]

Don Nico can speak for himself, but I'm going to guess that he doesn't give a crap what you think of his credibility on account of his calling you out as an antisemite. Just a surmise on my part, though.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, but that doesn't change that calling me an antisemite and putting a bunch of words in my mouth reflects badly on him.

[Don Nico]

You just do not like people exploring the logical implications of what you do say.
That is not putting words in word mouth, but it is say what de facto you mean.

[neurodoc]

"Also the statement of Albanese is just most of a ton of evidence that the US leadership has a deep anti-Israel bias." Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence. Please explain.

And as something of an aside, I would point out that before Albanese, who is so undeniably, indeed risibly biased, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, a position for which only serious out "anti-Zionists" are eligible, it was filled by Richard Falk, himself an anti-Jew Jew. The joke in Falk's case is that he is one of the an endorsers of the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism.

[Stephen Lathrop]

For a clear alternative take on related issues today's Guardian features a brilliant column:

The new definition of antisemitism is transforming America –
and serving a Christian nationalist plan — by Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona

[ReaderY]

The article conflates active support for Hamas with any criticism of Israel or the Israeli government.

I oppose the way the Trump administration is going about things. The Civil Rights Act has procedures that must be followed before university funding can be cut on Civil Rights grounds, including fair hearings.

But nonetheless, there have been allegations of significant conduct very distinct from political advocacy including allegations of behavior towards Jewish students that meets classic definitions of harassment. I think Judge Cronan in the recent Cooper Union case drew the line between the two in a very reasonable and apporopriate way, dismissing claims involving protests, rallies and other classic speech activities in public fora, but allowing claims involving allegedly terrorizing individual Jewish students to go forward. As Judge Conan explained, words shouted in a political protest are generally protected, while the same words shouted outside people’s dorm rooms to keep them awake at night or to intimidate students locked in a library room are generally unprotected.

As the Cooper Union case illustrates, many but far from all of the allegations are legitimate and if true classic civil rights violations. Nobody would allow similar behavior towards black students.

Again, I disagree with the Trump administration’s dispensing with legal process. I think some of its examples of alleged harassment are protected by the First Amendment. But it is by no means the case that claims of anti-semitic intimidations are pure fabrications or just a label placed on any disagreement with Israeli policies. Further, both Hamas itself and many Hamas supporters in fact want either to eradicate Jews completely or to return what is now Israel to a form of Islamic rule much like the Ottoman regime that existed in prior centuries, when Jews, like African-Americans under white Southern rule in the century after the Civil War, were distinctly second-class citizens with many legal and even more de facto disabilities.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I do not think that article was intended to disagree with the Cooper Union Case. It seemed more to disagree with forced takeover of governance at Columbia University. And with efforts by the Trump administration to invade governance of religious precepts, and to construct rules to define who and who is not Jewish.

[ReaderY]

But the Supreme Court held in Shaarei Tefilla that Jews are a race, not only a religion, for Civil Rights purposes. And of course Israel and Israelis involve national origin.

[Sarcastr0]

It is a pretty stark thesis.

Don't listen to anyone talking about humanitarian law re: Israel.

That has implications internally for what Israel will permit itself to do.

And, more practically, it has external implications. Saying the international human rights community can't tell you what to discards the perception of moral high ground, and quits the field. I don't think Israel should be lumped in with China and Russia and North Korea, so I would rather like it to do more than make broad based claims of bad faith.

I have real concerns that Israel without the US would end up as an international pariah state if it just declares everyone is biased against them. And Israel should not assume the US will be there forever.

[David Bernstein]

"Don't listen to anyone talking about humanitarian law re: Israel."

There is a very simple test that I invoked in a back-and-forth with Glenn Greenwald during one of Israel's previous skirmishes in with Hamas in Gaza, after Gaza launched a series of missiles at Israel: "What military action *could* Israel take that you would say is legally justified?" He refused to provide an answer. When people do that, you know it's not really about the law, and you'd be amazed how consistently IHL critics of Israel are unable to answer this question. Or you could just look to the reaction to Israel's pager operation in Lebanon...

[Josh R]

Fair enough.

And now, one for you. What military action could Israel take that is not legally justified. Have they done so?

[Bored Lawyer]

Dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza.
No.

[Josh R]

That's it?

[GKHoff]

You didn't ask for more than one. (Action, not actionS)

[Sarcastr0]

Haha the lowest of bars.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You could find lower.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It was Josh R that set the bar.

[Don Nico]

You laugh, but it was not your people murdered in their beds.
The mistake that Israel made was not holding land they took during their ground invasion, because Herzi Halevi thought he was running a log series of commando raids rather than a take and hold invasion.
I was happy to hear the announcement of Defense MInister Katz that Israel will attach areas that it clears of Hamas to the Jewish State

[Sarcastr0]

I laugh at BL's low bar that implies everything but nukes is fine, weirdo.

You sound a bit like you're defending an ethnic cleansing of Gaza? Morality aside, that is getting into pariah state territory.

[Michael P]

He didn't imply everything but nukes was acceptable. That was just an easy example. It illustrates how bad the Greenwald position -- that there is no acceptable form of Israeli self-defense -- is.

[Josh R]

Don Nico expressly said annexation is OK.

[zztop8970]

annexation is a political action, not military.

[Don Nico]

No Josh, I did not say annexation, I used Katz' word attachment. That word choice was deliberate by the Defense Minister.

[Josh R]

"[A]ttach areas [in Gaza] to the Jewish State" = annexation.

[Don Nico]

What ethnic cleaning?
That that were the case, Israel would be the worst cleaning company in history. Israel has done considerable modification of its attacks to limit civilian casualties. Hamas knows that by hiding among non-combatents, collateral damage from IDF attack is inevitable. They accept this as a way to breed martyrs for Allah.

[Rossami]

Still better than the 'no bar' set by Greenwald in the anecdote above.

[Sarcastr0]

Absolutely! You won't catch me saying Greenwald doesn't suck.

But this response is also bad.

[zztop8970]

why?

[Sarcastr0]

Same reason Greenwald's response is bad, just different in degree.

[zztop8970]

Greenwald had no answer. You got at least 3 different responses to your question, none of which were "out there". Stop gaslighting, if you can,

[Sarcastr0]

'Nuking Gaza is off the table' is not a substantive response. Neither is 'firebombing everyone in the area is off the table.'

The are game-playing; unserious.

That is, unless people think 'everything but nukes is totes okay' in which case, we have a different issue - i.e. people are so morally twisted on this that the human rights community is right in their condemnation.

I don't believe that to be true, however. The Internet makes you stupid, after all.

