A. 12,000 of those are Hamas militants. Hamas, whose key metric for success is to optimize the number of dead Palestinians, reports the casualties number (likely inflated) as entirely civilian. So for all intents and purposes, the number of civilian casualties is still very high, but probably below 20,000.
B. Still worth asking - were 20,000 civilian casualties avoidable in pursuit of Hamas? Was it necessary to kill 2 civilians for every Hamas militant? I don't entirely know, but considering that Hamas intentionally hid behind and below civilians as human shields (including in hospitals, schools, mosques, UN facilities), and considering similar conflicts like the US in Mosul (vs ISIS), the answer unfortunately is yes, it's a normal ratio considering the circumstances.
C. I'm not sure what 'choking off Hamas internationally' means, but any scenario in which Hamas is not eliminated, pretty much confirms its continuous reign on Gaza and more October 7'ns for Israel. Would San Diego be ok if 1400 of its residents were murdered / raped / burned / kidnapped to Tijuana by a cartel? Would it be ok if the US goes in there to eliminate the cartel, but left its leadership and half their forces in tact? Probably not. So (literally) rooting out Hamas from their hiding places requires going through the Gazan human shields they build around them, and that means that two civilians die for every one Hamas militant.
Thankyou Claire and Ilan for this compelling narrative.
About the choice of antagonist: would Sinwar pick Israel and the IDF, or the Prime Minister and his Cabinet?. After all, can his plot turn on a plan "bait the IDF into Gaza" when it's the political leadership that bites the hook? And although no government could fail to respond to such an atrocity, I wonder if Sinwar and others weren't counting on the obvious temperamental and political vulnerabilities of the incumbents.
Perhaps a wiser cabinet, animated more by strategy than fear of the electorate, could have switched the train onto less bloody tracks. Or is the current military course the only credible option any government could have taken? And could Sinwar have known that?
I have no firm opinion about this, but what if the Hamas leadership severely underestimated the probability of a massive Israeli response? The reason I think this, is that Sinwar himself was one of 1000 prisoners released in exchange for one Israeli hostage. Didn't that give him every reason to think, that if he took 1000 hostages, he could make Israel do whatever he wants? Then, if and when Israel did attack, it would be met in the usual way, enduring the casualties while calling on the world to help. And maybe the atrocities that accompanied the kidnapping weren't central to the plan, in the sense of being a strategic choice.
I have seen an interview with Khaled Mashaal in which he did say that Vietnam, Algeria, Afghanistan, etc, took millions of casualties in order to drive out the colonizer, so the Hamas leadership are capable of thinking in those terms. But I still doubt that they foresaw an attempt to "change the map of the Middle East" in response.
Hamas is fighting a generation war. Their focus, this time, is on one of Israel's most important sources of strength: the American public's positive view of Israel. There are many American publics, some will see Israel positively no matter what, others already didn't see Israel positively, but the ones that can be shifted may be shifted by what they see and hear on social media. Israel can't possibly be unaware of this - why else have people like Eylon Levy or Aviva Klompas tweeting up a storm?
My own view is Israel's biggest vulnerability is the widespread perception among those in the know is that even in the most positive light Israel has been at best unenthusiastic about Ukraine's struggle in Russia. To the extent that Israel hasn't been hurt Western public opinion in this regard to date is primarily because many people are unaware(this has been true since Crimea).
Anyways if you really wanted to beat up Israel in the court of public opinion they way to do it is to paint Israel as pro Russia the only problem is all of Israeli's enemies are pro Russian as well. In fact the whole Middle East is basically with Kuwait of all countries being the first country in the Middle East to congratulate Putin on his sham election.
**Something else I want to bring up later is this increasing discussion of the Israeli-Singapore special relationship in Asia.
It was clear from October7 onward that Sinwar's objective was to maximize civilian casualties in Gaza in order to win a propaganda war. There were three tells. First, the statements from Hamas commanders that said, point-blank, that protection of Gazan civilians was "Israel's responsibility," and that of the UN. Translation: we don't care how many of our civilian brothers and sisters die, Martyrs "R" Us.
