8 ms·

During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths. The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas

During the Falklands War the discussion was around military deaths, not civilian deaths. The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity). It's a completely different situation. Edit: just to flesh out my position here a bit. Civilian deaths are unavoidable in war. But the attacker _must_ take measures to prevent that as much as possible. Israel have not. In fact they've done the opposite.

aen1 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  Those warnings are rarely given, and also warning someone that you're about to bomb their home and store and hospital and aid and aid workers, doesn't justify the crime of doing those things. If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties. That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians. As for "sympathizers": someone disagreeing with you doesn't justify exploding them, either.
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - runarberg 2y ago
      These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
      - candiodari 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > The only real violations of international law apply to an army purposefully going, unprovoked, into a civilian area and starting to shoot everyone. Hamas does that, as they've proven on many occasions (including their own civilians), Israel doesn't. Israel has been shown to do this on multiple occasions. Take, for example, them doing exactly this to their own surrendering hostages, which they mistook for surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians as they combed through the rubble of their bombings. Or maybe there was no mistake. Given Israel's assault on the free press in Gaza (ranging from shutting off power and communications to literally shooting and bombing press workers), we may never know the true extent of these cleansings, especially when it really is "just" surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians.
        runarberg 2y ago
        I’m also thinking about the Jenin hospital raid[1] where the Israeli army stormed a hospital wearing civilian clothing (i.e. hiding among civilians) and extra-judicially killed three wounded (and as a result inactive; i.e. unprovoked) operatives. I’m also thinking about the massacres during the great march of return[2], where Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately at unarmed protestors. In the protests, and the ensuing conflict, Israel killed 223 people, by far majority of whom were unarmed civilians. You can argue that mass demonstration is provocative, but the response of indiscriminately killing unarmed protestors is not a proportionate response. And finally, I’m also thinking about the flour massacre[3], where the Israeli army purposefully went, unprovoked, into a civilian area and started to shoot everyone. At least 118 civilians were killed and 760 were wounded when the Israeli army shot at people trying to gather food after having been deliberately starved by Israel the months before. The parent (who I’m trying not to engage with) is also just wrong when they claim no international law is broken by Israel. They currently have one ICJ case ruled against them, that of the illegal border (or apartheid) wall in the west bank, which the ICJ ruled illegal in 2004[4] and demanded they take down (which Israel hasn’t). The have several condemnations by a pletora of international humanitarian organizations. There are two ongoing ICJ cases against them, one for genocide, and their leaders stand recommended for indictments at the ICC. There are many more examples than the three above of Israel blatantly violating international humanitarian law. Which is why the UN general assembly overwhelmingly voted to press charges at the ICJ to find out what the consequences of these gross violations should be[5]. 1: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/israel-undercover-raid-jenin-west-bank-hamas-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/israel-undercover-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre 4: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 5: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      That may be so, but I doubt it, this was Hamas's most successful attack in history, and will never happen again, with or without Israel's genocide of unrelated Palestinians. The claim that Israel definitively saved >35,000 lives by killing as many, is simply implausible. And that's to say nothing of the denial of (and attacking of) supplies. Having said that, none if it justifies the crimes or racial discrimination I mentioned above. As I said: If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or ——>even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties.<—— That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
      - dlubarov 2y ago
        I think an argument can be made that validating human shield tactics may result in much greater loss of live in the long term. More groups will use such tactics, and groups which don't value human life will gain leverage over those that do. It's hard to predict long term geopolitical effects, but it seems like a pretty dangerous trend. If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
        ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite. What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, even if you claim you're saving more innocent civilian lives by doing so, even if you really want to "prioritize security". It's all still illegal, hence the court cases. Would Israel tolerate the IDF killing innocent Israeli civilians in as great a number as they have killed innocent Palestinian civilians, to achieve the same aims? Likely not, which would make the behavior discriminatory based on race, religion, and/or national origin, too. > it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency. This makes it sound like you recognize Palestine as a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If so, good on you :) If not, Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. I wish I could say "there's no 3rd option where Israel abuses Palestinians under their rule for decades while taking no responsibility for their well-being", but we've all seen the past decades.