[zztop8970]

You dont get to unilaterally decide which responses are "off the table". While Greenwald provided no answer whatsoever, because he has absolutely no lines, your question got at least 4 different responses that described military actions that would not be justified:
- Nuclear bombing (as the US did in WWII)
-Carpet bombing the area with HE, incendiaries, napalm, and cluster munitions without warning (as the US did in Vietnam and Laos, and the UK did in WWII)
- Intentionally bombing a target that it has no reason to believe contains Hamas militants or stores.
- Targeted, intentional, premeditated murder of children under 12

All of these are reasonable responses that fairly accurately describe the current limitations in IHL on military action.

Stop gaslighting, if you can.

[AtR]

Why would that be any less justified than dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima?

[Frank Drackman]

Because we did it in response to an unprovoked sneak attack in which thousands were murdered in the early morning hours, let me know when that happens to Israel

[ReaderY]

The differences are even starker. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a naval base, not a massacre of civilians.

[neurodoc]

Yes, you have that difference, but there is a still bigger difference, The A-bomb was not used on Japan in revenge for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor; it was dropped to avoid the alternative, that being a land invasion of our enemy, which would have seen 100s of thousands of dead. So a "pragmatic" military choice.

[Michael P]

There are also very pragmatic differences: for example the Gaza strip is pretty small in terms of area, so fallout can escape to Egypt, the rest of Israel, or other places pretty easily.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“What military action could Israel take that is not legally justified.”

Huh? Yes, the is a who set of actions that are non legally justified.

“Have they done so?”

I don’t know. Do you have any evidence that they have?

[Josh R]

I don't know until I know what actions aren't permitted. But just like Greenwald, no one seems to want to answer my question.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The first response to you is an answer to your question.

[Josh R]

That's the equivalent if Greenwald were to say Israel can intercept incoming rockets as an acceptable military reaction. It's trivially obvious but belies the belief that Israel is very, very constrained in Greenwald's opinion. Likewise, Bored's response implies virtually no constraints on Israel.

[zztop8970]

You asked a question, and got an answer, unlike Greenwald who refused to give any answer, and you are shilling for him.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't debate club; the response does not materially move the conversation.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Josh R is welcome to ask some follow up questions s in service of whatever point he’s trying to make. Otherwise, I’m not sure what it is you expect his interlocutors to do.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not hard to understand the conversation and the point at issue is about each side of the debate drawing a line.

No need to get cute and embrace a technically responsive but degenerate answer.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It’s not hard to understand, which is why I’m surprised that you’re not understanding it.

The discussion isn’t about line drawing: Prof. Bernstein’s entire point is that Albanese and Greenwald don’t have a line and can’t conceive of any action by Israel that is legitimate. Josh R attempted a gotcha by trying to catch out supporters of Israel being just as bad in the other direction, which didn’t work because most supporters of Israel aren’t antisemitic nutcases.

[Sarcastr0]

'No nukes' is not a line.

It's the degenerate response, as I said.

Arguing 'technically, 'no nukes' is a line, so they win' is childish nonsense.

[zztop8970]

You got 3 answers in addition to 'No Nukes (which itself is a fine line).
Stop gaslighting.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"'No nukes' is not a line."

No shit, Sherlock.

But nobody asked for a line.

[Josh R]

The "gotcha" isn't that some cannot come with something Israel cannot do. It's that they can only come up with the most obvious, trivial things. So OK, those folks are better than Greenwald, bit only barely. Instead of being antisemitic nutcases, they are (like Ben-Givr and Smotrich) messianic the whole-land belongs-to-us nutcases.

[zztop8970]

You got 3 answers to your 'gotcha', which were not 'trivial' things
Nice try, but no cigar

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I support Israel…but their version of the FBI is responsible for Gaza/Hamas. So we couldn’t deal with McViegh and Unabomber and Luigi the same way we dealt with OBL and KSM.

[Commenter_XY]

Josh R...The targeted, intentional, premeditated murder of children under 12 is not legally justified.

To my knowledge, this has not occurred.

[ReaderY]

Israel cannot intentionally bomb a target that it has no reason to believe contains Hamas militants or stores.

It is not, however, required to always use precision munitions. Nor is it required to always have perfect aim. Or perfect intelligence. Nor is it responsible for what else is there. If israel reasonably believes Hamas has made it a base of operations, it’s fair game, and any collateral consequences are on Hamas. Period.

[Darth Buckeye]

Not legally Justified: Begin carpet bombing the area with HE, incendiaries, napalm, and cluster munitions without warning and implemented in a way to catch people fleeing the carnage.
Have they done so: No.

[Sarcastr0]

This kind of out-there response just isn't a serious answer.

[Don Nico]

There are few constraints on Israel consistent with IHL.
Still are required by IHL, non-combatants are not tortured for information; kids are not rounded up and kept separately. Populations are warned before air attacks.
The real question is what action does Hamas take that are consistent with IHL? Why don't you answer that question for yourself first.

[David Nieporent]

Still are required by IHL, non-combatants are not tortured for information;

Um, under IHL nobody is allowed to be tortured for any reason. Not non-combatants, not combatants. Not for fun, not for information.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, you found another typo. Congratulations.

[Don Nico]

What is not serious is your string of comments. You prefer that Hamas continues to kill Jews. Operationally that is what you are proclaiming. Oh, you use weasel words to deny it. But everyone knows your game.

[Sarcastr0]

You prefer that Hamas continues to kill Jews.

Nope. And if you can only argue with that level of well-poisoning strawman, I'm muting you on this thread.

No point in arguing with someone who will lie about what I mean.

[Frank Drackman]

Again with the mute, why don’t you try the double secret probation or the Corbomite maneuver?

[Don Nico]

Go ahead mute me. You are the one who is being offensive for no good reason. It's rather sad, but not unexpected.

"who will lie about what I mean."
I am afraid that lie about what other mean is your stock in trade.
If you mean other than what I describe, you really need to take a course in writing because you express yourself very poorly.

[mike petrik]

I usually disagree with you, but I don’t here. You are right. Israel clearly possesses the right of self-defense, but it is subject to limits under moral and international law. Asking Israel supporters to acknowledge that by discussing those boundaries in good faith is perfectly reasonable. To respond by accusing you of supporting Hamas killing Jews is unreasonable.

[Sarcastr0]

Appreciate that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You are right. Israel clearly possesses the right of self-defense, but it is subject to limits under moral and international law."

Nobody is claiming otherwise, but Sarcastro et al are claiming in bad faith that they are.

[Rossami]

So first you want your political opponents to 'prove the negative' by defining all possible things that Israelis can't do, then you complain when people start to build the list. All in response to a rhetorical call for a single thing that Israelis can do in response to an attack.

