3 ms·

At least a dozen counts of Article 8 2.b. Only allowing 20 seconds to verify that you are male (nothing else). Intentional night bombings to increase the chanc

At least a dozen counts of Article 8 2.b. Only allowing 20 seconds to verify that you are male (nothing else). Intentional night bombings to increase the chance of hitting your target, but ignoring that you're hitting a residential, killing a target's family and neighbours by association. Programming in a allowable "10% error rate", which looks more like a success rate when you factor in collateral. These aren't acceptable in war. If this is news, you need to read the article. There are, of course, many other concerns with Israeli conduct in and around Gaza. I agree that war is a dirty process, but trying to differentiate this from genocide is increasingly tough.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
There are 26 different acts under Article 8 2.b., which specifically?
- oliwarner 3y ago
  Isn't one enough? Literally, point i, > Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; It's clear the the wholesale bombing of communities is occurring. Whole families are being extinguished because they've been seen with a military target. The first five all seem to apply. It's hard to say exactly where the IDF the blame lies but a decision is being made at some level to wilfully ignore the suffering brought to millions of Gaza's inhabitants. It seems an AI has been left to make some of those decisions. It's not good enough. Edit: I'm not trying to be facetious or sardonic. I understand urban warfare makes adhering to international law incredibly hard for Israel, but stories like this show that they are not taking even the most reasonable steps to avoid civilian deaths, indeed a lot of their choices seem to rely on civilian suffering to ensure the clearing of Gaza. We barely trust an AI to take an exit without crashing into a divider, AI hallucinations paired with a poor remit in Gaza mean three generations get wiped out overnight.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    The key word is intentionally, meaning civilians are the intended targets rather than combatants. How is phoning/texting occupants, roof knocking, leaflets, etc. not reasonable lengths to avoid civilian deaths? If you were the commander what would you do differently while still accomplishing the mission of eliminating Hamas?
    - oliwarner 3y ago
      > Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Intentionally attacking a civilian target (a family in their home) without warning. The what I'd do is a seventy year answer. It's immaterial to the occurrence of war crimes.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Which law of war does that violate? They were an enemy combatant, yes? The seventy year answers are political cop-outs and not actionable by any commander. These discussions never go anywhere because people are naive about war, the laws of war, urban combat, insurgencies, or their military strategy invokes time-travel. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.h... https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-not-war-crimes-spencer/index.html https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-n... > The destruction and suffering, as awful as they are, don’t automatically constitute war crimes – otherwise, nearly any military action in a populated area would violate the laws of armed conflict > When Hamas uses a hospital, school or mosque for military purpose, it can lose its protected status and become a legal military target. > Like all similar conflicts in modern times, a battle in Gaza will look like the entire city was purposely razed to the ground or indiscriminately carpet bombed – but it wasn’t. Israel possesses the military capacity to do so, and the fact that it doesn’t employ such means is further evidence that it is respecting the rules of war.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

There are 26 different acts under Article 8 2.b., which specifically?

oliwarner 3y ago
Isn't one enough? Literally, point i, > Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; It's clear the the wholesale bombing of communities is occurring. Whole families are being extinguished because they've been seen with a military target. The first five all seem to apply. It's hard to say exactly where the IDF the blame lies but a decision is being made at some level to wilfully ignore the suffering brought to millions of Gaza's inhabitants. It seems an AI has been left to make some of those decisions. It's not good enough. Edit: I'm not trying to be facetious or sardonic. I understand urban warfare makes adhering to international law incredibly hard for Israel, but stories like this show that they are not taking even the most reasonable steps to avoid civilian deaths, indeed a lot of their choices seem to rely on civilian suffering to ensure the clearing of Gaza. We barely trust an AI to take an exit without crashing into a divider, AI hallucinations paired with a poor remit in Gaza mean three generations get wiped out overnight.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  The key word is intentionally, meaning civilians are the intended targets rather than combatants. How is phoning/texting occupants, roof knocking, leaflets, etc. not reasonable lengths to avoid civilian deaths? If you were the commander what would you do differently while still accomplishing the mission of eliminating Hamas?
  - oliwarner 3y ago
    > Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Intentionally attacking a civilian target (a family in their home) without warning. The what I'd do is a seventy year answer. It's immaterial to the occurrence of war crimes.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      Which law of war does that violate? They were an enemy combatant, yes? The seventy year answers are political cop-outs and not actionable by any commander. These discussions never go anywhere because people are naive about war, the laws of war, urban combat, insurgencies, or their military strategy invokes time-travel. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/gaza-israel-war.h... https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-not-war-crimes-spencer/index.html https://lite.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-n... > The destruction and suffering, as awful as they are, don’t automatically constitute war crimes – otherwise, nearly any military action in a populated area would violate the laws of armed conflict > When Hamas uses a hospital, school or mosque for military purpose, it can lose its protected status and become a legal military target. > Like all similar conflicts in modern times, a battle in Gaza will look like the entire city was purposely razed to the ground or indiscriminately carpet bombed – but it wasn’t. Israel possesses the military capacity to do so, and the fact that it doesn’t employ such means is further evidence that it is respecting the rules of war.