Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023Liked by Damir Marusic
There is another aspect to consider here which is the intention of "collateral damage" to make the stronger party appear as the oppressor when Hamas intended to not only reek damage on Israelis by the initial sneak attack, they intended a harsh response in retaliation when they scurried back into their tunnels beneath the Gaza civilian population. The Hamas intention is to damage the reputation of Israel through the sacrifice of an unwitting Hamas population.
Hamas is on a jihad and the attackers admitted they were willing to die in the initial attack. The problem is the rest of Gaza's population is also included in this suicide pact even without their consent. Even now, Hamas is launching rockets from refugee camps knowing there will be a deadly force response from Israel. If Hamas surrenders then the killing will stop. Until then, Israel is forced to play by "Hamas rules" and suffer the world opinion consequences. Israel is locked into a deal with the devil and, of course, there will be Hell to pay.
"Hamas also achieves practical and propagandistic goals by putting Palestinians in harm’s way. More civilians in combat zones mean more human shields for its forces. More dead and wounded Palestinians mean more sympathy for its side and more condemnation of Israel.
That’s why Hamas turned Gaza’s central hospital into its headquarters during the 2014 conflict. It’s why it stored rockets in schools. It’s why it has used mosques to store guns. It’s why it fires rockets from Gaza’s densely populated areas. It does all this knowing that Israel, which has agreed to abide by the laws of war, tries to avoid hitting those targets — and, when it does hit them, that it will result in accusations of war crimes and diplomatic demands for restraint. Either way, Hamas gains an edge."
One of the parts of Robert Kaplan’s Warrior Politics that stand out most to me is an Arthur Schlesinger quote. Morality in foreign policy is not about “the trumpeting of moral absolutes” but “fidelity to one’s own sense of honor and decency.” Even if Israel could do more to limit civilian deaths, at least their military makes an effort. They have a conscience about innocent deaths even as they know their mission is to protect their own people. That’s far more moral than Hamas going out of its way to get civilians it supposedly cares about killed.
Michael, this analysis would certainly hold if this were a novel isolated conflict between two sovereign combatants. One problem is that Israel currently "owns" Gaza and is ultimately responsible for the safety of its civilians, even though it has declined to occupy it or exercise direct police authority for the last 15 years or so. The second problem is that the current war is an intensified version of what is now a pretty old scenario involving Hamas attacks and provocations and Israeli counterstrikes resulting in civilian casualties in three or four figures. So, yes, Israel has restraints in place (and as Sam Moyn pointed out, the casualty figures we are seeing don't compare to those seen in "total war" sieges of cites like Stalingrad), but at the same time its story is wearing thin. Its need to reduce Hamas militarily is a child of its refusal to engage politically, so it is not blameless in these deaths.
If you mean engage politically with the PA, I can sympathize with that sentiment. If you mean engage politically with Hamas, that’s basically what Netanyahu did for years, building them up while undermining the PA, and it really came to bite him. In any case, the Palestinians deserve a state, and in practical terms (whatever the questions of justice involved), a major prerequisite for creating that state is Hamas being destroyed.
"Destroyed" as a military capability, for the time being, yes. But I don't think Islamist, even radical Islamist, groups are politically excludable any more than hard-line Zionist groups are excludable.
Friendly amendment: They have no place in driving an analytical discussion. Such conceptions are, however, both elements of the conflict (as critical internal and external mobilizers) and therefore of the surrounding "debate" (just ask the outgoing Penn president).
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023Liked by Damir Marusic
"It all boils down to PR."
I once heard Hugo Black quote John Marshall (though I've never been able to confirm the quote) that the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments would have to be interpreted, over time, out of "the changing standards of civility of the American people." That, transferred to a different topic, seems to boil down to your point, that "public opinion will decide" -- with your important addition that the world's propaganda machines will seek unceasingly to manipulate our response to the proportionality issue..
What may be skewing the response now is that the history of Israel's relationship with Gaza, since it ended its direct occupation +/-15 years ago, has largely been written in civilian casualty counts. At a time when Israel really feels it needs a shock and awe approach (because, palpably, it had no plan in place for reducing Hamas), people are tired of this story.