You're trolling again.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think this is any kind of start on actually building a list. It's not engaging with the question; it's unserious.

[Frank Drackman]

That's it! you're going on "Mute", Mister!

[Michael Ejercito]

How is that response out there?

[zztop8970]

It is a serious and correct answer. There is nothing "out there" about it -

[Eric (the OC tanker)]

I have a solution for the Gaza situation. IDF, reduce the entire area to rubble, make the rubble bounce then bulldoze the rubble into the med.

Problem solved.

[Sarcastr0]

That seems a great individual test. In a discussion about line drawing refusal to draw a line is a red flag.

But you are making a broad declaration in your OP, not an individualized one.

[AtR]

Right on. These people just want to see Israel destroy, and they'll abuse any excuse they can think up for that purpose.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David -- as one who is neither Jewish nor antisemitic, you do a good service pointing this out because I need to be reminded that there are people like this in the world.

[neurodoc]

https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/03/21/peter-beinart-refuses-refer-hamas-terrorists-during-debate-pro-israel-professor/

Depending on the particular context, one could very appropriately either analogize or contrast Peter Beinart and Glenn Greenwald to one another. Indeed, try it and see how many meaningful likenesses and contrasts you can come up with. Then say who in your opinion comes out better or worse in each pairing. In my eyes, I'm not sure either comes out better (or worse) on those they are most alike, though Beinart is the more impressive writer, though no stronger in the integrity department,

[Darth Buckeye]

Greenwald is an apostate Jew. Apostates are a type of character described by Orwell in essay NOTES ON NATIONALISM from 1946. They are negative nationalists. They are former members of a group who are obsessed with their former group. Probably because that group did not live up to their ideals.

Another example is Leon Trotsky. Trotskyite’s were Communists who are consumed with hatred for Stalin and the Soviet Union.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm no fan of Greenwald, but the policing of who counts as a Jew is not something you or I are equipped to do.

Or Orwell, for that matter.

[Don Nico]

" who counts as a Jew is not something you or I are equipped to do. " says you. Mind-reading and projecting once again.

[Sarcastr0]

You want people saying who counts as a Real Jew?

You're kinda stupid on this thead, eh?

[neurodoc]

Ah, how remarkable you are for your lack of self-awareness! I expect that Don Nico gives a flying F who in Sarcastro's opinion "counts as a Real Jew." I certainly don't, I do find it mildly amusing that you do It says so much about where your head is lodged.

[Don Nico]

"You want people saying who counts as a Real Jew? "
Can you actually discern the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote here?
There is a world of difference. I know you are not so stupid as not to be able to see the difference. Hence, I must conclude that you are playing a game.
Games are fine; they are even fun. You said that is why you are here. I said likewise.
But don't get huffy about it.

[neurodoc]

I'm unfamiliar with that Orwell work. It sounds like something I should look for. Thank you.

I never stop trying to understand the Jew-hating Jew. (I don't think "apostate Jew" is a very apt term for the Greenwald types, since it applies a loss of religious faith or conversion to another religious faith, rather than active antipathy toward the faith one was born into, or antipathy toward what others hold to. If you can, point to any group other than Jews among whom there are so many who hate others of their kind or are so much against the group's self-interest. I challenge you, or anyone else to answer what for neurodoc is such a conundrum.

The person who may have the answer but alas has been dead for decades now, was Henry Miller, a non-Jew but married to a Jewess, who he supposed was very in love with. Miller in Tropic of Capricorn (or was it T of Cancer?) famously wrote, "No one hates a Jew like a Jew." If he were still around, I would beseech him to tell me what prompted him to say that. Did he have specific evidence or expamples in mind?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Miller in Tropic of Capricorn (or was it T of Cancer?) famously wrote, "No one hates a Jew like a Jew." If he were still around, I would beseech him to tell me what prompted him to say that. Did he have specific evidence or expamples in mind?

People have a tendency to put a lot of weight on small differences. You may recall the old joke:

was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

I also recall some time ago a Haredi rabbi having to apologize for saying that the sects that believe married women should wear wigs instead of headscarves (or maybe it was the other way around) had caused the holocaust.

[Martinned2]

For context, here is the ICJ's advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/186/186-20240719-adv-01-00-en.pdf

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Do they have any advisory opinion on raping babies and grandmothers before beheading them? How about taking children hostages as human shields and hiding in UN hospitals?

[Commenter_XY]

There is no occupied palestinian territory. There are disputed territories. The dispute will be settled, shortly.

Judea and Samaria will be annexed and formally become Israel. Parts of gaza will be annexed and will formally become Israel.

[Don Nico]

Indeed when the pro-Hamas crowd is asked what part of Palestine is occupied, the answer "the whole thing." The Palestinianist ideology is summed up in "No Jews in Palestine."

[Bob from Ohio]

"ICJ's advisory opinion "

LOL

[TextFirst]

There's no point in trying to please those people. Once Israel has made the determination it's not going to recovery any more hostages, the careful, surgical phase of this war is over and Israel should go full tilt against Gaza until Gaza issue an unconditional surrender (or, if Gaza prefers, they can fight to the last man). There's no reason to play nice if you're going to get criticized no matter what you do.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The Muslim world's reaction to Oct 7 was pretty enlightening. Then along came Queers for Palestine; I hadn't thought the child mutilators could stoop any lower or show any less comprehension of reality.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bibi N put it best: "Chickens for KFC..."

[Frank Drackman]

Just like Amurican Blacks still supporting the party that’s killed millions of their unborn

[neurodoc]

Nonsense. What about Caucasian and all other non-American[sic] Blacks who have elected to terminate their pregnancies? (Only anti-abortionist, anti-choicers, pro-Lifers, religious zealots talk about the "unborn." Few Jews do.) What political party do you think they should vote for?

And what's with "Amurican"[sic} Black"? Is that yet another way in which you chose to advertise your offensiveness. Since there are some things we generally agree on (e.g., the non-essential offensiveness), how about dialing it back.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I wouldn't go that far - I have no doubt there are good-faith critics raising reasonable points and some things are wrong even if bad people say they are.

[Sarcastr0]

Gaza? Dint you mean Hamas?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

There's a difference? Gaza voted for Hamas. Gaza cheers them on. Gaza is Hamas. Hamas is Gaza.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Palestine needs a king.

[Frank Drackman]

More like an Enema

[neurodoc]

Sarcastro (who else?): "Gaza? Dint[sic] you mean Hamas?"

