Interesting day for Palestine

The Saint · 03-02-2015 9:38pm

Sand wrote: »

Again, you only make half a point - you cite a passage without actually establishing it is at all relevant to the case. Is a power plant which you acknowledge provided power for military purposes "civilian infrastructure"? Is attacking a power plant supplying electricity to an enemy army and government in a war "disproportionate"? Is it "property" in the sense meant? Is a power plant meant by "civilian objects" when the example offered in the text is a school? During a time of war, did the power plant become a military objective - which the text envisages could even apply to a school under the right circumstances?

You need to do a lot better on the construction of your argument. Copying and pasting isn't going to cut it.

Then why did you cite Israel's interpretation of its obligations when you thought it suited you?

Of course military needs take priority over civilian needs in a war - conscription, massive military spending, censorship, internment or expulsion of enemy citizens. These are the hallmarks of total war.

You really think Hamas "balances" civilian needs against military ones when it decides to pick and prolong a hopeless fight with the regional military superpower? When it was murdering/executing "collaborators" and "spies" during the recent conflict, was it balancing military needs against civilian ones?

No I read it - you read "mainly" as meaning the greater proportion of output, which is a very strange definition when one considers no mention is given to the time period the consumption should be measured over. A year? A month? Based on consumption figures prior to the conflict, or during it? How are "military" consumers to be defined? Is the political leadership of the state included as "military" consumers? Are both sides obliged to provide electrical consumption figures to each other to allow for this targeting or should they simply guess and get hung by Captain Hindsight?

You can also read "mainly" to imply the priority consumer are the military and political groups. During a war which is as desperate as the Israeli-Hamas conflicts, the military will take priority. Always has been the case.

Now you're referring to primary in a way which aligns with my own view.

Advantage is relative - to prove the advantage gained was negligible, you would have to either demonstrate that Hamas is a Stone Age organisation whose military and political organisation and resilience is not benefited by easy access to electricity, or somehow credibly project Hamas's capacity with free and easy access to electricity and demonstrate it was no different to what they actually managed to offer.

Both are implausible.

EDIT - actually, I was curious, so I checked. Hamas fired 2,879 rockets into Israel in July 2014. The power plant was hit at the end of July.

Hamas managed to fire 950 rocket into Israel in August, so their rate of fire dropped by almost two thirds. That would seem to be a clear military advantage.

As I pointed out above, you really need to offer your own if you're trying to make the case.

The IDF for its own part denies ever targeting the power plant. It doesn't deny it was hit, but that doesn't mean it was the intended target of the shelling. So as well as arguing that targeting it was a war crime, you would also have to prove the Israelis deliberately targeted it and didn't simply miss when trying to hit something else.

Certainly, it appears the power plant was back in operation by mid September 2014 (despite media reports claiming it was completely destroyed), just over 6 weeks, so it doesn't seem like the damage was so extensive as to indicate an aim to destroy it. The Israelis can be evil or incompetent, but its implausible they are both.

I really don't have the inclination to respond to every paragraph in your unsubstantiated assertions in your post, particularly when nothing that you have said is backed up by any sources and is just your own speculation. I would go into the international legal principles of necessity, proportionality and distinction in relation to the bombing but it seems that international law is not something that you really consider in your argument (quite funny since if the case was looked at by the ICC then it would be these legal arguments that would inform it's decision).

However, I will just leave this here (again from the ICRC) regarding the bombing of the power plant in Gaza in July 2014 which states that:

This is the sixth time the plant has been hit and it is now out of service. This was supplying 30% of the electricity.”

Most of the electric lines come from Israel and out of 10 only one is working, she said.

“Sixty per cent of the region has no electricity. Only small pockets are receiving electricity and for only one or two hours. In Gaza City, which has a population of more than 1,000,000, there is no power.”

Ms Badiei says essential infrastructure has to be protected. As soon as they are repaired they are destroyed again.
“They are not part of the conflict. They are needed for civilians,” she said. “Hospitals need electricity but now they have to run on generators.

“Let me make this clear, if there is no electricity, there is no water. We need pumps to push the water.”

http://www.euronews.com/2014/07/31/international-committee-of-the-red-cross-criticises-attacks-on-gaza-power-/

To be frank, I'm going to take the ICRC's word on this over yours.

Finally, regarding the decline in the number of rockets fired by Hamas in august, I'm very interested to know how you are sure that the decline is a direct correlation of the bombing of the power station.

I think a more plausible explanation for the majority of this decline would be the fact that while the conflict ran continuously throughout July, there were two ceasefires in August and the conflict finished on the 26 of August, meaning that there was no fighting for 13 days of that month.

Sand · 03-02-2015 11:00pm

The Saint wrote: »

I really don't have the inclination to respond to every paragraph in your unsubstantiated assertions in your post

I've substantiated what I needed to substantiate. I don't need to prove what's commonly accepted and uncontroversial because you don't like it.

However, I will just leave this here (again from the ICRC) regarding the bombing of the power plant in Gaza in July 2014 which states that:

To be frank, I'm going to take the ICRC's word on this over yours.

