Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

Interesting. Would it be your assertion that if a high-rise residential building housing many Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who stubbornly refused to leave, would still be standing right now, with no evidence of Hamas activity, then Israel would refrain from targeting it, even if the presence of civilians ran contrary to Israeli political objectives?

If civilians refuse to evacuate and that information was verifiable, then Israel would most likely refrain from targeting it. We can see that one building was destroyed an hour after a warning was issued, and another a full 24 hours later.

If civilians had evacuated and the IDF was left with the dilemma of what to do with an empty building, then regardless of whether Hamas had set up inside, it is possible that the building would be struck. It is not an assertion that it would be struck, which is what you inferred earlier. It is my personal assessment.
A high rise building:

1. Provides a clear military advantage if used later by Hamas.
2. May be more difficult to evacuate again later if CAS is requested by ground units on a threat inside or on the building.
3. Leaves ample room to suspect hard-to-verify infrastructure and activities such as tunnel shafts, explosive-laden walls/structures, weapons caches and other IEDs and equipment.

Therefore it would be logical to demolish them.
In a ground maneuver into Gaza City, which has already begun, high rise buildings must go. That's a hard reality of urban warfare. You remove everything high level.
The issue of civilian evacuation does not affect whether a high rise building is struck. It most likely only affects whether that decision is made sooner, or deferred to a later point in time.
Given that evacuating civilians is the highest priority and an enabler for a ground maneuver, I assessed that the time to do it is sooner rather than later.

You said that there was Hamas infrastructure there. But at no point did you say that it was the reason why they struck the building. Instead, read in sequence, your posts seem to state that the reason for strike was "to reduce living space in Gaza City to make it a worse QoL alternative to Mawasi

My comment referred solely to the timing.

and the excuse, fig leaf, bullshit reason provided to the world was "That building was likely in the target bank, meaning it was likely incriminated beforehand with intel of usage by Hamas". You either failed to understand what I'm saying or intentionally ignored it. I'm asking, what was the motivation for the strike? What was the reason?

The standard strike procedure is neither an excuse nor bullshit. It is the baseline for every strike. Then military strategy affects how to handle the target bank. It is an additive element.

The reasons are multiple. Explained in comments above. To summarize, speculation:
Reasons:

1. Deny military advantage.
2. Deny strategy.

Timing:

1. Ground operations are ongoing.
2. To assist in evacuation order.
3. To pressure for deal.

Ok, not re-read your original post. Anything in there about Hamas operatives? Anything in there about it being filled with enemy combatants? How do you not understand why I asked what I asked?

Numerous buildings were struck. I am aware of footage coming from at least one of them, via Hamas's media channels. I am not aware of combatants being inside at the moment of strike or beforehand.

You explained in a follow-on post what would in principle provide justification. My reply was to the original post where no such information was contained.

Nor should there be. The standard strike procedure is to be assumed. If you have any question about how the IDF operates, feel free to ask. But I realize that sometimes I write walls of text so I assumed making a shorter, simpler post would suffice. I was unaware that the standard procedure was unknown to you.

1. Again, what is the reason for the strike? 2. How is the target bank generated? 3. Was in there in fact intel at the time of the strike that the target building was being used by Hamas? 4. Consider your original claim and current, feverish backpedaling. 5. You're seemingly willing to admin that Israel's intent is to destroy civilian housing in order to remove civilian population, but rapidly back away from that when challenged.

You start by making an assertion, and only proceed with questions you do not expect to be answered, but if you'd known the answer to them before the assertion, you wouldn't make it.
1. The reasons for the strike are multiple. See answers above.

2. The target bank is generated via intelligence. I don't know how much you know about military intelligence, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of sources of information and methods that could feed a target bank. Sometimes it's visual, sometimes it's a wiretap, sometimes it's special means. My service revolved around those special means.
Sometimes from a local maneuvering unit, sometimes artillery, and sometimes from an air force wing. The possibilities are endless.

When intelligence is sufficient to create a full picture, you have a target ready to execute in the bank. Depending on target, some intelligence will have to be periodically refreshed. If you're striking a soft moving target or a populated area, you may also need real time surveillance. Other targets may require that for BDA.

Then you move onto execution. Specialists from multiple disciplines weigh in on a per need basis, to determine the complete strike profile. What munitions are used, at what speed they're dropped, from what angle, and so on.

3. It is highly likely there was real time intelligence on the building at the time of the strike.

4. I did not backpedal. I elaborated. Why you ask questions with such aggressive tone is your issue, not mine. Are you taking offense in me taking the time to answer your questions?

5. It seems like I backed away because I never said such thing. But if you read carefully my previous comments you will understand.

"But if destroying civilians housing is the target, not because of Hamas forces at that point in time operating out of there, but to force civilians out, that's an entirely different story."

Do you disagree with that being a different story? If so, fine, we can disagree... I guess.... somehow.... but where do you find a claim in what you quoted?

You aggressively imply that the buildings were struck solely to force civilians out and for no other legitimate military advantage. Since I made no such claim for you to pick at, I can assume you are making that claim.
Can you prove that the strikes did not achieve military advantage and that they did not follow the standard strike procedure?

 

[Feanor]

If civilians refuse to evacuate and that information was verifiable, then Israel would most likely refrain from targeting it. We can see that one building was destroyed an hour after a warning was issued, and another a full 24 hours later.