What's the difference? How does that difference ("Palestinians/Gazans" vs Hamas/IslamicJihad,PFLP et al.), if a truly meaningful difference exists, match or not match the putative different between the Germans during the time of the Third Reich (1933 - 1945) and the Nazis? I'd love to hear your best non-trivial answer to that question, which be something beyond the "civilian" vs "active combatant. In my estimation, it is not an easy question to answer for a variety of reasons.

[Sarcastr0]

Hey neuro - glad to have you posting a bit more these days; our signal/noise badly needs it.

Anyhow, the obvious difference is that when the Nazi government surrendered, it meant the end of that front of WW2.
Gaza surrendering would be meaningless in the current conflict. It wouldn't bring back the hostages, and it wouldn't stop Hamas from continuing to try to kill as many Israelis as they can.

This is a counterinsurgency operation, not a war between European nation-states. The analogies that are operable are not WW2. More Iraq and Afghanistan.

[ReaderY]

Hamas is the Gaza government. Gaza surrendering would be Hamas surrendering. Surrender means to “render over.” If Hamas does render over the hostages, it is not surrendering.

I completely agree that pretending to distinguish Hamas from Gaza is no different from pretending to distinguish Germany from the Third Reich during WWII. This business of pretending that because you regard something as illegal, it doesn’t really exist gets tiring. Hamas IS Gaza the same way the Third Reich WAS Germany. Because Hamas is the government of Gaza, war on Hamas IS war on Gaza. There is no difference between the two.

[Michael Ejercito]

Hamas is what you get when a political party caters gto the basest desires of those like Elliott Rodger and Dylann Roof.

[Don Nico]

"This is a counterinsurgency operation"
Wrong again. Hamas was and still does fancy itself as the de facto government of Gaza.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't care what Hamas fancies itself as. My point stands.

[Don Nico]

Your point is broken.
Gazans elected Hamas as their government in 2006; they have never claim otherwise thereafter.

[Absaroka]

"This is a counterinsurgency operation"

Not so much, methinks. Counterinsurgency tends to mean the not-insurgents generally can go where they want. The insurgents interfere by setting hit-n-fade ambushes, sabotage, and so on. Think the French or Norwegian resistance - with a few exceptions late in the war, a body of German troops went where they wished. Vietnam was mostly the same - the US troops went where they wanted, with the VC/NVA doing hit-n-run attacks, ambushes, or delaying actions while they evacuated a base camp or whatever. But generally they didn't stand and engage in protracted combat.

But when they did - Hue during Tet for example - the tactics you had to use came right out of Stalingrad or the Battle of Berlin.

I haven't done any deep diving on Gaza, but my sense it isn't the IRA in North Ireland ambushing the odd Brit patrol, but more dogged house to house fighting. When it comes to that, tactics are the same whether the war is mostly conventional or mostly guerilla.

[Sarcastr0]

It isn't The Troubles, but it is somewhat akin to the challenges the US faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. Except there are hostages. For now.

Counterinsurgency operations do have variations.

I've done some reading, but don't claim to know enough about COIN tactics and how they compare or overlap with a conventional(?) guerilla war.

My main issue is with the notion that "Israel should go full tilt against Gaza until Gaza issue an unconditional surrender" is any kind of coherent tactic.

And WW2 analogies are so badly applied; it's just that was the last Good War.

[Michael Ejercito]

My main issue is with the notion that "Israel should go full tilt against Gaza until Gaza issue an unconditional surrender" is any kind of coherent tactic.
Is that different than what was done to Germany?

[Sarcastr0]

"Gaza surrendering would be meaningless in the current conflict. It wouldn't bring back the hostages, and it wouldn't stop Hamas from continuing to try to kill as many Israelis as they can.

This is a counterinsurgency operation, not a war between European nation-states."

[TextFirst]

"My main issue is with the notion that "Israel should go full tilt against Gaza until Gaza issue an unconditional surrender" is any kind of coherent tactic."

Sure it is. If Hamas remains the government of Gaza, then they can issue the unconditional surrender. If Gazans had enough of Hamas, then they can choose a new government, turn over every member of Hamas, and then the new government can issue an unconditional surrender. If Gaza instead prefers to die to the last man for Hamas, oblige them. This can be won completely passively, eventually Gaza will either give up or literally starve to death.

[Sarcastr0]

Still straining for that WW2 analogy. It is still bad!

[Don Nico]

"straining for that WW2 analogy"
No one else here buys that argument. This has zero to do with WW2 or with Iraq. It is closer to the campaign against Daesh

[Absaroka]

"the challenges the US faced in Afghanistan and Iraq"

It's like the challenges faced in Fallujah. It's not COIN in a rural Afghan valley.

[Sarcastr0]

I'll give you the difference in scope and terrain.

I'm not sure how that creates a materially different situation tactically or strategically.

[Absaroka]

I don't mean this as a blow off, but there are books about Manila of Berlin or Stalingrad, give one a try. Close quarters in buildings is different from the jungle is different from the steppe. I mean, let's list every large modern urban battle that was a 'nice clean' battle ....????

(the quotes around 'nice clean' are because, no battle is remotely nice or clean, but the civilian casualties in say the Battle of the Bulge or Kursk tend to be a lot lower than Manila or Berlin)

[Sarcastr0]

OK tactically was too far.
But I'm still at sea - what is the specific difference in upshot that you are trying to highlight?

Are you saying Gaza's surrender would be important? Or that the analogy to WW2 is legit?
Or is there a different victory condition or path to victory in this case as compared to the other recent COIN conflicts due to the distinctions you've pointed out?

I've granted you plenty of distinctions - I have been reductive on that front. But I'm not sure what difference you're getting at.

[Absaroka]

Urban combat is just a nasty bloody business. I dunno, one could try for a spherical cow argument involving megajoules of ordnance per cubic hectare or something, but what urban combat entails seems to be pretty constant across Algiers/Manila/Stalingrad/Berlin. I don't need to know the math behind gravity to notice that celestial objects above a certain size are always spherical.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying that urban warfare has more in common with itself than it does with regard to whatever larger conflict it fits into, whether it be great powers of COIN or whatever else.

I think that's right. But I also think you can't take the conflict out of the larger conflict in which it fits. Hence, Gaza surrendering is not relevant to the conflict against Hamas - it's gonna be bloody and messy regardless.

I'm not saying Israel doesn't get to do urban warfare because it's too messy!
I am saying [not in this thread but in others on this post] that Israel doesn't get to say 'human rights community are all antisemitic leftists and we will ignore them' without some serious consequences to Israel, no matter how righteous their cause.

I also note how many on here seem to be out-and-out hoping for rampaging massacres in Gaza.

[Michael Ejercito]

HAve you forgotten the attacks of October 7, 2023?

