Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality

[rylah]

Context:

the thread is following this:

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.

Nice duck.

Isn't that your default response
when requested to set a consistent definition?

Can't do that without fitting your Jihadi degenerates.

Your post was mindless clutter.

It was your claim that Palis don't fit the definition of 'terrorists', and only act in 'self defense',
but each time asked to set a definition you evade the opportunity to prove that claim.

Then what should I conclude about those claims if you can't back them up?

Each person has his own idea of self defense. It is not up to me to say.

But we can discuss our idea of self defense and terrorism.

Ok, Tinmore,
after years of nowhere leading arguments I propose a serious open discussion,
that I think we both would be interested in, at least out of healthy curiosity.

I propose - the subject of war.

What do I mean? All the tactics of this conflict are open for discussion.
Meaning that I can discuss Hamas tactics detached from political affiliation,
as tactics in themselves, and you can bring all the arguments against Israeli tactics.

Everything is open, but we discuss it around the subject of: 'self-defense' vs 'terror'.

At what point do they correlate, the intents, outcomes...
Maybe it deserves a thread of its own.

Are you in?

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

But I'd rather discuss more specifically the various tactics used in this conflict,
and poster's own ideas about 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.

I'll start with self defense, because it's clearer, and try to define it as closest to absolute as I can, to try and establish a clear consistent definition, at least how I think about it for now.

Self-defense in its intent is to stop or prevent an attack.
In it absolute way it is to cease confrontation, rather than prolong or trigger escalation.
In its most clear way it is a limited action, in the way it's target is engaged directly in an attack at a limited target. Meaning - one person initiating the attack the other responds in self-defense -

to CEASE CONFRONTATION.

Terror on its own is basically the result of any attack, either in self defense or as an initiated offensive.Terrorism is a different thing, a contrast to self-defense, in that its intent is solely to instill terror, and instead of cease confrontation, solely to trigger more - intent of escalation.

Now on this axis,
I think self-defense and terror(ism) somewhere fuse, in a way that explained above:

terror - result of any attack.

And as explained above, self-defense in its most absolute way I managed to frame it,
is to cease confrontation.

In that way they correlate, between the scales of cease vs escalation.
That for now I think is the most consistent category I can define 'self-defense' vs 'terror(ism)'.

And along that correlation terror can be a function of self-defense, within a clear moral framework.

However, let's say we could measure any of those kinds of attacks by percentage of cease and escalation,I think it would be purely logically fair to say that when an intent of the action clearly crosses into plus 50%into escalation, it begins to lose moral basis. However this is too simplistic, we can't measure that methodically.

Some numbers can be brought up, but they are only part of the picture,
which includes the cultural attitudes and specifics of the region.

And this is exactly OUR IDEA comes in.
We are the only ones talking here anyway.
We can't talk to any of those videos or articles.

This is the grey area (?) where I think we, as individuals can express our personal attitudes.
Then, only then when we have clarified our own idea of self-defense vs terror, can we look at laws, ask and argue about their morality and/or lack of and flaws.

I think, if one cannot clarify a consistent set of values and measures along these, or other clear lines, only judges each hostility according to unexpressed biases.

(On a side note)
I clearly emphasized the detachment from political preferences, and Tinmore mentioned religion.

But I think this is valid as much as the opening question of the thread,
in fact, in Israel the term 'terrorism' is not used as it is used in the West.
More specifically 'terror' was initially used to define attacks from a united Arab front in its various tactics.

Personal attackers are defined as 'saboteurs', the word terrorist for individuals is used to define specific actions, that have clear criminal intent and/or ideology of clear escalation motive, that in no way occur against individuals engaged in any direct or immediate attack against the individual engaging the attack.

It's a psychological principle in dealing with this sort of reality, not to dramatize their activity,
or feed into narcissistic tendencies or agencies of radicalization.