The second tell was that Hamas did not, and does not, allow civilians to shelter in its extensive tunnel network. Can you think of any other country with bomb shelters that forbids its civilians to use them?
Third, the Hamas "Health Ministry" publicizes prominently its estimate of 29,000 total deaths in Gaza, without differentiating between civilian and military casualties. No tributes to fallen soldiers here, just an attempt to cast ALL deaths as civilian deaths and to portray IDF as madmen who kill indiscriminately. Too often Western media have accepted Hamas's estimates of total deaths without comment. (Hamas has allowed, with less fanfare, that of the 29,000 total deaths, 6,000 were Hamas fighters.)
For its part IDF claims to have killed12,000 in Hamas fighters in Gaza, and an additional 1,000 Hamas fighters in Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7.
Any objective observer should realize that both sides have a motive to exaggerate their respective cases and that under the fog of war it is hard to make accurate estimates even when attempting to do so in good faith. In my reading, it seems to me that Western media have done a fair job of reporting statements from both sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war, but much less so in Gaza.
This frightening analysis, probing and compelling, is especially convincing in light of Judith Miller's March 18 report in Tablet, "Saving Sinwar." https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/saving-sinwar-hamas-gaza. The man is, yes, a psychopath, but also an astute reader of the post-truth zeitgeist. The question is now: what does Israel, and even more important, the US, do next? Seth Cropsey suggests a long war of attrition against Iran is required: forget Gaza and Hamas; Iran back forces in Syria and Lebanon should be the battleground. What do you think, Claire?
A. 12,000 of those are Hamas militants. Hamas, whose key metric for success is to optimize the number of dead Palestinians, reports the casualties number (likely inflated) as entirely civilian. So for all intents and purposes, the number of civilian casualties is still very high, but probably below 20,000.
B. Still worth asking - were 20,000 civilian casualties avoidable in pursuit of Hamas? Was it necessary to kill 2 civilians for every Hamas militant? I don't entirely know, but considering that Hamas intentionally hid behind and below civilians as human shields (including in hospitals, schools, mosques, UN facilities), and considering similar conflicts like the US in Mosul (vs ISIS), the answer unfortunately is yes, it's a normal ratio considering the circumstances.
C. I'm not sure what 'choking off Hamas internationally' means, but any scenario in which Hamas is not eliminated, pretty much confirms its continuous reign on Gaza and more October 7'ns for Israel. Would San Diego be ok if 1400 of its residents were murdered / raped / burned / kidnapped to Tijuana by a cartel? Would it be ok if the US goes in there to eliminate the cartel, but left its leadership and half their forces in tact? Probably not. So (literally) rooting out Hamas from their hiding places requires going through the Gazan human shields they build around them, and that means that two civilians die for every one Hamas militant.
Thankyou Claire and Ilan for this compelling narrative.
About the choice of antagonist: would Sinwar pick Israel and the IDF, or the Prime Minister and his Cabinet?. After all, can his plot turn on a plan "bait the IDF into Gaza" when it's the political leadership that bites the hook? And although no government could fail to respond to such an atrocity, I wonder if Sinwar and others weren't counting on the obvious temperamental and political vulnerabilities of the incumbents.
Perhaps a wiser cabinet, animated more by strategy than fear of the electorate, could have switched the train onto less bloody tracks. Or is the current military course the only credible option any government could have taken? And could Sinwar have known that?
Sure thing, Claire. And, to be clear, as you'll read, Cropsey does not believe Gaza and Hamas are not important. Just that the two pale in comparison with the decision maker, Iran. Something to that https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-thwart-iran-fight-a-war-of-attrition-mideast-israel-and-us-need-new-strategy-ad0475ce?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
I have no firm opinion about this, but what if the Hamas leadership severely underestimated the probability of a massive Israeli response? The reason I think this, is that Sinwar himself was one of 1000 prisoners released in exchange for one Israeli hostage. Didn't that give him every reason to think, that if he took 1000 hostages, he could make Israel do whatever he wants? Then, if and when Israel did attack, it would be met in the usual way, enduring the casualties while calling on the world to help. And maybe the atrocities that accompanied the kidnapping weren't central to the plan, in the sense of being a strategic choice.