[Sarcastr0]

Of course I haven’t forgotten.

What a horrible morality blank check you are writing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"My main issue is with the notion that "Israel should go full tilt against Gaza until Gaza issue an unconditional surrender" is any kind of coherent tactic."

Israel chased the PLO out of Lebanon, they went to Tunisia. That's the model. [Rabin letting this victory go to waste is another topic]

A surrender is unconditional release of all the hostages, surrender of arms and Hams members going to whatever non-Israel contiguous Arab country will take them.

Very coherent.

[Sarcastr0]

Everything you're talking about relates to actions for Hamas to take, not Gaza.

[Bob from Ohio]

Well, I guess everyone is going to die then.

Hamas is the controlling party in Gaza, it controls the issue of war or peace.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

And that’s the mistake American progressives made initially criticizing Israel defending itself. So Netanyahu said at that point he had to assume Bernie could be president in January 2025 and so that was his deadline to degrade Hamas. He just ignored Biden’s advice and tried to meet his deadline. Had progressives been reasonable then Netanyahu wouldn’t have needed to put an artificial deadline on the military operation and he could have been more measured in military strikes.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[moved]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

It seems this Albanese has gone full-on woke "anti-Zionist." She's a UN rapporteur for human rights, her beat is the territories Israel has occupied since 1967. She was appointed by the UNC Human Rights Council in 2022 - I think her term is set to expire this year.

Sarcastro's hand-waving can't dispel the stench here. She's not a random activist professor, she represents the United Nations.

Sarcastro is worried about China; what better gift to China than the human rights "community" going full retard and throwing its credibility in the crapper? China can say, "these people criticizing us are the same people talking about genocide and apartheid by the Jews."

(Assuming these jokers *are* criticizing China.)

[Commenter_XY]

Sad that Sarcastr0 hand waves at all.

[Roger S]

I do not think that this can be explained by simple prejudice against Jews. So what is it? Is it a philosophical disagreement with how Israel was founded? Is it a religious belief that it should be Islamic territory? Is it payback for some previous disputes? Something else?

[SRG2]

It's misplaced anti-colonialism. Israel is seen as a Western colonial project by those on the far left, who have never forgiven the West for winning the Cold War.

[Roger S]

So it is not that Israel is Jewish. Israel is a stand-in for a White European power. You may be right, but I wonder how to prove it.

[SRG2]

Well, Israel's being Jewish doesn't help as anti-Semitism has always been a disease of the extremes, whether left or right. And Western anti-Semites typically, when they think of Jews, think of Ashkenazi, hjence supposedly European, Jews, not other Jewish groups, hence for the left-wing anti-Semites, that reinforces the colonising myth.

[Commenter_XY]

The majority of Jews in Israel are mizrahim.

[Frank Drackman]

Make you feel smart to use a word I had to look up? Well smarty pants, when I googled it (so it’s obviously true) only 40-45% of Israeli Jews are that word, last time I checked 40-45% wasn’t a majority

[Commenter_XY]

I should have been more precise, Frank. Among the demographic groups of the Jews in Israel, mizrahim are the largest (larger than ashkenazi). The larger point is, the notion of Israel being some kind of a white colonial power is horse manure.

[Don Nico]

That certainly is an important component. Jews are defined as "white" oppressors of "brown" Arabs.

[myself]

It's nothing to do with race or religion.

Rule #1 of international law, you can't take land via conquest, and you certainly can't expel the native population and resettle it with your own people.

That rule exists for a very good reason, people care passionately about land and allowing conquest leads to big wars that last a really long time.

And that's exactly what happening now. If Israel stopped taking land after the original partition things would have been nasty for a while (the whole partition arguable violated rule #1) but then they would have calmed down and there would probably be peace now.

But Israel has kept conquering land and expelling the native population, so the native population keeps fighting back.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Right. Raping and beheading babies and grandmothers. That's something to be proud of, shows the world how moral their cause is.

Isn't there some rule about that?

And Hamas's mission statement, their charter, whatever you want to call it, which calls for genocide. That's ok?

[myself]

I hate Hamas and what they're doing, but Israel is engaged in a war of conquest and Hamas is fighting back asymmetrically. Which is often nasty.

I'd prefer they not fight at all, they can't win a military confrontation, and if they were fighting a military confrontation I'd prefer they use different tactics.

Are their current tactics illegal? I don't know international law well enough.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I hate Hamas and what they're doing, but"

You don't hate Hamas or you wouldn't be justifying its conduct.

The "but" always tells on the writer.

[Michael Ejercito]

In what way were the october 7, 2023 attacks asymmetric warfare?

[Frank Drackman]

The UN sits on an Island taken by conquest, the native population expelled, and replaced with our own people(well maybe before it turned into New-Tehran)

[Rossami]

Your "[r]ule #1" is not actually a rule at all, much less #1. Taking land via conquest always has been and still is allowed under international law.

There are lots of people who think it should be illegal and they have good reasons to believe that (reasons that I generally agree with) but no one has yet come u with a workable framework to enforce such a rule. Therefore, unlike things that actually are enforceable, yours is not a rule. It's at best an aspiration.

[myself]

Nope, an actual rule.

[Don Nico]

Okay, there was not state conquered there. This was Ottoman land that was administered after WW1 by the British. In 1948, the UN offered a partition. Israel agree to that partition but the Arabs did not. Instead the Arab League went to war against Israel, which it lost. At best the Gaza and Judea and Samaria were disputed territory. You may know that Israel offered to return Gaza to Egypt, but Egypt refused to take it
In summary, as for Israeli rule over all those areas, your "rule" does not apply.

[Rossami]

Check your source and then re-read what I wrote. The UN Charter has no workable enforcement mechanism. It can't until and unless countries (and their citizens) cede sovereignity to it. That lack of enforceability makes it an aspiration, not a rule.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If Israel stopped taking land after the original partition things would have been nasty for a while"

No land was taken between the armistice 1948 and 1967. There were constant Arab fedayeen attacks from Gaza, Lebanon and Syria into Israel. The PLO was formed in 1964, again before Israel took territory in 1967.

So the "calm" thesis is wrong. Arabs will never accept that "dirty Jews" occupy "sacred" Arab land.

[myself]

As I said "nasty for a while".

The creation of Israel was a big violation of that rule against taking and resettling land. That there were some wars in the aftermath was fairly inevitable.

But If Israel kept to its 1948 borders it would have eventually calmed down.

[Bob from Ohio]

20 years and no calming down, then Egypt closed Red Sea access and massed troops for an invasion in 1967.

[Don Nico]

"Rule #1 of international law,"
I'll buy that when China sets Tibet free.'

