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?
As much as I, and most Israelis, despise this govt, I don't think that Israel's govt could have avoided the 'bait', any Israeli govt for that matter. But I think it could have been wiser by avoiding three mistakes:
1. Given the intention of Hamas to enrage the Israelis by filming and broadcasting their atrocities, the IDF could have guided its soldiers and field commanders better, to avoid acts that can be interpreted as malevolent. There weren't that many, but the few that did take place were amplified on social media, just as Hamas prescribed.
2. The whole aid issue should have been avoided, even at significant cost. The IDF could have prioritized the aid logistics much better than it did, but since it wasn't placed high enough on its priority list, Israel fell into the narrative trap again.
3. Israel should have recognized a lot earlier that it was a PR trap. By doing so, it should have enlisted creative folks into a dedicated unit (outside the IDF). From camerapersons, to directors, writers, marketing strategists - people who in peace sell cars and insurance - to mount a counter campaign to that of Sinwar's.
Yes to all those. And I also agree that some kind of IDF incursion into Gaza was unavoidable, and with it civilian casualties, pictures and stories. But do you really think the path to ~30,000 dead was locked in by October 8th, and no government could credibly have taken a substantially different course? (for example, prioritising hostage release and attempts to choke off Hamas internationally, with US help, pressure on Qatar etc...)
That seems a big stretch (from my comfortable armchair, where I am no doubt missing a lot).
Thank you for the link, Steven. I took the liberty of of updating your link to a _gift_ link so the OpEd essay is accessible to all interested readers...
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.
A. "severely underestimated the probability of a massive Israeli response?" - Hamas stocked up their tunnles with one year's worth of food, gas, and medicine. So they knew very well what to expect from Israel (or frankly any nation whose 1400 people were murdered, tortured, burned, raped and kidnapped). Perhaps you underestimated Israel's response. I hope you'd expect the same from your own country, God forbid that would that happen to you.
I doubt they underestimated it. The attack seemed so specifically designed to awaken the very worst traumas in Jewish memory. Sinwar knows Israel very, very well. The atrocities were planned in advance--we know that from the prisoner interrogations. What they probably *did* underestimate is how undefended Israel would be. They were counting on Israeli distraction, but I can't imagine they even hoped to be able to kill as many people as they did.
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?
A. Eylon Levi, probably the best spokesperson Israel has ever had, was fired.
B. If Israel knew about Hamas's efforts to infiltrate online communities with fake accounts and feed them with Hamas messaging, but did nothing, that's even worse than not knowing about it.
C. There is no institutional effort to mount an effective narrative counteroffensive on Israel's part. An example of what that could look like would be to enlist Israel's top creative agencies, editors, camerapersons etc, and mount a campaign that tells the real story, in 20 languages - that Hamas sacrificed more than 30,000 Palestinians for a PR stunt. Instead, you have the IDF spokesperson, who is not equipped or skilled to undertake such a task.
I think the IDF spokesperson had a tough job and has done the best that he can. It is MUCH harder to 'control the narrative' than it was in the past, because everybody with a smart phone can upload content (true or false) - but it's his job to at least try. What is almost insurmountable is that while the spokesperson talks entirely about Hamas it's impossible to ignore that many many Palestinians are being killed and maimed.
It may be strategic. It's pretty easy to criticise Hamas - I've never met anybody who straight out says it's a good thing to rape people, kill civilians or take civilians hostage. I think it's an attempt to keep the focus on Hamas and away from Palestinian civilians. I just don't think it's something that can succeed today.
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.
I disagree. I see Israel being criticized in the West for how it wages war, for being a colonial state, and for oppressing the native population; and the West itself is considered culpable in all this too, since we are Israel's major backers, which is why Israel gets a special level of attention from western protesters. Maybe there's some layer of opinion among policy-makers which would think the way you suggest, but I maintain that western public opinion naturally sees the war in Gaza and the war in Ukraine as essentially separate.
Israel is a colony of which state exactly? Jewland? United States of Jews? The Jewish Kingdom?
Even Sinwar recognizes that unlike the French in Algeria, Jews don't have a motherland to flee to. It's just silly rhetoric, dripped into the digital water supply of white people, who project their own sins on the Jews.
