4 ms·

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

by hnbad 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    If you want to end a comment with "I'm not going to engage with you further," better to not make that post. Getting the last say in an argument by fiat isn't healthy. Don't want others opinions? Don't offer your own.
    - hnbad 2y ago
      I don't have to engage with every single person on HN to any extent just because I post on HN. I can also decide to engage with a post without having to commit to engaging with everything else that posters wants to add. I think it provides useful context if I clarify in advance WHY a follow-up might not receive a reply from me. In fact, most discussions on HN aren't back-and-forths between two people and arguably benefit from that.
nivertech 2y ago
Strictly speaking, they are all "civilians", since Gaza is not a state (it is just the coastline of the western Negev - a geographic region of Israel) and does not have regular armed forces. Does this mean that these "civilians" have carte blanche to commit any unthinkable atrocity and remain unpunished? Most of them are illegal combatants and none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them. Also, there is documented evidence that even their "civilian civilians" participated in atrocities, not to mention that a significant portion of them elected and supported terrorist "government". I'm guessing that the so-called "civilian combatants" in these reports are people who are on the payroll of a terrorist organization, such as police officers, security guards, tunnel builders, etc. - anyone who helps/supports the terrorist "government", but may not be 100% militants by themselves. I.e. like the difference between a regular support soldier and a special forces.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Good to remember the real world consequences for the people on the ground when we declare combatants as non-state paramilitaries rather than recognising them with fuller status. Indeed the Geneva Convention doesn't apply which means lots of things are on the table that otherwise wouldn't be. This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
  - nivertech 2y ago
    > This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland. I'm guessing these Catholics from Northern Ireland were British citizens, right? This is something between separatism and civil war (although much closer to the former than the latter). A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons, similarly to what Egypt did when they controlled Gaza. A significant portion of Gaza's population today is descended from Egypt, they even speak with the Egyptian accent. And majority of the advanced weapons were smuggled via Egypt.
    - 2y ago
ethbr1 2y ago
The Guardian published a piece on the automated ISR systems Israel uses, with cited ratios. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai... 15:1 for low-ranking Hamas militants Elsewhere reported to be 100:1 for high-ranking Hamas targets >> Several of the sources described how, for certain categories of targets, the IDF applied pre-authorised allowances for the estimated number of civilians who could be killed before a strike was authorised. >> Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.

by hnbad 2y ago

bitcurious 2y 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 2y 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.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  If you want to end a comment with "I'm not going to engage with you further," better to not make that post. Getting the last say in an argument by fiat isn't healthy. Don't want others opinions? Don't offer your own.
  - hnbad 2y ago
    I don't have to engage with every single person on HN to any extent just because I post on HN. I can also decide to engage with a post without having to commit to engaging with everything else that posters wants to add. I think it provides useful context if I clarify in advance WHY a follow-up might not receive a reply from me. In fact, most discussions on HN aren't back-and-forths between two people and arguably benefit from that.

nivertech 2y ago

Strictly speaking, they are all "civilians", since Gaza is not a state (it is just the coastline of the western Negev - a geographic region of Israel) and does not have regular armed forces. Does this mean that these "civilians" have carte blanche to commit any unthinkable atrocity and remain unpunished? Most of them are illegal combatants and none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them. Also, there is documented evidence that even their "civilian civilians" participated in atrocities, not to mention that a significant portion of them elected and supported terrorist "government". I'm guessing that the so-called "civilian combatants" in these reports are people who are on the payroll of a terrorist organization, such as police officers, security guards, tunnel builders, etc. - anyone who helps/supports the terrorist "government", but may not be 100% militants by themselves. I.e. like the difference between a regular support soldier and a special forces.

AlecSchueler 2y ago
Good to remember the real world consequences for the people on the ground when we declare combatants as non-state paramilitaries rather than recognising them with fuller status. Indeed the Geneva Convention doesn't apply which means lots of things are on the table that otherwise wouldn't be. This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
- nivertech 2y ago
  > This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland. I'm guessing these Catholics from Northern Ireland were British citizens, right? This is something between separatism and civil war (although much closer to the former than the latter). A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons, similarly to what Egypt did when they controlled Gaza. A significant portion of Gaza's population today is descended from Egypt, they even speak with the Egyptian accent. And majority of the advanced weapons were smuggled via Egypt.
  - 2y ago

ethbr1 2y ago

The Guardian published a piece on the automated ISR systems Israel uses, with cited ratios. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai-database-hamas-airstrikes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai... 15:1 for low-ranking Hamas militants Elsewhere reported to be 100:1 for high-ranking Hamas targets >> Several of the sources described how, for certain categories of targets, the IDF applied pre-authorised allowances for the estimated number of civilians who could be killed before a strike was authorised. >> Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.