"then they would have calmed down and there would probably be peace now."
There is absolutely no evidence to this claim. There is a history of many decades of the Arabs wanting this land free of any Jews

[DavidC]

So, to you, "the specific actions Israel has taken against the Palestinians up until now" and "all conceivable self-defense scenarios" sound like indistinguishable concepts? That's... a stretch.

[David Bernstein]

It’s funny to put quotation marks on language that doesn’t appear in the quoted excerpt and isn’t anything like it.

[thesafesurfer]

Your post proves that you make uninformed comments. Try watching the video that is linked in the article next time. You will not look so stupid and condescending.

[thesafesurfer]

Francesca Albanese offers more proof of Cipolla's Basic Laws of Human Stupidity.

[DavidC]

You're certainly right that I wasn't quoting. I thought I gave a fair paraphrase, though, of the quote you pulled out, "[any] war that Israel has ever waged against the Palestinians." In your view, saying that Israel has no right to claim self-defense in the actions it's fought against the Palestinians to date is exactly the same as saying Israel has no right to self defense in general-- is that correct? Because those don't seem like the same thing to me at all.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Did you try reading the very next sentence.

[DavidC]

Noscitur, the next sentence is even more obviously a conditional statement ("Israel has no right to wage a war to claim self defense [in this very specific category of situations]") and not a general denial of the right to self defense; and also is mostly captured by my gloss.

[myself]

I hate to say, but the statement is fairly defensible.

Israel is occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinian land using military force.

If you accept that statement as fact... then the occupied population has a right to fight back.

I don't like the violence in any sense, but I'm not sure how you can claim that Israel has the right to keep Gaza contained using military force, or that Israel has the right to expel Palestinians in the West Bank using military force, but Palestinians don't have the right to fight back using military force.

[AtR]

Yes ... and if a circle were a square, we would have no use for pi. Your argument is not serious because it provides no reasonable method for Israel to protect its citizens.

The only thing the world will accept is dead Jews to memorialize.

[neurodoc]

"Yes ... and if a circle were a square, we would have no use for pi"

I like that one, but I like "if my grandmother were a bicycle" better (see just below), in part because it serves as a homage to the late Shimon Peres, and that seems apt here.

Now if a circle were a square, would we still have a use for pie?

What if we were thinking mathematics and degenerate (apt, no?) cases, might we imagine a point as a circle with r=0, and make everything work?

[myself]

Well no. It's saying that Israel is already in the wrong for committing an ongoing project of conquest and ethnic cleansing.

[neurodoc]

myself, you believe "Israel is already in the wrong for committing an ongoing project of conquest and ethnic cleansing." We understand that is your "anti-Zionist" tenet of faith, so you needn't repeat it endlessly. I for one don't hold to it, so my response to you is, "OK, if my paternal grandmother was a bicycle (a Schwinn if it matters), then much like the Nazis is or isn't Hamas." (In truth she wasn't a Schwinn, she was a Raleigh, but my predicate assertion is substantially less ridiculous the one you insist upon.)

[myself]

So here's a question. Let's assume that Russia accomplishes it's war aim in Ukraine. A bunch of Ukraine annexed as Russia, the rest under a Russian puppet, and Ukrainians being forced out/expelled from the annexed territories.

How do the Ukrainians get to resist? I'm assuming attacking / bombing Russian military assets is fine. Targeting police? Also legit. Sabotage, targeting collaborators? Basically anything the French Resistance did.

If the Palestinians stuck to the same I think it should be legally uncontroversial.

Now the big difference is that the Palestinians don't have much access to the military targets (and the ones they can access are extremely hardened) so they've gotten in the habit of targeting enemy civilians. So the targeting of civilians does make their actions harder to defend legally. But it seems hard to argue that it's illegal for Palestinians to attack the only available targets (Israeli civilians) but it's legal for Israelis to attack Palestinian civilians because a few enemy soldiers are embedded.

[neurodoc]

myself, I'll ask of you what Lincoln would ask of people: if we count a tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have? If you are foolish enough to answer "five," like Lincoln I will laugh at you.

Ukraine vs Russia is in just about every way imaginable wholly unlike the I-P conflict. But go ahead and knock yourself out "reasoning"(?!) from one to another, expecting to arrive at a meaningful answer. If some equally foolish person as you wants for follow you down your road to nowhere, they are free to do so,
I think the same fate, at least figuratively, awaits you as that unfortunate 20-something kid suffered when he headed off into the Alaska wild whooly unprepared to survive.

[Roger S]

No. If Ukraine loses the war, then it should surrender and accept defeat. The Palestinian Arabs lost their war a long time ago.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

So it's OK when Hamas and Hezbollah ethnic cleanse with non-military non-state forces? By killing and beheading babies and grandmothers?

[neurodoc]

Hey, they get the benefit of SoA (Soldiers of Allah) exception. Never heard of it? Many, many millions, if not billions, fervently believe in it.

[neurodoc]

"If you accept that statement as fact... then the occupied population has a right to fight back." I will accept it if you will accept unquestioningly that my grandmother (paternal) was a bicycle (Schwinn).

"I don't like the violence in any sense..." Are you channeling Judith Butler? If so, you should wrinkle up your ugly face in an expression of anguish and clench a fist to your chest as she has as she excuses Hamas's kinetic expressions.

[David Nieporent]

If you accept that statement as fact... then the occupied population has a right to fight back.

I don't accept that statement as fact, but even to the extent (and there's some extent) that it's true, and even to the extent that an occupied population has a right to fight back, it does not have the right to "fight back" using any and all means. There's no right to 'fight back' by staging an assault on a music festival and kidnapping and killing its attendees. There's no right to 'fight back' by blowing up a pizzeria, or a religious observance at a hotel.

[myself]

I'm not sure how you deny that Israel is occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinian land using military force.

They are literally doing that in the West Bank, in fact their accelerated schedule in the West Bank was a primary reason that Bibi diverted military forces from Gaza.

Either way, I suspect this is true, that Hamas is violating some international laws with specific civilian targeting tactics. Though I think it's true that some allowance must be made for asymmetric warfare, I think it's also true there's limits to what's allowed.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure how you deny that Israel is occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinian land using military force.

Because Israel isn't occupying and ethnically cleansing Palestinian land using military force. Israel would be the least successful ethnic cleansers in history if that's what it was doing, considering that the Palestinian population in the territory controlled by Israel is continually growing.

[Don Nico]

The problem with Halevi's approach is that it did NOT occupy land.
When a de facto government starts a war and is losing, what does it expect?
Israel needs to annex Judea and Sameria now. There will never be a better time.