I really don't understand how intelligent people parrot that messaging when it is so clear that Israel doesn't meet the most basic criteria of a colonial power. Even if all 'Americans', 'Australians', 'New Zealanders' get up and leave their colonies and go back to Europe, Jews won't do that. They were kicked out of that land twice before(by the Babelonians and the Romans). Now they have nukes to make sure no one gets any silly ideas like that again.
So pretty please, with a cherry on top, stop it with the colonial argument. It's mindless.
This is a matter of terminology. Israel is a highly unusual case, a colonial-era restoration of an ancient ethno-religious state after over 1500 years. One might regard it as a colony of the Zionist movement or the Jewish diaspora; or as something other than a colony - I almost wrote "settler state", but that sounds like academic jargon to me. Whatever it is, like the countries that you list, it was created in modern times by the immigration of millions.
I think that terminology matters, a lot. The term colonial has very specific malevolent connotations, and applying that to Israel (a colony of the Zionist movement. Seriously?? Which colonies does the civil rights movement have? Or any other movement?), is intentionally done to delegitimize it.
But again, no one wants to admit that they've been fooled, so they stick to the narrative.
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.
All true, but people don't respond to facts, they respond to stories, which are emotional. Sinwar knew that the West harbors antisemitic sentiments, and that despite broadcasting its atrocities, people will conveniently forget that as the death toll in Gaza grows. He was right.
The story should be about his intentions to optimize for the biggest number of Palestinian casualties, as people seem to care a lot more about Palestinian lives, than Jewish ones.
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?
Could you share the link to Seth Cropsey's article? I should read it before deciding what I think. Who is it that he thinks should "forget Gaza and Hamas?" I don't think Israel has that luxury.
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?
As much as I, and most Israelis, despise this govt, I don't think that Israel's govt could have avoided the 'bait', any Israeli govt for that matter. But I think it could have been wiser by avoiding three mistakes:
1. Given the intention of Hamas to enrage the Israelis by filming and broadcasting their atrocities, the IDF could have guided its soldiers and field commanders better, to avoid acts that can be interpreted as malevolent. There weren't that many, but the few that did take place were amplified on social media, just as Hamas prescribed.
2. The whole aid issue should have been avoided, even at significant cost. The IDF could have prioritized the aid logistics much better than it did, but since it wasn't placed high enough on its priority list, Israel fell into the narrative trap again.
3. Israel should have recognized a lot earlier that it was a PR trap. By doing so, it should have enlisted creative folks into a dedicated unit (outside the IDF). From camerapersons, to directors, writers, marketing strategists - people who in peace sell cars and insurance - to mount a counter campaign to that of Sinwar's.
Yes to all those. And I also agree that some kind of IDF incursion into Gaza was unavoidable, and with it civilian casualties, pictures and stories. But do you really think the path to ~30,000 dead was locked in by October 8th, and no government could credibly have taken a substantially different course? (for example, prioritising hostage release and attempts to choke off Hamas internationally, with US help, pressure on Qatar etc...)
That seems a big stretch (from my comfortable armchair, where I am no doubt missing a lot).
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
Thank you!
Thank you for the link, Steven. I took the liberty of of updating your link to a _gift_ link so the OpEd essay is accessible to all interested readers...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/to-thwart-iran-fight-a-war-of-attrition-mideast-israel-and-us-need-new-strategy-ad0475ce?st=fbiojxtkjfw5jne&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Wow, David--you're CosmoGlobe's Blessed Destroyer of the Paywall. Happy Easter!
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.
A. "severely underestimated the probability of a massive Israeli response?" - Hamas stocked up their tunnles with one year's worth of food, gas, and medicine. So they knew very well what to expect from Israel (or frankly any nation whose 1400 people were murdered, tortured, burned, raped and kidnapped). Perhaps you underestimated Israel's response. I hope you'd expect the same from your own country, God forbid that would that happen to you.
I doubt they underestimated it. The attack seemed so specifically designed to awaken the very worst traumas in Jewish memory. Sinwar knows Israel very, very well. The atrocities were planned in advance--we know that from the prisoner interrogations. What they probably *did* underestimate is how undefended Israel would be. They were counting on Israeli distraction, but I can't imagine they even hoped to be able to kill as many people as they did.