And again, you don't make any effort to complete your argument other than pasting something that may or may not be relevant said by somebody working for a respected organisation.

"Appeal to authority" is how that sort of argument is described.

Finally, regarding the decline in the number of rockets fired by Hamas in august, I'm very interested to know how you are sure that the decline is a direct correlation of the bombing of the power station.

I think a more plausible explanation for the majority of this decline would be the fact that while the conflict ran continuously throughout July, there were two ceasefires in August and the conflict finished on the 26 of August, meaning that there was no fighting for 13 days of that month.

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

RED L4 0TH · 03-02-2015 11:27pm

Sand wrote: »

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

Actually you do. Here are the Israelis own figures for high trajectory (rockets & mortars) launchings in July & August. In August, ceasefire days are noticeable for few or no rockets/mortars being launched. Then you have a huge spike in objects fired immediately preceeding the last ceasefire. The highest number fired for the 2 months was on August 26, 192. There seems to be no evidence that the power plant being out of action contributed to a decline in rocket/mortar fire.

Sand · 04-02-2015 12:15am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

There seems to be no evidence that the power plant being out of action contributed to a decline in rocket/mortar fire.

You just presented the evidence - you're just focusing on 7 days, and saying "Hey - this is what happened on these days, hence it happened on all days!"

Your own links show that isn't the case. What they show is a dramatic collapse in rocket attacks all through early August after the power supply was cut with only a single day where they could fire anything like their average in July.

I must admit, I'm finding the concept of Hamas as a Stone Age army very amusing. If Hamas don't need electricity to wage a war, surely they don't need it to run a civilian economy either - right?

RED L4 0TH · 04-02-2015 12:26am

Sand wrote: »

you're just focusing on 7 days

Nope. You're ignoring the ceasefire days, which correlate with little or no launchings.

What they show is a dramatic collapse in rocket attacks all through early August after the power supply was cut with only a single day where they could fire anything like their average in July.

Again no. The trend from 22nd July to 4th Aug shows no discernable change. The power plant was struck in the early hours of the 29th July, yet the figures for the 30th & 31st actually show an increase.

The Saint · 04-02-2015 7:16am

Sand wrote: »

I've substantiated what I needed to substantiate. I don't need to prove what's commonly accepted and uncontroversial because you don't like it.

You patently have not. You have not provided any evidence, sources or legal interpretation for your claims. You have offered your own assertions that you state are commonly accepted and uncontroversial without any evidence, even when presented with information to the contrary.

Sand wrote: »

And again, you don't make any effort to complete your argument other than pasting something that may or may not be relevant said by somebody working for a respected organisation.

Now you are just being completely disingenuous. The ICRC played a central role in the development of modern international humanitarian law, they are the custodians of the Geneva Conventions and that International Court of Justice have incorporated opinions of the ICRC when deliberating on cases.

I have selected to use the ICRC for this very purpose rather than citing reports from NGOs such a Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. They are much more than just a 'respected organisation'.

However, given that you do not believe the West Bank is occupied despite the objective fact already presented to you that it is, I'd doubt you are really interested in really dealing with the international legal basis of the argument (which is strange given that it is international humanitarian and human rights law on which the ICC would primarily utilise in its deliberations on such a hypothetical case)

Sand wrote: »

If that were the case, you'd see a close correlation between reduced days and reduced rockets. You don't - From July 7th the average is 112 fired per day in July. Even with your 13 days of "peace" in August, the daily average in August is 52 fired per day - the decline in rockets fired is far more pronounced.

The issue of correlation has been dealt with by both myself and RED L4 0TH. If you want to fully attribute the reduction in rocket fire on the bombing of the power station then you might want to provide evidence for this rather than assertions. I have not read anything (even from Israeli sources) that links the bombing of the power station to this reduction. There could be multiple factors that lead to this in addition to those 13 days in which there was no fighting. For example, Hamas had been building and stockpiling these weapons for a long time before the war and these stockpiles would have likely been depleted due to heavy use. Israel would have also been targeting Hamas arms caches and manufacturing facilities thereby further reducing their stockpiles and production capabilities. Qassams do not require large scale manufacturing facilities necessitating a large power source. They can be built in a workshop using a generator for electricity. Therefore, the bombing of the power station would unlikely significantly impact production.

Sand wrote: »

So your theory is just an odd attempt to avoid engaging with the reality that any modern military activity is going to be more effective with uninterrupted access to electricity. I hope I don't have to prove that any further when you are arguing that civilian life is impossible without it, and the stats above align with that expectation pretty clearly.

See point above. Indeed, the Hamas would be using electricity for keeping the lights on so Hamas would indeed be a consumer of electricity generated by the plant. However, Hamas members also drink water but I'm not sure that you would advocate Israel destroying the water supply so as to gain a military advantage (since this would of course be a violation of IHL). The same principle applies.

Sand · 04-02-2015 9:07pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Nope. You're ignoring the ceasefire days, which correlate with little or no launchings.