 

[rylah]

Now to add, I'll try to sum up all the various tactics in this conflict,
at least those that usually come up in arguments:

Regular military - on the ground, air, sea.
Special military - targeted assassination, infiltration

Usual points of contention - house demolition, warning bombs, destruction of civilian area, riot retaliation, in-proportionality of casualties, check-points, patrols, bullet for a stone, blockade death due to wrong false identification.

Usual points of contention- indiscriminate rocket attacks, suicide attacks in civilian population, human-shield, economic incentive for individuals to engage in murder, setting of explosives aimed specifically at children, use of child soldiers, formal declaration of genocidal intent.

Both sides accuse each other of terrorism,
both claim to act in self-defense.

All we can, is define our lines, and discuss these tactics consistently along them.
Let's try to discuss the tactics on their own, detached from political preferences.

 

[rylah]

Someone just mentioned the killing in Munich Olympic events,
and I also remembered - plane hijacking, confrontation in a civilian hostage situation.

How can these be defined?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Now to add, I'll try to sum up all the various tactics in this conflict,
at least those that usually come up in arguments:

Regular military - on the ground, air, sea.
Special military - targeted assassination, infiltration

Usual points of contention - house demolition, warning bombs, destruction of civilian area, riot retaliation, in-proportionality of casualties, check-points, patrols, bullet for a stone, blockade death due to wrong false identification.

Usual points of contention- indiscriminate rocket attacks, suicide attacks in civilian population, human-shield, economic incentive for individuals to engage in murder, setting of explosives aimed specifically at children, use of child soldiers, formal declaration of genocidal intent.

Both sides accuse each other of terrorism,
both claim to act in self-defense.

All we can, is define our lines, and discuss these tactics consistently along them.
Let's try to discuss the tactics on their own, detached from political preferences.

Both sides accuse each other of terrorism,
both claim to act in self-defense.

The first thing we have to do if determine who is the aggressor.

Israel has been the aggressor from day one. The Palestinians have always been on the defensive.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective."

Sounds fair to me,
do You think it aligns with how I framed it?

'Risk of civilian casualties' can fit the 'escalation/terror' scale

versus

military advantage to 'cease conflict/self-defense' scale.

Only in my opinion calculations of this sort are one limited in dimension, without viewing ideology and customs, and other natural aspects of the tendencies in confrontation.

 

[rylah]

Now to add, I'll try to sum up all the various tactics in this conflict,
at least those that usually come up in arguments:

Regular military - on the ground, air, sea.
Special military - targeted assassination, infiltration

Usual points of contention - house demolition, warning bombs, destruction of civilian area, riot retaliation, in-proportionality of casualties, check-points, patrols, bullet for a stone, blockade death due to wrong false identification.

Usual points of contention- indiscriminate rocket attacks, suicide attacks in civilian population, human-shield, economic incentive for individuals to engage in murder, setting of explosives aimed specifically at children, use of child soldiers, formal declaration of genocidal intent.

Both sides accuse each other of terrorism,
both claim to act in self-defense.

All we can, is define our lines, and discuss these tactics consistently along them.
Let's try to discuss the tactics on their own, detached from political preferences.

Both sides accuse each other of terrorism,
both claim to act in self-defense.

The first thing we have to do if determine who is the aggressor.

Israel has been the aggressor from day one. The Palestinians have always been on the defensive.

That is not discussion of a tactic,
but a political narrative, preferance.

Didn't we agree to discuss tactics, and consistent definitions?

One sided claims is not the kind of conversation I'm expecting for this thread.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

 

[rylah]

It's just a fact that in both sides' narrative the other is the aggressor.

So that's just a given, let's move on to what's 'our idea' about self-defense vs terror(ism).

Then make an argument for or against any of those tactics mentioned above,

or others I didn't list.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

 

[harmonica]

1.which war are you referring to? all of them?
2. terror vs terrorist ??? terror in what??!
3. the Geneva Convention was really not thinking in terms of terrorists/etc = it's like a lot of rules/GUIDEbooks/the Constitution/etc = they can't put everything in there
4/ the Arabs did vow/have been vowing to eradicate/destroy Israel for a long time

......per Israeli policy, they do not directly target innocent civilians ..but the Arabs do
.
Israelis vs terrorists--
...it's not a '''clean'' war:
--the terrorists don't wear uniforms and they hide with the civilians
...if there are babies around the terrorists--it's undeniably the terrorists fault if innocents get killed

terrorism:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: "The Militants"

Basic moral question -

in case there's a building with militants about whom there's information of readiness to attack your side,and before/after the attack, they put babies at the windows. Who's responsible for their death if they get killed?