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?
A. Eylon Levi, probably the best spokesperson Israel has ever had, was fired.
B. If Israel knew about Hamas's efforts to infiltrate online communities with fake accounts and feed them with Hamas messaging, but did nothing, that's even worse than not knowing about it.
C. There is no institutional effort to mount an effective narrative counteroffensive on Israel's part. An example of what that could look like would be to enlist Israel's top creative agencies, editors, camerapersons etc, and mount a campaign that tells the real story, in 20 languages - that Hamas sacrificed more than 30,000 Palestinians for a PR stunt. Instead, you have the IDF spokesperson, who is not equipped or skilled to undertake such a task.
I think the IDF spokesperson had a tough job and has done the best that he can. It is MUCH harder to 'control the narrative' than it was in the past, because everybody with a smart phone can upload content (true or false) - but it's his job to at least try. What is almost insurmountable is that while the spokesperson talks entirely about Hamas it's impossible to ignore that many many Palestinians are being killed and maimed.
I don't think it should be his his job. The IDF is not speaking on behalf of the country, it speaks on behalf of the military.
Yes, many Palestinians are being killed. The ratio of Hamas fighters to civilians is about 1/1.8. If it was up to Hamas it would be 0/30,000.
It may be strategic. It's pretty easy to criticise Hamas - I've never met anybody who straight out says it's a good thing to rape people, kill civilians or take civilians hostage. I think it's an attempt to keep the focus on Hamas and away from Palestinian civilians. I just don't think it's something that can succeed today.
You haven't heard people support Hamas for what they did on Oct 7? I would LOVE to live the magical place you live in.
It should totally be about Palestinian civilians, and about the architect of their peril - Sinwar.
Sydney. Come visit.
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
I disagree. I see Israel being criticized in the West for how it wages war, for being a colonial state, and for oppressing the native population; and the West itself is considered culpable in all this too, since we are Israel's major backers, which is why Israel gets a special level of attention from western protesters. Maybe there's some layer of opinion among policy-makers which would think the way you suggest, but I maintain that western public opinion naturally sees the war in Gaza and the war in Ukraine as essentially separate.
Israel is a colony of which state exactly? Jewland? United States of Jews? The Jewish Kingdom?
Even Sinwar recognizes that unlike the French in Algeria, Jews don't have a motherland to flee to. It's just silly rhetoric, dripped into the digital water supply of white people, who project their own sins on the Jews.
I really don't understand how intelligent people parrot that messaging when it is so clear that Israel doesn't meet the most basic criteria of a colonial power. Even if all 'Americans', 'Australians', 'New Zealanders' get up and leave their colonies and go back to Europe, Jews won't do that. They were kicked out of that land twice before(by the Babelonians and the Romans). Now they have nukes to make sure no one gets any silly ideas like that again.
So pretty please, with a cherry on top, stop it with the colonial argument. It's mindless.
This is a matter of terminology. Israel is a highly unusual case, a colonial-era restoration of an ancient ethno-religious state after over 1500 years. One might regard it as a colony of the Zionist movement or the Jewish diaspora; or as something other than a colony - I almost wrote "settler state", but that sounds like academic jargon to me. Whatever it is, like the countries that you list, it was created in modern times by the immigration of millions.
I think that terminology matters, a lot. The term colonial has very specific malevolent connotations, and applying that to Israel (a colony of the Zionist movement. Seriously?? Which colonies does the civil rights movement have? Or any other movement?), is intentionally done to delegitimize it.
But again, no one wants to admit that they've been fooled, so they stick to the narrative.
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/
All true, but people don't respond to facts, they respond to stories, which are emotional. Sinwar knew that the West harbors antisemitic sentiments, and that despite broadcasting its atrocities, people will conveniently forget that as the death toll in Gaza grows. He was right.
The story should be about his intentions to optimize for the biggest number of Palestinian casualties, as people seem to care a lot more about Palestinian lives, than Jewish ones.
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?
Could you share the link to Seth Cropsey's article? I should read it before deciding what I think. Who is it that he thinks should "forget Gaza and Hamas?" I don't think Israel has that luxury.