3 ms·

Take that logic further. Israel's enemies outnumber it by 10x or more and are more than ruthless enough to sacrifice as many as necessary*. There's no way ever

by yyyk 3y ago

Take that logic further. Israel's enemies outnumber it by 10x or more and are more than ruthless enough to sacrifice as many as necessary*. There's no way ever that Israel could avoid having the other side having more casualties. The same would apply to every minority. If your suggested law of war isn't 'majority or ruthless minority, get to do everything they want because they have more causalties', than you need an alternative. The alternative is the current laws of war, which allow for strikes with collateral damage (what Israel says it's doing), but not for terrorist attacks aimed at civilians. * Suicide bombers, Iranian mullahs sending kids with 'plastic keys to heaven' to dismantle minefields, or current refusal of Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. We could fill the page with examples really. ** Funny, I don't recall opposition to America's post 9/11 response based on counts. Almost as if the same rules don't apply.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments, oddly enough. The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them.
- yyyk 3y ago
  >I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. >The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities. This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234/u-s-led-coalition-hits-main-mosul-hospital-with-airstrike https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234... Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    > Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. Not true. I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      >Not true. Some of us have direct memories of the time and it was very much true... >I certainly wouldn’t refer.. They weren't even aware they weren't any patients. And it's not the only hospital attacked at Mosul. Most hospitals there were attacked: https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-ruins-battle-mosul https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-r... If you want the legal brief, see Article 8.2.e.iv. with an explicit carveout ("provided they are not military objectives"): https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=14 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=...
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Yes, I do have direct memories of the time. Perhaps you were in one of those pro-war bubbles that didn't see any opposition.
        yyyk 3y ago
        I actually remember quite a bit of opposition. Just not on these grounds.
    - redcitylights 3y ago
      > Not true. Make an argument, not just a contradiction. The fact is that public opinion on the Iraq war was far higher (47-60% in favor) initially than it is now (61% say we should have stayed out). wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#
      - lazyasciiart 3y ago
- edanm 3y ago
  > The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them. That is neither what the laws of war say, nor what the Israeli argument is (or at least, it's a misrepresentation). The laws of war say that if a medical facility (or any other civilian infrastructure) is used by militants as part of the war effort, then it loses its protected status. Israel's argument, whether you agree or not, is that this occurred, thereby making those targets legal.
woodruffw 3y ago
I don’t think the majority of people killed so far in this conflict have been enemies of Israel per se, in the same way that most (nearly all?) of the people who died on October 7 were not enemies of Palestine. Even in the most hardened, cynical, irredentist view this wouldn’t be true. “Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It’s a dirty, unavoidable reality. But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. I say that as a Jew, with family in Israel, who I worry about.
- edanm 3y ago
  > “Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It's not a just a euphemism, because there really is a difference. Justified or not, Dresden wasn't collateral damage - it was directly targeting and killing innocent civilians. Collateral damage really is something different. > But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. (For the record, I'm Israeli) This is a hard question to answer. No one actually knows, because given fog of war and given the incentives of both sides, it's hard to get real numbers for what's going on. Not to mention that what even counts as "necessary"? Obviously zero civilian deaths is the only legitimate goal, but just as obviously this is impossible to achieve in practice. (I'd also add that zero deaths of militants is the goal, if possible - anyone that can be stopped by arresting them or causing them to surrender should be dealt with that way - though obviously this is even harder to achieve.) Given all that, I think a few points I'll say, again speaking as an Israeli citizen with my own particular biases: 1. While I highly mistrust our current government (like many Israelis), I certainly don't think most of our government would condone killing civilians completely unnecessarily. At least not the ones in charge, mostly. 2. More importantly, I trust the IDF a lot (and this is probably a big difference between me and most non-Israelis). While I'm sure that not literally every civilian death is legitimate, I do trust that the IDF is only attacking valid targets given reasonable intelligence, and that it's not knowingly targeting civilians for the most part. 3. Most importantly - taking the outside view - the IDF estimates that it's killing roughly 2 civilians for 1 militant killed. If you believe that number - it's roughly in line with similar wars fought by Western countries. Note: While I talk about civilian deaths here as a "statistic", every death is a horrible tragedy. In a good world, no one would ever have to die of violence, and good people should mourn the deaths of any person on any side of this horrible situation.
pxc 3y ago
There was lots of criticism of disprortionality in the US' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US also made a point not to conduct civilian death counts and they were little reported. But what numbers did exist were absolutely important for those opposed to the war. Just do a web search restricted from 2001 to 2007 for discussions of the civilian death toll.
anonair 3y ago
> Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. That is absurd. Israel bombs “facilities used by Hamas”, civilians going in Hamas tunnels will be a direct target for IDF.
- yyyk 3y ago
  It should not be difficult to declare a tunnel a shelter with the UN. Also, any one who could dig so extensively could dig shelters. Hamas officials have a more parsimonious explanation: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/civilians-are-israel-un-s-responsibility-tunnels-built-to-protect-fighters-hamas-official-top-updates/ar-AA1j7BIg https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/civilians-are-israel-un...