If civilians had evacuated and the IDF was left with the dilemma of what to do with an empty building, then regardless of whether Hamas had set up inside, it is possible that the building would be struck. It is not an assertion that it would be struck, which is what you inferred earlier. It is my personal assessment.
A high rise building:

1. Provides a clear military advantage if used later by Hamas.
2. May be more difficult to evacuate again later if CAS is requested by ground units on a threat inside or on the building.
3. Leaves ample room to suspect hard-to-verify infrastructure and activities such as tunnel shafts, explosive-laden walls/structures, weapons caches and other IEDs and equipment.

Therefore it would be logical to demolish them.
In a ground maneuver into Gaza City, which has already begun, high rise buildings must go. That's a hard reality of urban warfare. You remove everything high level.
The issue of civilian evacuation does not affect whether a high rise building is struck. It most likely only affects whether that decision is made sooner, or deferred to a later point in time.
Given that evacuating civilians is the highest priority and an enabler for a ground maneuver, I assessed that the time to do it is sooner rather than later.

My comment referred solely to the timing.

It didn't come across that way. It came across as though the intent of the strike was destroying civilian housing. I don't know that your claim is correct, because you state that high rise buildings "have to go" while simultaneously stating that Israel wouldn't strike them if civilians stubbornly refused to leave. The timing statement seems to be about giving civilians enough time to exit. What happens if they don't intend to exit? Ever? The high-rise is left standing? But I'll submit, I'm certainly not the expert on Israeli procedure here. I hope you're correct, and Israel would refrain from striking a building full of civilians that declined to evacuate.

The standard strike procedure is neither an excuse nor bullshit. It is the baseline for every strike. Then military strategy affects how to handle the target bank. It is an additive element.

One can come up with a standard strike procedure that's designed to provide a substantive method to comply with international and domestic law, while executing the command's intent. One can also come up with a standard strike procedure that's intended to provide minimal formal compliance while substantively allowing you to strike more or less whatever you want. If the intent of a military strike is to destroy civilian housing for the purpose of driving civilians out of an area, and the standard procedure is used as justification, then it is in fact bullshit. Please note the conditionals there.

The reasons are multiple. Explained in comments above. To summarize, speculation:
Reasons:

1. Deny military advantage.
2. Deny strategy.

Timing:

1. Ground operations are ongoing.
2. To assist in evacuation order.
3. To pressure for deal.

Numerous buildings were struck. I am aware of footage coming from at least one of them, via Hamas's media channels. I am not aware of combatants being inside at the moment of strike or beforehand.


Nor should there be. The standard strike procedure is to be assumed. If you have any question about how the IDF operates, feel free to ask. But I realize that sometimes I write walls of text so I assumed making a shorter, simpler post would suffice. I was unaware that the standard procedure was unknown to you.

It is reasonable to assume that, even on a relevant forum such as this, something as specific as the standard strike procedure for a given country is not widely known or well understood. If we were in the Russo-Ukrainian War Thread, would it be fair to assume you were familiar with and understood the standard strike procedures for both sides? Again my response was to your post, to what you wrote.

You start by making an assertion, and only proceed with questions you do not expect to be answered, but if you'd known the answer to them before the assertion, you wouldn't make it.
1. The reasons for the strike are multiple. See answers above.

2. The target bank is generated via intelligence. I don't know how much you know about military intelligence, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of sources of information and methods that could feed a target bank. Sometimes it's visual, sometimes it's a wiretap, sometimes it's special means. My service revolved around those special means.
Sometimes from a local maneuvering unit, sometimes artillery, and sometimes from an air force wing. The possibilities are endless.

When intelligence is sufficient to create a full picture, you have a target ready to execute in the bank. Depending on target, some intelligence will have to be periodically refreshed. If you're striking a soft moving target or a populated area, you may also need real time surveillance. Other targets may require that for BDA.

Then you move onto execution. Specialists from multiple disciplines weigh in on a per need basis, to determine the complete strike profile. What munitions are used, at what speed they're dropped, from what angle, and so on.

3. It is highly likely there was real time intelligence on the building at the time of the strike.

4. I did not backpedal. I elaborated. Why you ask questions with such aggressive tone is your issue, not mine. Are you taking offense in me taking the time to answer your questions?

5. It seems like I backed away because I never said such thing. But if you read carefully my previous comments you will understand.


You aggressively imply that the buildings were struck solely to force civilians out and for no other legitimate military advantage. Since I made no such claim for you to pick at, I can assume you are making that claim.
Can you prove that the strikes did not achieve military advantage and that they did not follow the standard strike procedure?

I find it hard to interpret what you wrote in that initial post I replied to as anything other than a claim that the purpose of the strike was to destroy civilian housing for the purpose of driving them out of the area.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It is reasonable to assume that, even on a relevant forum such as this, something as specific as the standard strike procedure for a given country is not widely known or well understood. If we were in the Russo-Ukrainian War Thread, would it be fair to assume you were familiar with and understood the standard strike procedures for both sides? Again my response was to your post, to what you wrote.

I wouldn't care to look up the specific strike procedure. That changes constantly with the ever changing methodology of intelligence gathering and personnel structure. I would attempt to deduce from combat documentation. For example on both sides I see mass usage of OWA drones with GPS/INS navigation and no long range datalink and sensory. So I deduce real time intelligence is not a critical element at least in depth strikes.
But I see high end drones informing FPV strikes, so on the frontline I deduce that it is important. However, the expectations from both sides are lower because they have the luxury of fighting in a relatively sterile environment (relative to Gaza), with the fighting occurring mostly on open ground, between uniformed combatants. From that I deduce that there is no need for a robust mechanism such as that used in the IDF. It would only be detrimental.

On Ukraine-Russia I comment on what I am confident that I know. What I don't know, I try not to formulate opinions on.