  - monkeyfun 2y ago
    Note before reading that my following post is NOT a justification of the evil massacre that Hamas perpetrated. It is however a comparison meant to illuminate something about the concept you've noted. So, food for thought: a lower ratio of civilians to military and security personnel was killed on October 7th (according to Israeli published figures) than tends to be killed in even precision bombings. Note: I can only fairly say "tends to be killed" because it can be difficult to truly get accurate data on military bombing casualties -- but one can absolutely find many individual cases of dozens of civilians being considered valid collateral for 1-3 military targets. Source on deaths: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social... > 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces If we use sources like Times of Israel, which ignores police and other emergency personnel, claims become https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-over-80-up-to-date-breakdown-of-oct-7-victims-we-know-about/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-ove... > 859 civilians 274 soldiers So notice that these figures are looking between 1.86 and 3.13 civilians per soldier dead. That means an essentially random massacre which deliberately TRIED to target civilians, but which was primarily performed by individual soldiers, couldn't even cause nearly as many deaths as precision bombings do. And note that, from what I could gather, those figures on Israeli deaths don't include government workers as being valid combatants, when I doubt any Hamas pencil pushers that may exist would get the "luxury" of not being counted as non combatants. The can of worms opened up here only gets messier still if you then start going more philosophical issues like how they seem to have spent the last few decades uncertain if Palestine is basically a mini case of Escape From NY, under outright Israeli military occupation, or an entirely independent country. I'd want to ask the Israeli government if this is a war or a policing action. A minor counterpoint to something you wrote though: I don't think this is often something in terms of their civilians being less valuable, at least not publicly due to the obvious bad optics. I rather think it's a case presented more like a need for some civilians to die now to prevent more from dying later or being "oppressed under illegitimate government" type concerns, etc.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants. Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
  - candiodari 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - kermitdekikker 2y ago
      The real question, of course, is WHAT TO DO once someone violates this principle. As the Israelis have done time and time again, and again, and again.
      - candiodari 2y ago
        [flagged]
        kermitdekikker 2y ago
        Again, the same argument can be made for the other side. Two things can be true at the same time; both Hamas and Israel do/did terrible things and its tiring that people defend one side no matter what. Their [the Palestinans] story is they didn't have a choice once others violated it and they had to defend themselves, and they make a very strong case. Obviously you find Christian countries in general (and in number, they are the largest faction in the UN general assembly) ... extremely opposed to any enforcement, because they blatantly violated international law again and again and again. *There are overwhelmingly more Christian-majority countries as compared to Muslim-majority countries. Also non of the Muslim counties have veto power. If you make an argument please base it on facts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Coun...
- niemandhier 2y ago
  Most NGOS concluded that an evacuation of Rafah is impossible. Given the lumber of people and the state of the infrastructure I tend to agree.
- HL33tibCe7 2y ago
  > What do you call telling civilians you are coming to allow them to safely leave before a bombing starts? That's taking extreme measures to prevent loss of civilian lives, even at the expense of military goals. First of all Israel hasn't called civilians in most cases, hence why 10s of thousands of them have been killed in bombings. Secondly, Israel is not just killing civilians via bombings. It has cut off water and electricity and is causing a famine by preventing aid entering the area. It has destroyed Gaza's health infrastructure completely: countless people with treatable diseases are dying needlessly. > Any random person on the street is more likely than not a sympathizer that Oct 7 was justified. On Sept 12, 2001 in the US that would be enough to call you an enemy, for sure. This is a disgusting attempt to try and justify the murder of civilians, and you should feel ashamed.
ryandrake 2y ago
> The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity). There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the term "Pro-Hamas protestors" instead, even though you'll find very few people there who support Hamas terrorists. This is clearly deliberate. See also the deliberate conflation of IDF = Israeli government = Israeli people = the Jewish Ethnicity = Judaism. So, thanks to propaganda, if you oppose one of them, they think you oppose them all and are antisemitic.
- candiodari 2y ago
  [flagged]

aen1 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
Those warnings are rarely given, and also warning someone that you're about to bomb their home and store and hospital and aid and aid workers, doesn't justify the crime of doing those things. If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties. That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians. As for "sympathizers": someone disagreeing with you doesn't justify exploding them, either.
