Why does Hamas launch rockets from cities?

[metis]

IMO, civilian lives always come first. That's why I am anti-war.

Do you think anyone here is actually pro-war? I would suggest that probably everyone here hates war but does feel that a country, much like a person, has the right of self-defense.

 

[RitalinOhD]

Given the military options available, that borders on hyperbole. There is an enormous amount of terrorist infrastructure and leadership destroyed, Hamas has been qualitatively diminished in the occupied territories, and it has been significantly estranged from Egypt and the PLO alike.

To say that an enormous amount of terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed is highly subjective. I would wager more civilian infrastructure has been destroyed. Hamas firing rockets from a school or hospital doesn't classify that as Terrorist infrastructure. In regards to the tunnels and such, then yes I would say it's been moderately successful.

IMO, the failure of epic proportions was Netanyahu's failure to negotiate with Abbas in good faith. More generally, the failure of epic proportions is the occupation.

Agreed.

 

[metis]

I am, but I was asked what I would do as commander of the IDF, not what I would do if I were in charge of Israel's entire foreign policy. If I were, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. There would be a free Palestinian state along the 1967 borders in exchange for disarmament.

The agreement signed 20 years ago by both the Palestinians under Arafat with Israel had the written provision that both the WB and the GS were to be non-militarized zones and that the only weapons they were to have were guns that one would find with any police force. However, once Hamas was elected, they purchased or made roughly 10,000 rockets and missiles.

Hamas has violated its own cease-fire agreements, and they have executed and imprisoned Palestinian political opponents. They promised to use the aid money to build a better infrastructure but instead used most of the money to buy missiles and rockets and build tunnels so as to attack Israel.

And you really believe that Israel should trust them again? Seriously?

 

[metis]

Correct. Having someone on the ground with eyes on a target is much more reliable than a pilot flying at 25,000 feet or higher.

This doesn't nullify the need for additional forces in the area when an airstrike just isn't feasible.

As I know you'll agree with (at least based on what else you've posted), I would suggest that it cannot be just either/or. The IDF have used both, as well as using special ops.

There is a role for air power, especially the use of smart-bombs in areas whereas there's a lot of civilians, and Israel just got the OK to receive more from the U.S. Without these precision weapons, the death count in Gaza would have been astronomically higher.

 

[RitalinOhD]

The agreement signed 20 years ago by both the Palestinians under Arafat with Israel had the written provision that both the WB and the GS were to be non-militarized zones and that the only weapons they were to have were guns that one would find with any police force. However, once Hamas was elected, they purchased or made roughly 10,000 rockets and missiles.

Hamas has violated its own cease-fire agreements, and they have executed and imprisoned Palestinian political opponents. They promised to use the aid money to build a better infrastructure but instead used most of the money to buy missiles and rockets and build tunnels so as to attack Israel.

And you really believe that Israel should trust them again? Seriously?

No one here has suggested that Israel trust Hamas. If I remember correctly, Alceste mentioned dealing specifically with the PA, NOT Hamas.

 

[metis]

To say that an enormous amount of terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed is highly subjective. I would wager more civilian infrastructure has been destroyed. Hamas firing rockets from a school or hospital doesn't classify that as Terrorist infrastructure. In regards to the tunnels and such, then yes I would say it's been moderately successful.

But when a group uses civilian facilities to store and launch weapons, is that still a "civilian facility"? I would suggest not. However, whether to take that facility out is another question, and sometimes the IDF decision was yes and sometimes it was no.

 

[metis]

No one here has suggested that Israel trust Hamas. If I remember correctly, Alceste mentioned dealing specifically with the PA, NOT Hamas.

I'll have to check back on that. However, one could also go with the adage to "trust no one, and you'll never be disappointed".

Do I trust the P.A., especially with the knowledge that this same group headed by the same individual heavily used suicide bombers a decade ago, with as many as five attempts a day against Israeli civilians, including kids?

Yes, negotiate and hope that all sides live up to it, but have full trust of Abbas and the P.A., absolutely not.

 

[Flankerl]

Misguided sarcasm noted.

At no point did I infer that there were no drawbacks, or that this would "keep the death toll on everyone involved low". However, it would significantly lower the civilian death toll, which is what were actually talking about here. And lay off the sarcasm. There's no need for it.

And thats the fun part. Ground invasions into cities are known for a lot of things but keeping the civilian death toll low is not one of them.
Houses would still be leveled. And the psychologic stress on the soldiers would vent when they encounter civilians.

Its not like this is any news because it always happens when you storm a city.

 

[RitalinOhD]

But when a group uses civilian facilities to store and launch weapons, is that still a "civilian facility"? I would suggest not. However, whether to take that facility out is another question, and sometimes the IDF decision was yes and sometimes it was no.