(REASON)

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the taking of hostages → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) → and → Customary and International Humanitarian Law Rule 97: Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

(COMMENT)

Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective.

Most Respectfully,
R

Multiple human rights and other organization have found no evidense that the Palestinians use human shields.

But what do you think about this tactic?
Does it serve escalation or ceasing confrontation?

That is what we need to discuss but we have to put things in context first.

What does context or narrative matter,
if you haven't yet to establish a consistent definition?

Good question. One person carries a bomb into a market, another drops a bomb from an airplane.

Which one is the terrorist?

According to my definition,
the one who engages in the attack with intent opposite to deescalation.

The 'plus 50% analogy'.

If a suicide bomber capable of deescalating it should be explained in what way,
same with dropping a bomb, what is the target, intent and outcome.

I don't see how a suicide bomber ever deescalated anything,
and it's not in the framework of a response to a direct confrontation with the target,
to be measured 'plus 50%' 'self-defense', certainly not to protect one's own population.

No suicide bomber ceased or deescalated a confrontation,
bombs did, that's a fact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

 

[rylah]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

And if the response to aggression is capable to overwhelm the aggressor to cease confrontation, and in the case of suicide bomber, what aggression is being retaliated from the target, to fit your description?

What is the aggression in sitting in a coffee shop?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Only the aggressor can deescalate. Aggression continues with or without defense.

And if the response to aggression is capable to overwhelm the aggressor to cease confrontation, and in the case of suicide bomber, what aggression is being retaliated from the target, to fit your description?

What is the aggression in sitting in a coffee shop?

Whose land does the coffee shop sit on?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: The Strategies change with the kind and type of "opposing force (OPFOR)." This ground truth (do the OPFOR have the support of the indigenous population) is also extremely important in the countermeasures employed against the asymmetric vs classic OPFOR (or both). By that I mean some of the radical activities such as the "Usual points of contention" mentioned in Posting #2.

"Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective."

Only in my opinion calculations of this sort are one limited in dimension, without viewing ideology and customs, and other natural aspects of the tendencies in confrontation.

(COMMENT)

Like the face of the conflict, in the territory formerly under the Mandate and now under the claim of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), an honest assessment of the advantages the OPFOR hold will guide the resources and tactics the Article 68 Occupation Forces will employ against the (what appears to be a multifaceted) Asymmetric OPFOR.

At some point, the political or military activities designed to prevent or thwart terrorism will come into play.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ rylah, et al,

BLUF: The Strategies change with the kind and type of "opposing force (OPFOR)." This ground truth (do the OPFOR have the support of the indigenous population) is also extremely important in the countermeasures employed against the asymmetric vs classic OPFOR (or both). By that I mean some of the radical activities such as the "Usual points of contention" mentioned in Posting #2.

"Civilian Casualties evaluations are all about the expected military advantage compared to the risk of civilian casualties. This can be an important decision factor on how set the Rules of Engagement (ROE) relative to the risk of civilian deaths → versus → the necessity of reaching the objective."

Only in my opinion calculations of this sort are one limited in dimension, without viewing ideology and customs, and other natural aspects of the tendencies in confrontation.

(COMMENT)

Like the face of the conflict, in the territory formerly under the Mandate and now under the claim of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), an honest assessment of the advantages the OPFOR hold will guide the resources and tactics the Article 68 Occupation Forces will employ against the (what appears to be a multifaceted) Asymmetric OPFOR.

At some point, the political or military activities designed to prevent or thwart terrorism will come into play.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are getting ahead of the conversation on assumptions.