I have seen an interview with Khaled Mashaal in which he did say that Vietnam, Algeria, Afghanistan, etc, took millions of casualties in order to drive out the colonizer, so the Hamas leadership are capable of thinking in those terms. But I still doubt that they foresaw an attempt to "change the map of the Middle East" in response.
Hamas is fighting a generation war. Their focus, this time, is on one of Israel's most important sources of strength: the American public's positive view of Israel. There are many American publics, some will see Israel positively no matter what, others already didn't see Israel positively, but the ones that can be shifted may be shifted by what they see and hear on social media. Israel can't possibly be unaware of this - why else have people like Eylon Levy or Aviva Klompas tweeting up a storm?
My own view is Israel's biggest vulnerability is the widespread perception among those in the know is that even in the most positive light Israel has been at best unenthusiastic about Ukraine's struggle in Russia. To the extent that Israel hasn't been hurt Western public opinion in this regard to date is primarily because many people are unaware(this has been true since Crimea).
Anyways if you really wanted to beat up Israel in the court of public opinion they way to do it is to paint Israel as pro Russia the only problem is all of Israeli's enemies are pro Russian as well. In fact the whole Middle East is basically with Kuwait of all countries being the first country in the Middle East to congratulate Putin on his sham election.
**Something else I want to bring up later is this increasing discussion of the Israeli-Singapore special relationship in Asia.
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/special-relationship-singapore-israel
It was clear from October7 onward that Sinwar's objective was to maximize civilian casualties in Gaza in order to win a propaganda war. There were three tells. First, the statements from Hamas commanders that said, point-blank, that protection of Gazan civilians was "Israel's responsibility," and that of the UN. Translation: we don't care how many of our civilian brothers and sisters die, Martyrs "R" Us.
The second tell was that Hamas did not, and does not, allow civilians to shelter in its extensive tunnel network. Can you think of any other country with bomb shelters that forbids its civilians to use them?
Third, the Hamas "Health Ministry" publicizes prominently its estimate of 29,000 total deaths in Gaza, without differentiating between civilian and military casualties. No tributes to fallen soldiers here, just an attempt to cast ALL deaths as civilian deaths and to portray IDF as madmen who kill indiscriminately. Too often Western media have accepted Hamas's estimates of total deaths without comment. (Hamas has allowed, with less fanfare, that of the 29,000 total deaths, 6,000 were Hamas fighters.)
For its part IDF claims to have killed12,000 in Hamas fighters in Gaza, and an additional 1,000 Hamas fighters in Israel in the immediate aftermath of October 7.
Any objective observer should realize that both sides have a motive to exaggerate their respective cases and that under the fog of war it is hard to make accurate estimates even when attempting to do so in good faith. In my reading, it seems to me that Western media have done a fair job of reporting statements from both sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war, but much less so in Gaza.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-says-12000-hamas-fighters-killed-in-gaza-war-double-the-terror-groups-claim/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/top-hamas-official-claims-group-is-not-responsible-for-defending-gazan-civilians/
This frightening analysis, probing and compelling, is especially convincing in light of Judith Miller's March 18 report in Tablet, "Saving Sinwar." https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/israel-middle-east/articles/saving-sinwar-hamas-gaza. The man is, yes, a psychopath, but also an astute reader of the post-truth zeitgeist. The question is now: what does Israel, and even more important, the US, do next? Seth Cropsey suggests a long war of attrition against Iran is required: forget Gaza and Hamas; Iran back forces in Syria and Lebanon should be the battleground. What do you think, Claire?