If there are still civilians inside, say, a hospital where patients are being treated, then yes, it is still a civilian facility. This is per the Geneva Convention/International Law of Armed Conflict, which Israel is a party to. To say Doctors and nurses have any means to repel militants isn't realistic. As long as these employees aren't picking up weapons and joining the battle that is. They do the only thing they can, which is continue to do their jobs and hope the IDF doesn't decide to drop bombs on it.

I have no doubt that the IDF has made the decision to not bomb a specific target due to high collateral damage probability. If it's happened more than not is where I have my doubts.

 

[CMike]

the agreement signed 20 years ago by both the palestinians under arafat with israel had the written provision that both the wb and the gs were to be non-militarized zones and that the only weapons they were to have were guns that one would find with any police force. However, once hamas was elected, they purchased or made roughly 10,000 rockets and missiles.

Hamas has violated its own cease-fire agreements, and they have executed and imprisoned palestinian political opponents. They promised to use the aid money to build a better infrastructure but instead used most of the money to buy missiles and rockets and build tunnels so as to attack israel.

And you really believe that israel should trust them again? Seriously?

+1000000000

 

[CMike]

If there are still civilians inside, say, a hospital where patients are being treated, then yes, it is still a civilian facility. This is per the Geneva Convention/International Law of Armed Conflict, which Israel is a party to. To say Doctors and nurses have any means to repel militants isn't realistic. As long as these employees aren't picking up weapons and joining the battle that is. They do the only thing they can, which is continue to do their jobs and hope the IDF doesn't decide to drop bombs on it.

I have no doubt that the IDF has made the decision to not bomb a specific target due to high collateral damage probability. If it's happened more than not is where I have my doubts.

When the enemy uses it to launch attacks it's a military target and it would be a good idea for civilians to take the warnings seriously and leave.

 

[metis]

If there are still civilians inside, say, a hospital where patients are being treated, then yes, it is still a civilian facility. This is per the Geneva Convention/International Law of Armed Conflict, which Israel is a party to. To say Doctors and nurses have any means to repel militants isn't realistic. As long as these employees aren't picking up weapons and joining the battle that is. They do the only thing they can, which is continue to do their jobs and hope the IDF doesn't decide to drop bombs on it.

I have no doubt that the IDF has made the decision to not bomb a specific target due to high collateral damage probability. If it's happened more than not is where I have my doubts.

It's impossible for me to say or even speculate how often certain targets were passed up because of the danger of too many civilians being killed, and it's truly unfortunate that any should die.

According to the IDF, the main headquarters of for Hamas is supposedly in the basement of the largest hospital located in the heart of Gaza City, and as far as I know that hospital hasn't been hit. Whether that location is true of not, I certainly cannot say, but obviously they're directing events from somewhere that the IDF probably can't hit without causing major civilian casualties.

Also, I do believe that the Geneva Convention also has it that civilian areas are not to be used to store and launch weapons from, but then I would actually have to try and check it out, and I'm not going to do that since it's really a moot point anyway.

So, my final point is this: do you think Hamas gives a hoot about the Geneva Convention or any other rules for civilized warfare? I agree that this does not give Israel a right to use indiscriminate tactics, but from what I can tell, they pretty much haven't. Logically, with the poundage of the weapons they've used, if they were being indiscriminate, the civilian death-toll would undoubtedly be astronomically higher.

 

[RitalinOhD]

It's impossible for me to say or even speculate how often certain targets were passed up because of the danger of too many civilians being killed, and it's truly unfortunate that any should die.

Agreed. That would be a tough order to fill.

According to the IDF, the main headquarters of for Hamas is supposedly in the basement of the largest hospital located in the heart of Gaza City, and as far as I know that hospital hasn't been hit. Whether that location is true of not, I certainly cannot say, but obviously they're directing events from somewhere that the IDF probably can't hit without causing major civilian casualties.

Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. This is a perfect example of where ground forces would be a huge advantage. Yes, it would be dangerous, but that's the Army's job. Doing dangerous things. However, I'm not suggesting the IDF just throw bodies at the problem. Strategy comes into play.

Also, I do believe that the Geneva Convention also has it that civilian areas are not to be used to store and launch weapons from, but then I would actually have to try and check it out, and I'm not going to do that since it's really a moot point anyway.

Agreed. I tried to look it up to find exactly what it says, but that thing is ginormous and quickly became frustrated and gave up. What I do know is, that unless medical personnel are actively pursuing actions that would "cause harm" to an enemy combatant, outside of self defense, then they are to be protected under the convention, and the failure to do so is considered by international law a war crime.

So, my final point is this: do you think Hamas gives a hoot about the Geneva Convention or any other rules for civilized warfare? I agree that this does not give Israel a right to use indiscriminate tactics, but from what I can tell, they pretty much haven't. Logically, with the poundage of the weapons they've used, if they were being indiscriminate, the civilian death-toll would undoubtedly be astronomically higher.