One aspect that has not really considered in these conversations of collateral damage estimation is how AI targeting is completely upending kill chain protocols. According to the recent Guardian 972mag report, it is challenging and nearly impossible to validate the targets that Hasbora AI generates at the pace it does. In that sense, technology is neutral, it does not matter if it is a school or an actual military target.
The future is coming at us fast. We'll have autonomous drones killing people based on broad human-authorized parameters very soon. Indeed, I'd not be surprised if it turns out that early versions of these things have already been deployed in Ukraine. I saw some Russian propaganda a few months back saying they were almost ready.
A lot of the stopkillerrobots.org movement seems focused on fully autonomous kill chains but I’ve come around to the position that the road to catastrophic AI will be paved with ethical AI warfare. Which is to say, even deploying AI at a tactical level with human oversight, we’ve set a whole new precedence for collateral damage. Historic sites, humanitarian facilities, infrastructure, schools, residences, the Gospel AI does not care. We will behave more like AI well before we have AGI or automated AI and it will be completely opaque. But the US and Israel have objected to global treaties on AI because international humanitarian law is enough.
Is any proportionality applicable if the military goal is unachievable? Hamas is not merely a bunch of terrorists hiding out in a tunnel. There is an international network of leaders & sponsors that allow funding, training, recruitment, PR etc. Eliminating Hamas is not a credible military goal. Additionally, the war seems to be increasing Israel’s security issues by inflaming protests in the Arab world and possibly driving Arab allies away. Is there any acceptable proportionality of the military goal is b
Personally, I struggle to understand what "proportionality" actually means in practice. It seems to me to be threadbare legalistic ass-covering. In popular parlance, it seems to invoke some kind of obvious standard of conscience. But strictly speaking, there is no "there" there.
There is another aspect to consider here which is the intention of "collateral damage" to make the stronger party appear as the oppressor when Hamas intended to not only reek damage on Israelis by the initial sneak attack, they intended a harsh response in retaliation when they scurried back into their tunnels beneath the Gaza civilian population. The Hamas intention is to damage the reputation of Israel through the sacrifice of an unwitting Hamas population.
Hamas is on a jihad and the attackers admitted they were willing to die in the initial attack. The problem is the rest of Gaza's population is also included in this suicide pact even without their consent. Even now, Hamas is launching rockets from refugee camps knowing there will be a deadly force response from Israel. If Hamas surrenders then the killing will stop. Until then, Israel is forced to play by "Hamas rules" and suffer the world opinion consequences. Israel is locked into a deal with the devil and, of course, there will be Hell to pay.
"Hamas also achieves practical and propagandistic goals by putting Palestinians in harm’s way. More civilians in combat zones mean more human shields for its forces. More dead and wounded Palestinians mean more sympathy for its side and more condemnation of Israel.
That’s why Hamas turned Gaza’s central hospital into its headquarters during the 2014 conflict. It’s why it stored rockets in schools. It’s why it has used mosques to store guns. It’s why it fires rockets from Gaza’s densely populated areas. It does all this knowing that Israel, which has agreed to abide by the laws of war, tries to avoid hitting those targets — and, when it does hit them, that it will result in accusations of war crimes and diplomatic demands for restraint. Either way, Hamas gains an edge."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/opinion/columnists/hamas-war-israel-gaza.html?searchResultPosition=43
One of the parts of Robert Kaplan’s Warrior Politics that stand out most to me is an Arthur Schlesinger quote. Morality in foreign policy is not about “the trumpeting of moral absolutes” but “fidelity to one’s own sense of honor and decency.” Even if Israel could do more to limit civilian deaths, at least their military makes an effort. They have a conscience about innocent deaths even as they know their mission is to protect their own people. That’s far more moral than Hamas going out of its way to get civilians it supposedly cares about killed.
