5 ms·

The issue is how culpable civilians are in Hamas' atrocities. The Israeli government is currently at ~30 killed Palestinians for each 1 killed Israeli. Presum

by ethbr1 3y ago

The issue is how culpable civilians are in Hamas' atrocities. The Israeli government is currently at ~30 killed Palestinians for each 1 killed Israeli. Presumably, whatever anyone's opinion, there's some ratio that is unjust. Or is killing every Palestinian in Gaza just? Last I checked, Exodus' Covenant Code [0] was also pretty clear on this, and it didn't include any multiple. >> Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death. [0] https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/21.html https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/21.html

hnbad 3y ago
FWIW most Western militaries have specific ratios that are deemed acceptable for neutralizing a target (i.e. killing a baddie). These ratios are usually ranked based on the target's importance with a regular soldier being very low and a military leader being ranked very high. Often collateral damage from strikes against high value targets is more acceptable because the high value target is accompanied by lower value targets adding to the ratio. I'm not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. I've recently heard an Israeli government spokesperson say that the IDF has killed 13,000 Hamas including "civilian combatants". My guess would be that the IDF uses a very loose definition of whom they define as a combatant (note that the US for example has never used the term "civilian combatant" as that mixes the two groups: if they're a combatant they're not civilian and vice versa). Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it's worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any "Western" military even the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the rhetoric of Israeli government spokespersons, officials, politicians and other talking heads, I think it's more likely that the IDF effectively has no limits on how many Palestinian civilian casualties are acceptable per target. Former IDF soldiers have mentioned eliminationist rhetoric like "the terrorists who did Oct 7 are the kids we spared" or "anyone who hasn't left after the evacuation order should be assumed to be Hamas". This doesn't inspire confidence.
- bitcurious 3y ago
  >I’m not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach. Here is an article that talks about an aspect of this: http://law-disrupted.fm/idf-lawyer-advises-war-gaza-military-operations/ http://law-disrupted.fm/idf-lawyer-advises-war-gaza-military... >> They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack. > Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it’s worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any “Western” military The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul. The US had a 2.5:1 civilian combatant casualty ratio. Source: https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769# https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769#
  - hnbad 3y ago
    > The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul. My point wasn't that the US is better. My point was that there were widespread protests opposing the US's "collateral damage" in their wars after 9/11 and Israel is doing worse. The number you're citing is also the effective ratio based on the reported deaths, not an official or leaked guideline and this wasn't "the US" but "the US-led Iraqi Security Forces" (not a Western military, even if it is in practice US-led). The tweet you cite also references a Pacific battle between the US and Japan in WW2 (when the US infamously dehumanized the Japanese to an uncomfortable degree - surely the nuclear bombs trump that battle in terms of civilian casualties) and a battle that was part of the "Korean War" which in retrospect has become infamous for its war crimes, mostly committed by the US. These are battles of infamy. You don't get a medal for being better than that, those are the table stakes if you want to shout about being the "most humane military". Also, the reason I called 30,000+ the "lower bound" is because the process used by the "Hamas-run health ministry" is extremely conservative (it's not just a tally - the "fake deaths at hospital parking lot" story everyone ran with was a translation error into English that conflated "injured" and "deceased") and seems to have broken down earlier this year along with the remaining infrastructure in Gaza. > The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach. That's a no then unless you think other militaries don't have decision making processes. I'm not going to engage with you further as we seem to have either fundamentally opposed value systems or fundamentally opposed perceptions of reality.
emmelaich 3y ago
This talk of a ratio is mostly irrelevant. Palestinians are not being killed as a matter of retribution. They are being killed as enemies or collateral in the pursuit of enemies. If Israel could neutralise Hamas and retrieve the hostages with zero casualties, they would do it. That's obviously impossible.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  Israel could nuke Gaza and kill most of Hamas. Presumably we all agree that's unacceptable. So somewhere between "zero collateral civilian casualties" and "all collateral civilizian casualties" is warranted. Which leads to a debate about where the line should be.
  - Sabinus 3y ago
    With the ratio of the dead being about 4 civilians to every 1 Hamas fighter it checks out with other major wars. Considering Hamas is a gurella force that's actually quite good.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Gen Westmoreland might provide some insight on the consequences of making enemy KIA the reward function, and the incentives that back-propogates to the classifier. And to the IDF's credit, as much as I have issue with their absent strategic goals and tactical choices, they are fighting a guerrilla insurgence in one of the most density populated areas in the world. So, it could have been worse? But it still isn't great.
- bakuninsbart 3y ago
  The ratio of civilian to military deaths of the October 7th attack is very similar to Israel's in Gaza, around two thirds. Israel has been caught multiple times willfully killing civilians in this conflict, and there are hundreds of statements by politicians, officers and soldiers calling for atrocities or even genocide. Israel is not a moral actor, and far more comparable to Hamas than any real democracy.