by yyyk 3y ago

lazyasciiart 3y ago

I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments, oddly enough. The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them.

yyyk 3y ago
>I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. >The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities. This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234/u-s-led-coalition-hits-main-mosul-hospital-with-airstrike https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234... Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  > Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. Not true. I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    >Not true. Some of us have direct memories of the time and it was very much true... >I certainly wouldn’t refer.. They weren't even aware they weren't any patients. And it's not the only hospital attacked at Mosul. Most hospitals there were attacked: https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-ruins-battle-mosul https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-r... If you want the legal brief, see Article 8.2.e.iv. with an explicit carveout ("provided they are not military objectives"): https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=14 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=...
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      Yes, I do have direct memories of the time. Perhaps you were in one of those pro-war bubbles that didn't see any opposition.
      - yyyk 3y ago
        I actually remember quite a bit of opposition. Just not on these grounds.
  - redcitylights 3y ago
    > Not true. Make an argument, not just a contradiction. The fact is that public opinion on the Iraq war was far higher (47-60% in favor) initially than it is now (61% say we should have stayed out). wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
edanm 3y ago
> The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them. That is neither what the laws of war say, nor what the Israeli argument is (or at least, it's a misrepresentation). The laws of war say that if a medical facility (or any other civilian infrastructure) is used by militants as part of the war effort, then it loses its protected status. Israel's argument, whether you agree or not, is that this occurred, thereby making those targets legal.

woodruffw 3y ago

I don’t think the majority of people killed so far in this conflict have been enemies of Israel per se, in the same way that most (nearly all?) of the people who died on October 7 were not enemies of Palestine. Even in the most hardened, cynical, irredentist view this wouldn’t be true. “Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It’s a dirty, unavoidable reality. But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. I say that as a Jew, with family in Israel, who I worry about.

edanm 3y ago
> “Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It's not a just a euphemism, because there really is a difference. Justified or not, Dresden wasn't collateral damage - it was directly targeting and killing innocent civilians. Collateral damage really is something different. > But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. (For the record, I'm Israeli) This is a hard question to answer. No one actually knows, because given fog of war and given the incentives of both sides, it's hard to get real numbers for what's going on. Not to mention that what even counts as "necessary"? Obviously zero civilian deaths is the only legitimate goal, but just as obviously this is impossible to achieve in practice. (I'd also add that zero deaths of militants is the goal, if possible - anyone that can be stopped by arresting them or causing them to surrender should be dealt with that way - though obviously this is even harder to achieve.) Given all that, I think a few points I'll say, again speaking as an Israeli citizen with my own particular biases: 1. While I highly mistrust our current government (like many Israelis), I certainly don't think most of our government would condone killing civilians completely unnecessarily. At least not the ones in charge, mostly. 2. More importantly, I trust the IDF a lot (and this is probably a big difference between me and most non-Israelis). While I'm sure that not literally every civilian death is legitimate, I do trust that the IDF is only attacking valid targets given reasonable intelligence, and that it's not knowingly targeting civilians for the most part. 3. Most importantly - taking the outside view - the IDF estimates that it's killing roughly 2 civilians for 1 militant killed. If you believe that number - it's roughly in line with similar wars fought by Western countries. Note: While I talk about civilian deaths here as a "statistic", every death is a horrible tragedy. In a good world, no one would ever have to die of violence, and good people should mourn the deaths of any person on any side of this horrible situation.

pxc 3y ago

There was lots of criticism of disprortionality in the US' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US also made a point not to conduct civilian death counts and they were little reported. But what numbers did exist were absolutely important for those opposed to the war. Just do a web search restricted from 2001 to 2007 for discussions of the civilian death toll.

anonair 3y ago

> Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. That is absurd. Israel bombs “facilities used by Hamas”, civilians going in Hamas tunnels will be a direct target for IDF.

yyyk 3y ago
It should not be difficult to declare a tunnel a shelter with the UN. Also, any one who could dig so extensively could dig shelters. Hamas officials have a more parsimonious explanation: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/civilians-are-israel-un-s-responsibility-tunnels-built-to-protect-fighters-hamas-official-top-updates/ar-AA1j7BIg https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/civilians-are-israel-un...