Michael, this analysis would certainly hold if this were a novel isolated conflict between two sovereign combatants. One problem is that Israel currently "owns" Gaza and is ultimately responsible for the safety of its civilians, even though it has declined to occupy it or exercise direct police authority for the last 15 years or so. The second problem is that the current war is an intensified version of what is now a pretty old scenario involving Hamas attacks and provocations and Israeli counterstrikes resulting in civilian casualties in three or four figures. So, yes, Israel has restraints in place (and as Sam Moyn pointed out, the casualty figures we are seeing don't compare to those seen in "total war" sieges of cites like Stalingrad), but at the same time its story is wearing thin. Its need to reduce Hamas militarily is a child of its refusal to engage politically, so it is not blameless in these deaths.
If you mean engage politically with the PA, I can sympathize with that sentiment. If you mean engage politically with Hamas, that’s basically what Netanyahu did for years, building them up while undermining the PA, and it really came to bite him. In any case, the Palestinians deserve a state, and in practical terms (whatever the questions of justice involved), a major prerequisite for creating that state is Hamas being destroyed.
"Destroyed" as a military capability, for the time being, yes. But I don't think Islamist, even radical Islamist, groups are politically excludable any more than hard-line Zionist groups are excludable.
This is precisely why question of “justice” and “deserving” actually have no place in the debate. What is possible? What is plausible? Full stop.
Friendly amendment: They have no place in driving an analytical discussion. Such conceptions are, however, both elements of the conflict (as critical internal and external mobilizers) and therefore of the surrounding "debate" (just ask the outgoing Penn president).
"It all boils down to PR."
I once heard Hugo Black quote John Marshall (though I've never been able to confirm the quote) that the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments would have to be interpreted, over time, out of "the changing standards of civility of the American people." That, transferred to a different topic, seems to boil down to your point, that "public opinion will decide" -- with your important addition that the world's propaganda machines will seek unceasingly to manipulate our response to the proportionality issue..
What may be skewing the response now is that the history of Israel's relationship with Gaza, since it ended its direct occupation +/-15 years ago, has largely been written in civilian casualty counts. At a time when Israel really feels it needs a shock and awe approach (because, palpably, it had no plan in place for reducing Hamas), people are tired of this story.
One aspect that has not really considered in these conversations of collateral damage estimation is how AI targeting is completely upending kill chain protocols. According to the recent Guardian 972mag report, it is challenging and nearly impossible to validate the targets that Hasbora AI generates at the pace it does. In that sense, technology is neutral, it does not matter if it is a school or an actual military target.
The future is coming at us fast. We'll have autonomous drones killing people based on broad human-authorized parameters very soon. Indeed, I'd not be surprised if it turns out that early versions of these things have already been deployed in Ukraine. I saw some Russian propaganda a few months back saying they were almost ready.
A lot of the stopkillerrobots.org movement seems focused on fully autonomous kill chains but I’ve come around to the position that the road to catastrophic AI will be paved with ethical AI warfare. Which is to say, even deploying AI at a tactical level with human oversight, we’ve set a whole new precedence for collateral damage. Historic sites, humanitarian facilities, infrastructure, schools, residences, the Gospel AI does not care. We will behave more like AI well before we have AGI or automated AI and it will be completely opaque. But the US and Israel have objected to global treaties on AI because international humanitarian law is enough.
AI -- a better form of handwashing. Thanks for this info.
IDF is killing far more civilians than Hamas.
Proportionality is kinda like porn, hard to define in any objective or legalistic sense, but you know it when you see it.
Is any proportionality applicable if the military goal is unachievable? Hamas is not merely a bunch of terrorists hiding out in a tunnel. There is an international network of leaders & sponsors that allow funding, training, recruitment, PR etc. Eliminating Hamas is not a credible military goal. Additionally, the war seems to be increasing Israel’s security issues by inflaming protests in the Arab world and possibly driving Arab allies away. Is there any acceptable proportionality of the military goal is b
not credible?
Personally, I struggle to understand what "proportionality" actually means in practice. It seems to me to be threadbare legalistic ass-covering. In popular parlance, it seems to invoke some kind of obvious standard of conscience. But strictly speaking, there is no "there" there.