[SRG2]

Were the Allies right to invade Nazi Germany?

Reason I ask is that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Gaza had no basis for attacking Israel at any point since then.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I don't like the violence in any sense, but"

Classic "but" statement, the words before but can be ignored as padding. Only the post-but words reflect your views.

[myself]

Classic response, but also wrong.

I think the violence is morally and strategically wrong.

Palestinians can't win a war, even a Guerilla war, against Israel. A peaceful movement rallying international pressure would be much more effective.

But from a legal perspective, which this blog is supposedly about, Israel is the one that is occupying and resettling Palestinian land, Israel is the one that was blockading Gaza. Legally, Palestinians are the non-aggressing party, they have a right of self defense however counterproductive it is to wield it.

[SRG2]

They do not have the right to resort to irregular warfare such as using human shiels, for example, or having equipment and quarters in civilian buildings, etc

[David Nieporent]

But from a legal perspective, which this blog is supposedly about, Israel is the one that is occupying and resettling Palestinian land,

What is your definition of "Palestinian land"?

[Don Nico]

1) who said it was "Palestinian land"?
2) "Ethnic cleansing" is just question begging. No debate points for that

[neurodoc]

Hey, they get the benefit of SoA (Soldiers of Allah) exception. Never heard of it? Many, many millions, if not billions, fervently believe in it.

[Milesthatsme]

Peculiar for a law professor (perhaps committed to textualism?) to complain that something is being dressed up in the language of law.

In point of fact, Albanese’s quote uses at least 3 terms of art from the laws of armed conflict. She did not say, as Bernstein implies, “Israel is limited in its use of state power internally and externally to passive/peaceful action”.

The quoted proposition maps onto unremarkable reasoning: if (1) places a population under military occupation (under IHL); that (2) is civilian (under IHL); then (3) one cannot allege that the same population is a party that committed an “armed attack” (ie waged war) under Article 51 of the Charter; so (4) “self defence” of the State, in the Charter sense (i.e. using military force exceeding that permitted by human rights protecting one’s own population) is impermissible.

One can argue with the facts behind any of these premises (no military occupation; the entire population is military; a different party committed an attack of the gravity of war; or the response is not ‘warlike’ and is human-rights compliant). But the only alternative *legal* argument leads to a conclusion that there are people neither protected in war (by IHL ) nor in peace (by IHR).

[Commenter_XY]

Since (1) does not apply, the rest is erroneous. There was no military occupation of gaza prior to 10/7/23.

[neurodoc]

No military occupation of Gaza prior to 10/7/2023?! You mean none except that of June '67 until 2005? (Note, some will maintain that Israel's retained control Gaza's perimeter, including itself ocean frontage and airspace along with border crossings, amounted to "occupation," an arguable proposition.

And as for the claim that "occupation" equals a right to "resistance," how do you think Dwight D. Eisenhower or Doug McArthur would have responded if some among the conquered populations of Germany and/or Japan had tried to assert that "right of resistance" after authorities representing those two countries (still "sovereignties" though they had surrendered unconditionally, no? Me, I don't imagine they would have felt the need to consult their JAG corps staff before responding in a unmistakable way.

[Frank Drackman]

Neurologists, one of the most useless of specialties, at least the Shrinks prescribe some decent drugs occasionally

[neurodoc]

Boy, do you demonstrate ignorance. I remember that an anesthesiologist was called upon to manage a difficult as of status, and they used their drugs to make the movements stop. When the movements had quit for some period of time, the gas passer stopped his meds, Voila, a cure, except the patient's brain had been fried (a term of art), thoroughly.

Is anesthesiology still 99% sheer boredom, 1% sheer panic? Or has the boredom reduced to only 97% or even 96%

How is it that CRNAs can manage so many of an anesthesiologists cases, but few, if any, of those a board certified neurologist? Which specialty do higher ranking med students go into?

[Commenter_XY]

Israel has shown considerable restraint in gaza, militarily, measured against their actual military capabilities. Others might dispute that point, I don't see how, though. No other professional military (including ours) undertakes the same level of measures to preserve human life than the IDF.

To your question: Eisenhower or MacArthur would have carpet bombed the 'resistance' into submission. And forced the remaining population to bury the dead.

[Sarcastr0]

Eisenhower or MacArthur would have carpet bombed the 'resistance' into submission. And forced the remaining population to bury the dead.

This is a counterfactual, but I think you're taking the righteousness of WW2 and using it to launder a level of monstrousness into the allies that wasn't there.

[Absaroka]

We do have a little insight into what MacArthur would do when faced with urban warfare:

"The month-long battle, which resulted in the death of at least 100,000 civilians and the complete devastation of the city, was the scene of the worst urban fighting fought by American forces in the Pacific theater. ... Often referred to as "the Stalingrad of Asia", the battle is widely considered to be one of the most destructive urban battles ever fought, as well as the single largest urban battle ever fought by American forces."

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about MacArthur I should have remembered he wanted to kill American Citizens in the Bonus Army, and written him off as a psycho.

[Absaroka]

I'm not a MacArthur fan, but it wasn't like Ike or Bradley could have done a lot differently in Manila. Urban combat is irreducibly ugly.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think we need to overdetermine the counterfactual.

Saying 'Eisenhower woulda carpet bombed Germany if they did some guerrilla resistance' is not a useful point; it's just not supportable.

'Urban warfare is hard' doesn't get you there.

[Bob from Ohio]

You know that Ike did in fact carpet bomb Germany?

[Absaroka]

What I said was: 'with Ike in charge the Battle of Manila, the battle would have happened like it did'. Why would you think otherwise? The Japanese garrison wasn't going to surrender. Trying to starve them out would have been even worse for the civilians. What happened was what urban combat is.

[Sarcastr0]

Absaroka, it sure looked like you offered your example as support for the counterfactual that was being discussed.

If you want to change the hypothetical, that's fine. But consider why you don't think the OP is defensible.

[Absaroka]

"it sure looked like you offered"

I was saying that when MacA, or any other general, decides to take a defended urban area, the end result looks like Manila did, or Berlin did, or Stalingrad did. Whether it is artillery at point blank range (Manila, Stalingrad) or artillery+prior strategic bombing (Berlin, Warsaw), the city gets leveled.

One can quibble with the decision whether to take the urban area - Hitler could have cut the Volga either side of Stalingrad - but 'liberated' contested cities seem to end up moonscapes.

And that's my pushback: a lot of the Gaza commentary seems to amount to 'the place is getting leveled and lots of civilians killer, therefore the Israelis must be committing war crimes', and I think that's bunk.