by ethbr1 3y ago

hnbad 3y ago

FWIW most Western militaries have specific ratios that are deemed acceptable for neutralizing a target (i.e. killing a baddie). These ratios are usually ranked based on the target's importance with a regular soldier being very low and a military leader being ranked very high. Often collateral damage from strikes against high value targets is more acceptable because the high value target is accompanied by lower value targets adding to the ratio. I'm not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. I've recently heard an Israeli government spokesperson say that the IDF has killed 13,000 Hamas including "civilian combatants". My guess would be that the IDF uses a very loose definition of whom they define as a combatant (note that the US for example has never used the term "civilian combatant" as that mixes the two groups: if they're a combatant they're not civilian and vice versa). Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it's worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any "Western" military even the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the rhetoric of Israeli government spokespersons, officials, politicians and other talking heads, I think it's more likely that the IDF effectively has no limits on how many Palestinian civilian casualties are acceptable per target. Former IDF soldiers have mentioned eliminationist rhetoric like "the terrorists who did Oct 7 are the kids we spared" or "anyone who hasn't left after the evacuation order should be assumed to be Hamas". This doesn't inspire confidence.

bitcurious 3y ago
>I’m not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach. Here is an article that talks about an aspect of this: http://law-disrupted.fm/idf-lawyer-advises-war-gaza-military-operations/ http://law-disrupted.fm/idf-lawyer-advises-war-gaza-military... >> They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack. > Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it’s worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any “Western” military The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul. The US had a 2.5:1 civilian combatant casualty ratio. Source: https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769# https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612914117349769#
- hnbad 3y ago
  > The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul. My point wasn't that the US is better. My point was that there were widespread protests opposing the US's "collateral damage" in their wars after 9/11 and Israel is doing worse. The number you're citing is also the effective ratio based on the reported deaths, not an official or leaked guideline and this wasn't "the US" but "the US-led Iraqi Security Forces" (not a Western military, even if it is in practice US-led). The tweet you cite also references a Pacific battle between the US and Japan in WW2 (when the US infamously dehumanized the Japanese to an uncomfortable degree - surely the nuclear bombs trump that battle in terms of civilian casualties) and a battle that was part of the "Korean War" which in retrospect has become infamous for its war crimes, mostly committed by the US. These are battles of infamy. You don't get a medal for being better than that, those are the table stakes if you want to shout about being the "most humane military". Also, the reason I called 30,000+ the "lower bound" is because the process used by the "Hamas-run health ministry" is extremely conservative (it's not just a tally - the "fake deaths at hospital parking lot" story everyone ran with was a translation error into English that conflated "injured" and "deceased") and seems to have broken down earlier this year along with the remaining infrastructure in Gaza. > The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach. That's a no then unless you think other militaries don't have decision making processes. I'm not going to engage with you further as we seem to have either fundamentally opposed value systems or fundamentally opposed perceptions of reality.

emmelaich 3y ago

This talk of a ratio is mostly irrelevant. Palestinians are not being killed as a matter of retribution. They are being killed as enemies or collateral in the pursuit of enemies. If Israel could neutralise Hamas and retrieve the hostages with zero casualties, they would do it. That's obviously impossible.

ethbr1 3y ago
Israel could nuke Gaza and kill most of Hamas. Presumably we all agree that's unacceptable. So somewhere between "zero collateral civilian casualties" and "all collateral civilizian casualties" is warranted. Which leads to a debate about where the line should be.
- Sabinus 3y ago
  With the ratio of the dead being about 4 civilians to every 1 Hamas fighter it checks out with other major wars. Considering Hamas is a gurella force that's actually quite good.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Gen Westmoreland might provide some insight on the consequences of making enemy KIA the reward function, and the incentives that back-propogates to the classifier. And to the IDF's credit, as much as I have issue with their absent strategic goals and tactical choices, they are fighting a guerrilla insurgence in one of the most density populated areas in the world. So, it could have been worse? But it still isn't great.
bakuninsbart 3y ago
The ratio of civilian to military deaths of the October 7th attack is very similar to Israel's in Gaza, around two thirds. Israel has been caught multiple times willfully killing civilians in this conflict, and there are hundreds of statements by politicians, officers and soldiers calling for atrocities or even genocide. Israel is not a moral actor, and far more comparable to Hamas than any real democracy.