[edanm]

Hamas rules Gaza, Israel doesn't (or at least didn't) have a military presence inside of Gaza. Israel withdrew all Israelis and all military forces from Gaza, as was often demanded of it ("End the Occupation"). I'm not sure what makes the situation unclear (for the specific things you talked about).

[ajb]

The way you have phrased your question invites discussion of legal definitions. Moral questions are not answered in this way. What is the moral difference between soldiers and police as regards civilians? Both have the same moral obligation not to harm civilians. The difference is that police have a monopoly on violence and soldiers do not, because there is another belligerent force. Hence, it is clear that under some circumstances, the moral obligations of soldiers would reduce to that of police (when the opposing beligerent force is nearly eliminated). The degree to which this is the case depends on the tactical state of play, which is unclear (and likely to remain so).

I have to say that it's also unclear to me personally whether the current rate of civilian deaths could be justified under any circumstances. Since Israel has not stated what it wants the end-goal of the war to be, we don't know how it could justify it either.

[edanm]

> Hence, it is clear that under some circumstances, the moral obligations of soldiers would reduce to that of police (when the opposing beligerent force is nearly eliminated). The degree to which this is the case depends on the tactical state of play, which is unclear (and likely to remain so).

This is clearly not the case - the IDF is still actively fighting Hamas militants, Hamas is still firing rockets at Israel, IDF soldiers are getting killed every day, etc. Not to mention, the population itself is not fully cooperating with the IDF, I believe.

For contrast, Israel has ordered many Israelis to leave areas for their own protection, I believe around 100-150k Israelis have evacuated their homes. No one is talking about them being "ethnically cleansed", and whil there is internal political pressure to help them, no one thinks it's immoral that they were asked to relocate. Clearly the situation in Gaza is different, because many people are outraged that Gazans were similarly asked to evacuate their cities for their own protection.

> I have to say that it's also unclear to me personally whether the current rate of civilian deaths could be justified under any circumstances. Since Israel has not stated what it wants the end-goal of the war to be, we don't know how it could justify it either.

Israel has stated it wants the hostages returned, and Hamas destroyed. Whether this is achievable, or what exactly counts as "Hamas being destroyed", are open questions, but not impossible to answer. (And frustrating as it is, it makes sense that Israel doesn't want to publicize its exact goals.)

Regarding the rate of civilian deaths - this if of course hard to exactly know, given the incentive of both sides to manipulate numbers. I trust the Israeli side far more, and I think everyone should given that the other side is Hamas, but I'm also obviously biased.

That said, the IDF has said it thinks it's killing 2 civilians per 1 Hamas fighter. This is a ratio that, as far as I know, is roughly in line with other conflicts by Western countries. The rate itself is fairly high but it's likely to be far shorter and lead to orders of magnitude less killed than in other conflicts.

I do want to mention that, while I talk about these numbers as statistics, every civilian death is a tragedy. Hell, every death is a tragedy - if Israel could manage to not kill any militants, it would be morally better, because every death is a tragedy.

[VBprogrammer]

> That said, the IDF has said it thinks it's killing 2 civilians per 1 Hamas fighter. This is a ratio that, as far as I know, is roughly in line with other conflicts by Western countries. The rate itself is fairly high but it's likely to be far shorter and lead to orders of magnitude less killed than in other conflicts.

The idea that this war is winnable seams incredibly naive. The idea that hitting hard now prevents future conflicts is an untested hypothesis at best.

Are there any examples of a war where an entrenched gorilla group with broad civilian support have been successfully "defeated"?

[edanm]

> Are there any examples of a war where an entrenched gorilla group with broad civilian support have been successfully "defeated"?

I'm not sure you can call it an entrenched guerilla group given that it is effectively the government of Gaza.

And yes, there are many examples where wars ended when one side surrendered, just to state the obvious, Japan and Germany in WW2.

[VBprogrammer]

You can't compare what was essentially conventional warfare between states of vastly similar military capabilities and a fight between a gorilla force and a conventional military.

I don't think an organisation which is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation are a government in any real sense of the word.

[edanm]

I mean, I'm not sure why you think that. Gaza is governed by Hamas, though not very well, obviously. Israel left Gaza and doesn't (until now) didn't have forces in there, Hamas acted in all respects like a government.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making here. More importantly, I'm not sure why you think that makes the war unwinnable. Presumably there is a scenario in which Hamas surrenders, and if not, that Hamas are slowly all taken out. This is a pretty awful scenario, and would probably involve Israel having to govern Gaza for a while, but it is something that can happen.

There's a chance it won't because Hamas doesn't really care about anyone, including its own populace.