Agreed, I'm sure Hamas doesn't give a rats hairy *** about the convention, or playing fair, etc. And I have stated before that had the IDF not been holding back, Gaza could easily become a parking lot overnight. On the other hand, with over 2000 deaths, and a very small, single digit percentage of those being actual targets, I can't help but think more can be done.

I know it's easy to be on the outside passing judgment on the whole situation. It's messed up for sure. We can only hope that it is resolved soon.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To say that an enormous amount of terrorist infrastructure has been destroyed is highly subjective.

OK

I would wager more civilian infrastructure has been destroyed.

This is certainly true if you exclude civilian infrastructure co-opted by terrorism.

Hamas firing rockets from a school or hospital doesn't classify that as Terrorist infrastructure.

If I have a school that is used as an Hamas/Al-Aqsa storage facility and launch site, how should it be classified?

In regards to the tunnels and such, then yes I would say it's been moderately successful.

You say 'moderately.' This will sound more harsh than intended, but is this evaluation informed or merely self-serving?

 

[CMike]

Agreed. That would be a tough order to fill.



Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. This is a perfect example of where ground forces would be a huge advantage. Yes, it would be dangerous, but that's the Army's job. Doing dangerous things. However, I'm not suggesting the IDF just throw bodies at the problem. Strategy comes into play.



Agreed. I tried to look it up to find exactly what it says, but that thing is ginormous and quickly became frustrated and gave up. What I do know is, that unless medical personnel are actively pursuing actions that would "cause harm" to an enemy combatant, outside of self defense, then they are to be protected under the convention, and the failure to do so is considered by international law a war crime.



Agreed, I'm sure Hamas doesn't give a rats hairy *** about the convention, or playing fair, etc. And I have stated before that had the IDF not been holding back, Gaza could easily become a parking lot overnight. On the other hand, with over 2000 deaths, and a very small, single digit percentage of those being actual targets, I can't help but think more can be done.

I know it's easy to be on the outside passing judgment on the whole situation. It's messed up for sure. We can only hope that it is resolved soon.

How do you know what percent were actual targets?

Why would you believe Hamas regarding deaths?

You got to know they greatly inflate the number.

» MAJOR MAJOR NEWS OUT OF ISRAEL: Three Senior Hamas Commanders Killed in Pre-Dawn Airstrike…including Shalit kidnappers

 

[RitalinOhD]

If I have a school that is used as an Hamas/Al-Aqsa storage facility and launch site, how should it be classified?

If it's actively used as a school, where children are actually attending on a daily basis, then yes, under international law it is still considered protected. However, it also constitutes significant war crimes by Hamas. If the school is only used as a front, then no, it's not protected and becomes a valid target.

You say 'moderately.' This will sound more harsh than intended, but is this evaluation informed or merely self-serving?

Well, I equate this with the tunnels that lead into the U.S. from Mexico. We've managed to find and seal/destroy a lot of them. However, that begs the question of how many are there? If there's 1000 tunnels, and we've destroyed 100 of them, I wouldn't consider that significant. In the end it's mostly moot, and boils down to semantics and verbage. Moderate/Significant, I suppose I'm ok with either term, so overall I suppose I agree with you on that point.

 

[CMike]

Where exactly does it say that in international law?

You are making these claims.

 

[Koldo]

I am, but I was asked what I would do as commander of the IDF, not what I would do if I were in charge of Israel's entire foreign policy. If I were, there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. There would be a free Palestinian state along the 1967 borders in exchange for disarmament.

Alright.
What if Hamas rejects your condition? And if it accepts, how would you enforce the disarmament ?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If it's actively used as a school, where children are actually attending on a daily basis, then yes, under international law it is still considered protected. However, it also constitutes significant war crimes by Hamas. If the school is only used as a front, then no, it's not protected and becomes a valid target.

That's an interesting point that might be worth pursuing, but here the question was "is it terrorist infrastructure" and not "is it protected" - unless you are saying that a protected site cannot be terrorist infrastructure.

Well, I equate this with the tunnels that lead into the U.S. from Mexico.

While this might hold for the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt, this strikes me as a terrible, if not terribly irresponsible, equation when applied to the labyrinth used to move military assets throughout Gaza and, even more so, those employed to infiltrate Israel.

We've managed to find and seal/destroy a lot of them. However, that begs the question of how many are there? If there's 1000 tunnels, and we've destroyed 100 of them, I wouldn't consider that significant.

Of course. And, given that, you chose to characterize the extent of the damage as 'moderate." Why.

In the end it's mostly moot, and boils down to semantics and verbage. Moderate/Significant, I suppose I'm ok with either term, so overall I suppose I agree with you on that point.

It is relevant to my point about hyperbole. I'm suggesting that your language reflects an unsupported bias rather than an informed opinion. It's something that we all do, often without even being aware of the fact. And, yes, it is a relatively minor point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meanwhile, the ynetnews article Behind the scenes of targeted killing in Rafah is instructive.