4 ms·

> why would you justify it? Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS. > using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian o

> why would you justify it? Let's not start accusing each other. Drop the BS. > using human shields (directly by putting military infrastructure in civilian ones or indirectly by not distinguishing themselves) That doesn't mean they are using human shields (and it doesn't mean they are not): Asymetric forces need to blend into the environment - the mountains, the city, etc. In the city, that means blending into the civilian population - it doesn't require any intent to use them as shields (but they still could intend it - they even could intend to cause civilian deaths to drive world opinion). > The death of human shields is their responsibility, and their alone The asymetric force is at least partly to blame for the deaths of civilians, but that doesn't excuse the 'symmetric' force (is there a better term?) from all laws of war and basic human morality. They can still minimize civilian death and still follow rules of proportionality - Israel can't justify nuking the Gaza strip because Hamas is hiding among civilians.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
> That doesn't mean they are using human shields Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you > They can still minimize civilian death Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  > Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings? No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer. Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    > No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
    - flawn 3y ago
      No rate is acceptable. The debate is not about abiding to any modern war KPIs but rather the intent to minimize civilian casualties. Israel definitely does NOT do that by actively engaging with their current strategy of retaliation and that's already enough to say that, from a human perspective, Israel needs to stop right now and enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area.
      - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
        I'll rephrase. What rate do you expect in city fights against the enemy mixed with civilians and actively using them as human shields, assuming that the attacking side makes reasonable effort to minimize civilian casualties. > intent to minimize civilian casualties Intent is very hard to argue about. Especially when talking about proportionality which is not rigorously defined. Numbers are easier to argue about. It is reasonable to expect that civilian casualty rate will be higher in cases where there is no intent to minimize civilian casualties compared to cases where it is; comparing numbers with conflict in similar conditions where you believe there was such intent is a good starting point > enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area Getting rid of terrorist government who promised to repeat 7th of October looks like necessary condition for peace.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago

> That doesn't mean they are using human shields Being indistinguishable from civilians (blending in) is exactly using civilian as a shield -- the opponent can't identify you and can't kill everyone who looks like you > They can still minimize civilian death Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio

tsimionescu 3y ago
> Arguably Israel does it with fairly low civilian: combatant death ratio Fairly low compared to what? The USSR invasion of Afghanistan? Assad engaged in a civil war? WW2 carpet bombings? No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. And if you also take into account that the IDF basically defines adult male as combatant, so that a lot of the "combatants" killed were actually just adult male civilians, then the picture gets even grimmer. Not to mention, we keep talking about direct casualties, but Israel is going beyond this - they are not allowing some kinds of critical aid into Gaza at all (water treatment pills are forbidden, for one egregious example), and they are generally only allowing a trickle of aid of any kind in - in effect starving the population.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > No recent war has seen anywhere near the deplorable civilian:combatant death ratio that we see here. Can you give the numbers for comparison? What are acceptable rate in your opinion?
  - flawn 3y ago
    No rate is acceptable. The debate is not about abiding to any modern war KPIs but rather the intent to minimize civilian casualties. Israel definitely does NOT do that by actively engaging with their current strategy of retaliation and that's already enough to say that, from a human perspective, Israel needs to stop right now and enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area.
    - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
      I'll rephrase. What rate do you expect in city fights against the enemy mixed with civilians and actively using them as human shields, assuming that the attacking side makes reasonable effort to minimize civilian casualties. > intent to minimize civilian casualties Intent is very hard to argue about. Especially when talking about proportionality which is not rigorously defined. Numbers are easier to argue about. It is reasonable to expect that civilian casualty rate will be higher in cases where there is no intent to minimize civilian casualties compared to cases where it is; comparing numbers with conflict in similar conditions where you believe there was such intent is a good starting point > enable any sort of progression into a longer holding peace in that area Getting rid of terrorist government who promised to repeat 7th of October looks like necessary condition for peace.