Scott Paul

The Likudnik influencers on this site have missed the point entirely. They fixate on the photo, noting correctly that other urban battlefields have seen similar levels of destruction. But the photo is not a forensic comparison. It is one piece of evidence among many, set against the repeated claims of "unprecedented restraint" made by this Israeli government and its defenders. To sustain that claim, they ask us to look away from the images of dead and dying children; from evidence (from Israeli sources!) of civilians targeted; from relaxed ROEs with entirely predictable results; from senior ministers openly calling for collective punishment and mass displacement; from the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure untethered from immediate military necessity (the presence of so many tunnels wasn't a license to destroy so much); from the scale and duration of civilian displacement; from the obstruction or dismissal of humanitarian access; and from the cumulative effect of thousands of strikes that may be argued as proportionate one by one, but whose aggregate outcome is plainly catastrophic. You do not get to claim historic restraint while demanding that everyone avert their eyes from historic devastation. No amount of urban warfare whataboutism changes that. So of course they just fixate on the photo, as if (absurdly) that's the only evidence that can and should be leveraged against the Israeli government and IDF. They also reach reflexively for Dresden and other devastations like it, as if invoking one of the most infamous excesses of 20th century warfare were exculpatory. It is not. The world's experience in World War II, including strategic bombing and mass civilian harm, was a major driver of stronger postwar civilian protection law. Citing them as cover for Gaza is an admission that the benchmark being invoked is one the world consciously rejected. They also reach for Raqqa. but that was explicitly condemned by many as a model of unacceptable destruction. No one is using it as a model for a better way of doing things. When it comes to Mosul, it is certainly not a clean precedent, but US forces did a much better job there than defenders of Israel will today admit (note the Likudniks like to tell you how much of *parts* of Mosul were destroyed rather than the whole city compared to cities in Gaza). Of course large parts of Mosul were destroyed, but much less of it than what we see today in Gaza. Iraqi and US forces also operated under guidance not to use artillery in populated areas and a shift to house to house clearing with light weapons when families were present. And when catastrophic failures happened, like the March 2017 Mosul strike that killed more than 100 civilians, it triggered investigations and operational pauses and adjustments, not celebratory spin like we see today from some of the voices on the other side of this debate. There is also one big thing missing from the preferred historical comps and cases of those who argue with me here: the enemies were defeated in those other cases. ISIS, the Nazis, whatever past photo of an urban battlefield you want to show me. Hamas has not been defeated. It still is in control of much of Gaza. Israeli tactics did not match strategy. The hostages were returned, yes (not because of Israel, IMHO). But Hamas was not defeated. I say this has someone who hates Hamas and supports Israel's right to exist and wants to see a thriving Israel at peace with its neighbors. But, as I noted back in Dec. 2023, while war is always inherently defined by violence, death, and destruction modern professional militaries are capable of more measured, more careful, yet still effective operations against urban enclaves. Many Israelis feel the same way, which is why @andymilburn8 was able to use so much evidence from Israeli sources in his article -- evidence that the Likudniks and their friends in the reject simply because it doesn't fit with their narrative. There are reasonable. good-faith ways to engage in debate on this issue. Not seeing much of it here.