This is a war crime:
Radio Operator: 'Sir, we're taking fire from that building'
Colonel: 'JDAM it'
RO: 'But overwatch says its full of women and kids, and the snipers ran out the back door anyway'
Colonel: 'JDAM it anyway ... young Palestinians grow up to be big ones ... do it quick before any of the women and kids get away'

This isn't:
Radio Operator: 'Sir, we're taking fire from that building'
Colonel: 'JDAM it'
RO: 'some of these buildings might have civilians in them'
Colonel: 'We have to be up to phase line Bravo by 0400, JDAM it'

The end result of those looks the same. Gaza ending up a moonscape with dead civilians, tragically, only tells you ... there was urban warfare here. Is it the Israeli's fault as in example 1 above? Hamas' fault for using civilians as human shields?

None of us know. If you put a gun to my head and made me bet money, Hamas has a long habit of telling big windys.

[Sarcastr0]

And so we are back to line drawing. I've studiously not done that because it's really really facts-based and cold hard facts are hard to come by over there right now. IOW I agree with you on the 'none of us know' front.

But my opinion doesn't mean I don't think institutions have nothing to say if they disagree with me. For both humility and practical reasons.

So long as we're in hypothetical-land, consider the opposite - is there a level of evident neglect of civilian deaths in an urban warfare setting that you wouldn't just chalk up to war being messy?
Again, there's a ton of folks here calling for intentional slaughter. I'd say all of them are over the line.

[Absaroka]

"evident neglect "

Sure, but those two words are doing all the work. You can't cause civilian deaths without a good reason - two more words doing all the work.

Since you luv WWII analogies :-), the Brits/Norwegians sank a ferry with civilians aboard, to stop heavy water from making it to Germany. Looking back, there was no need, because after the war we found out the Germans weren't going to beat Los Alamos to the bomb. But we didn't know that at the time, and didn't want the world's first nuke to go off in London or NYC. I think it was the right decision, given the stakes.

Lot's of grey ethics. The various resistances would toss a grenade into an officer's mess full of German officers, and their local civilian dates. Acceptable? Kinda depends on a lot of factors. We bombed railyards in France (which given the accuracy of the day, meant bombing French cities) that weren't needed to stop reinforcements in Normandy, because if we only bombed the ones near Normandy it would give away where the landings would be.

The closest to a rule I can give you is that you shouldn't cause civilian (or heck, military) deaths unnecessarily, but 'necessary' is always going to devolve into lot of specific facts. Wars are ugly things. The real fault lies with those who start them.

[Bob from Ohio]

"he wanted to kill American Citizens in the Bonus Army,"

No he did not. He carried out Hoover's order to disburse the camp. The army fired no shots, other than tear gas.

Your knowledge of history continues to suck.

[Sarcastr0]

I've taken an interest in Eisenhower bios in which his loyalty to MacArthur is one of Ike's main character flaws.

Wiki will serve to show you're full of shit:

"The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp, and Hoover ordered the assault stopped. MacArthur chose to ignore the president and ordered a new attack, claiming that the Bonus March was an attempt to overthrow the US government."

[Bob from Ohio]

Read the whole article maybe.

"However, MacArthur's aide Dwight Eisenhower, Assistant Secretary of War for Air F. Trubee Davison, and Brigadier General Perry Miles, who commanded the ground forces, all disputed Moseley's claim. They said the two orders were never delivered to MacArthur and they blamed Moseley for refusing to deliver the orders to MacArthur for unknown reasons."

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, I am aware of the military's official account.

It only *looked* like MacArthur was the psycho he proved himself to be throughout the rest of his military career.

[He was tactically brilliant, but that only gets you so far.]

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am aware of the military's official account"

You have zero facts to contradict it.

If he "intended" to kill Americans [your original "point"], he failed pretty spectacularly.

"psycho he proved himself to be"

So stupid.

[Sarcastr0]

Both your quote and mine include evidence supporting an account other than the official one.

MacArthur was a psycho aristocratic weirdo in the Philippines,
he was a psycho with the Bonus Army, as we just discussed,
he was a psycho in Korea disobeying orders and getting a ton of US people killed,
he was a psycho when he returned to the US and flirted with a military coup.

As for that last bit, check out Caro's "Master of the Senate." MacArthur's homecoming gets a whole chapter, and makes the case that in the Senate's eyes, at least, MacArthur's behavior was flirting with fomenting a coup.

[Ridgeway]

That description is quite misleading.

While is it true that 100,000+ Filipino civilians died during the battle, most of the deaths were not caused by combat (collateral damage and whatnot). Rather, they were deliberately murdered by the Japanese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre

[Don Nico]

What exactly was the firebombing of Tokyo - 70,000 dead in one night. What was Hiroshima, 70,000 dead in less than 5 minutes or Nagasaki, or Dresden (25,000 dead in two days of bombing with ~4 kT of explosives.)

[Michael Ejercito]

Israel should so so.

In fact, they should do what the Romans in the 1st century A.D. would have done.

[Frank Drackman]

Surprised “47” hasn’t proposed pulling the US out of the UN or just not pay our dues, maybe make the headquarters a “Sanctuary”, or start charging the organization rent, or even better “protection”, they’re taking up some prime Manhattan real estate

[Thought about __ all my life]

Maybe that UN person needs a charge of fomenting a war !!!

As of June 2024, the State of Israel is recognized as a sovereign state by 164 of the other 192 member states of the United Nations. The State of Israel was formally established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948, and was admitted to the United Nations (UN) as a full member state on 11 May 1949.

[Frank Drackman]

So does this make Racconteur Albanese a legitimate target of the Moe-Saad? Not advocating it, hoping for it (OK maybe a little) Italians don’t get enough credit for their Anti-Semite chops, with the Catholic Church they’re right up there with Hitler and Stalin, in fact this broad is so over the top wouldn’t surprise me if she’s an Agent Provocoteur (I can use big words too!)

[Bob from Ohio]

"legitimate target of the Moe-Saad"

Yes

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"There is no war that Israel has ever waged against the Palestinians that can ever be deemed lawful. Israel has no right to wage a war to invoke self defense against the people it maintains under occupation."

It's been obvious to me for years that critics like Albanese, pundits at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, commentators like Glenn Greenwald, and various international law professors share the view that *any* military action by Israel is illegitimate, and simply dress up that prejudice in the language of international law, but I've never seen it acknowledged so explicitly.

===

I'm not going to rest my conclusions on what someone said in a clip less than a minute long. Nonetheless, even that is being partially paraphrased.

A comment about "no war that Israel has ever waged against the Palestinians" [with an argument about their status] is shown to prove a mentality that "*any* military action by Israel is illegitimate."