No, I saw them and discounted them.

The Saint wrote: »

You patently have not. You have not provided any evidence, sources or legal interpretation for your claims. You have offered your own assertions that you state are commonly accepted and uncontroversial without any evidence, even when presented with information to the contrary.

Can you provide an example of such an assertion which you believe is actually controversial and not commonly accepted?

Now you are just being completely disingenuous.

You're missing the point.

You say X is true. Someone else says Y is true. You offer this as evidence that X is true.

You never actually demonstrate that X=Y.

The issue of correlation has been dealt with by both myself and RED L4 0TH.

Not very well. Mainly by ignoring the obvious and desperately casting about for anything else to explain the collapse in rocket attacks.

If you want to fully attribute the reduction in rocket fire on the bombing of the power station then you might want to provide evidence for this rather than assertions.

Oh, is this what you meant earlier?

So you think its very controversial to state that military actions are more difficult without access to electricity? You've offered no evidence that a loss of electricity makes lives more difficult for civilians, and I've not asked for you to prove that assertion...though maybe I should by your measure.

There could be multiple factors that lead to this in addition to those 13 days in which there was no fighting.

I discounted those 13 days...hence the phrase daily average. That's the daily average for the days when there actually was fighting in July compared to the average for the days when there actually was fighting in August.

You might quibble over the details - but the huge fall in rocket attacks is clear, and that's including the last hurrah Hamas managed after several days of truce allowed them to reorganise and re-equip and allowing for Israeli ground troops being active in Gaza in large numbers throughout most of July whilst withdrawing at the start of August.

RED L4 0TH · 04-02-2015 10:19pm

Sand wrote: »

Not very well. Mainly by ignoring the obvious and desperately casting about for anything else to explain the collapse in rocket attacks.

The obvious? Still waiting for a shred of evidence from you that the power plant being knocked out directly led to the decline in rocket attacks.

So you think its very controversial to state that military actions are more difficult without access to electricity?

But you haven't provided any evidence in attempting to relate such a statement to the ability of Hamas to fire rockets into Israel.

I discounted those 13 days...hence the phrase daily average. That's the daily average for the days when there actually was fighting in July compared to the average for the days when there actually was fighting in August.

In July, 2859 missiles were fired on 31 days giving an average of 92 per day. In August, 1576 missiles were fired on 18 days averaging 87 pd.

You might quibble over the details - but the huge fall in rocket attacks is clear

Clear due to the 8 days in August of zero launches which can be attributed to the ceasefires from 8am on the 5th to 8am on the 8th and from 0001am on the 11th to the afternoon of the 19th. An ongoing ceasefire started overnight of the 26th/27th.

allowed them to reorganise and re-equip

How did they do this then if the lack of electricity so disrupted their war effort as you've been claiming?

Sand · 04-02-2015 10:45pm

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

In July, 2859 missiles were fired on 31 days giving an average of 92 per day. In August, 1576 missiles were fired on 18 days averaging 87 pd.

Now whose being disingenuous?

RED L4 0TH · 04-02-2015 10:55pm

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

Er, no. 2859 high trajectory launches spread over 31 days in July. Oh, and still waiting for that evidence...............

pablo128 · 04-02-2015 10:55pm

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

LOL. Try again.

esteve · 05-02-2015 12:59am

Sand wrote: »

Now whose being disingenuous?

This is getting quite embarrassing now, not because of this little slip up (acceptable) but the continuous ramblings against objective facts and well structured and cohesive arguments that reference reputable sources and are supported by statistical data. Anyways for those who forgot...

Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November;
February has twenty eight alone
All the rest have thirty-one

Sand · 05-02-2015 1:51am

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Er, no. 2859 high trajectory launches spread over 31 days in July. Oh, and still waiting for that evidence...............

You know when the fighting ended in August, right? And you are discounting the "ceasefires" right?

Now when did it begin in July? It wasn't July 1st.

RED L4 0TH · 05-02-2015 2:16am

Sand wrote: »

You know when the fighting ended in August, right? And you are discounting the "ceasefires" right?

Now when did it begin in July? It wasn't July 1st.

Whats your point here? The power plant scenario still hasn't been addressed by you. Average high trajectory launch rate for 7 days (22-28 July) is 55. Average rate for 7 days (30 July-5 August) is 88. Wheres this 'dramatic collapse' you spoke of earlier with relation to the attack on the plant on the 29th July?

(left out 29 July, since it's unlikely anybody knows how many of the 84 launches that day were either before or after the plant was hit).

esteve · 05-02-2015 10:39am

Sand wrote: »

You know when the fighting ended in August, right? And you are discounting the "ceasefires" right?

Now when did it begin in July? It wasn't July 1st.

Ooops on my part! (although rockets were fired before the 14th July)

Still waiting for evidence, or at least a robust arguement with some facts to back up your assertion that the bombing of the power plant directly caused a decrease in the number of rockets being fired.

Interesting day for Palestine

Comments