The war between Israel and Hamas in built-up areas, particularly in Gaza, has resulted in significant civilian casualties and destruction. However, when comparing it to other urban battles in recent history, such as the assaults on Fallujah, Sadr City, and Mosul, the level of destruction in Gaza is not unusually high. The assault on Fallujah in 2004, for example, killed as many as 600 civilians, while the current war in Gaza has resulted in the deaths of around 0.3% of the population.
Nevertheless, there are key differences that make the situation in Gaza unique. One major difference is the status of civilians. In previous battles, civilians were allowed to flee the conflict zones, but in Gaza, many are unable to leave due to various reasons, including being refugees from other places and fearing they won’t be allowed to return. Additionally, Gaza’s geography limits the ability of civilians to escape, and Israel has rejected calls for humanitarian pauses.
Furthermore, Gaza faces a growing humanitarian crisis, with limited healthcare capacity and a lack of aid for civilians. In contrast, during the battle for Mosul, the World Health Organisation was able to establish medical facilities close to the front lines. Israel has some humanitarian affairs officers embedded in its fighting units, but their capacity is insufficient to address the needs of the civilian population.
Another difference is the extent to which civilian and military infrastructure is intermingled in Gaza. Hamas has been fully integrated into Gaza’s social fabric for many years and has built its defenses around and under civilian infrastructure. In contrast, IS had held Mosul for a shorter period before the battle to remove them began.
Tactics also differ between the conflicts. While Israel claims to prioritize civilian protection, its bombardment of Gaza has been intense, with a high rate of ordnance dropped. The IDF’s view of the war in Gaza as existential and its portrayal of Hamas as an uncompromising enemy contribute to these tactics. In contrast, Iraqi forces in Mosul prioritized civilian protection and had a stronger connection with the population they were liberating.
The role of medical facilities is also contentious in this conflict. While hospitals in previous wars were marked as non-strike areas, Israel has ordered the evacuation of hospitals in Gaza, claiming they are used as Hamas command posts. However, under the laws of war, hospitals can only be attacked after due warning and a reasonable time limit.
Finally, the nature of battlefield intelligence differs between the conflicts. At the start of the war, the IDF had significant intelligence on Hamas’s infrastructure, but as the conflict progresses, they must rely on dynamic targeting to find and strike new targets.
In conclusion, while the war in Gaza may not be unusually destructive by historical standards, there are significant differences that make the situation unique. The status of civilians, the intermingling of civilian and military infrastructure, tactics employed, and battlefield intelligence all contribute to the complexities and challenges of the conflict.
The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has resulted in significant civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure. The level of destruction is comparable to previous urban battles, such as the assaults on Fallujah, Sadr City, and Mosul. However, there are key differences in the current conflict.
One major difference is the status of civilians. In other conflicts, efforts were made to allow civilians to flee or negotiate humanitarian pauses. In Gaza, many civilians are unable to leave due to the geography and lack of options. Additionally, Gaza’s healthcare system is ill-equipped to handle the growing humanitarian crisis, unlike in Mosul where trauma stabilization points were established near the front lines.
Another difference is the intermingling of civilian and military infrastructure in Gaza. Hamas has been integrated into Gaza’s social fabric for decades and has built its defenses around civilian areas. This poses challenges for Israeli forces attempting to target Hamas without causing civilian casualties.
Tactics also differ in this conflict. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has been intense, exceeding previous counter-terrorism campaigns. Israeli officials view Hamas as an existential threat, making compromise unlikely. Unlike Iraqi forces in Mosul, the IDF lacks the same affinity for Palestinian civilians.
The role of medical facilities is also a point of contention. In previous conflicts, Palestinian hospitals were marked as non-strike areas, but in this war, Israel has ordered the evacuation of hospitals it claims are used as Hamas command posts.
Lastly, the nature of battlefield intelligence has changed throughout the conflict. While the IDF initially had intelligence on Hamas infrastructure, they must now engage in dynamic targeting to find and strike new targets.
Overall, while the war in Gaza is similar in its destruction to previous urban battles, there are unique challenges and differences that make it a complex and devastating conflict.
Disclaimer: Only the headline and content of this report may have been reworked by Newsearay, staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. The Article was originally published on Source link