- dlubarov 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - runarberg 2y ago
    These allegations of Hamas violations of international humanitarian laws—even if true—does not devalue the lives of Palestinians, nor does it give Israel an excuse for further violations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies...
    - candiodari 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > The only real violations of international law apply to an army purposefully going, unprovoked, into a civilian area and starting to shoot everyone. Hamas does that, as they've proven on many occasions (including their own civilians), Israel doesn't. Israel has been shown to do this on multiple occasions. Take, for example, them doing exactly this to their own surrendering hostages, which they mistook for surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians as they combed through the rubble of their bombings. Or maybe there was no mistake. Given Israel's assault on the free press in Gaza (ranging from shutting off power and communications to literally shooting and bombing press workers), we may never know the true extent of these cleansings, especially when it really is "just" surviving, surrendering Palestinian civilians.
        runarberg 2y ago
        I’m also thinking about the Jenin hospital raid[1] where the Israeli army stormed a hospital wearing civilian clothing (i.e. hiding among civilians) and extra-judicially killed three wounded (and as a result inactive; i.e. unprovoked) operatives. I’m also thinking about the massacres during the great march of return[2], where Israeli soldiers fired indiscriminately at unarmed protestors. In the protests, and the ensuing conflict, Israel killed 223 people, by far majority of whom were unarmed civilians. You can argue that mass demonstration is provocative, but the response of indiscriminately killing unarmed protestors is not a proportionate response. And finally, I’m also thinking about the flour massacre[3], where the Israeli army purposefully went, unprovoked, into a civilian area and started to shoot everyone. At least 118 civilians were killed and 760 were wounded when the Israeli army shot at people trying to gather food after having been deliberately starved by Israel the months before. The parent (who I’m trying not to engage with) is also just wrong when they claim no international law is broken by Israel. They currently have one ICJ case ruled against them, that of the illegal border (or apartheid) wall in the west bank, which the ICJ ruled illegal in 2004[4] and demanded they take down (which Israel hasn’t). The have several condemnations by a pletora of international humanitarian organizations. There are two ongoing ICJ cases against them, one for genocide, and their leaders stand recommended for indictments at the ICC. There are many more examples than the three above of Israel blatantly violating international humanitarian law. Which is why the UN general assembly overwhelmingly voted to press charges at the ICJ to find out what the consequences of these gross violations should be[5]. 1: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/israel-undercover-raid-jenin-west-bank-hamas-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/30/middleeast/israel-undercover-... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%932019_Gaza_border_... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_massacre 4: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131 5: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186 https://www.icj-cij.org/case/186
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    That may be so, but I doubt it, this was Hamas's most successful attack in history, and will never happen again, with or without Israel's genocide of unrelated Palestinians. The claim that Israel definitively saved >35,000 lives by killing as many, is simply implausible. And that's to say nothing of the denial of (and attacking of) supplies. Having said that, none if it justifies the crimes or racial discrimination I mentioned above. As I said: If all innocent civilians are equal, then it's not acceptable to kill 35,000 Palestinian ones to avenge <2,000 Israeli ones, or ——>even to prevent another <2,000 future Israeli casualties.<—— That math makes no sense from the outside perspective, unless one discriminates based on race, or otherwise believes Israel civilians are somehow more valuable than Palestinian civilians.
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      I think an argument can be made that validating human shield tactics may result in much greater loss of live in the long term. More groups will use such tactics, and groups which don't value human life will gain leverage over those that do. It's hard to predict long term geopolitical effects, but it seems like a pretty dangerous trend. If you don't buy that though, it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        I am not sure that argument can be made, since there doesn't appear to be data to support it. If anything, the data show the opposite. What we do have data to support is that bombing apartment blocks and hospitals and refugee camps and aid convoys and aid warehouses all full of innocent civilians is illegal, even if you shout "human shield!" first, even if you really want to achieve your political or military aims, even if you claim you're saving more innocent civilian lives by doing so, even if you really want to "prioritize security". It's all still illegal, hence the court cases. Would Israel tolerate the IDF killing innocent Israeli civilians in as great a number as they have killed innocent Palestinian civilians, to achieve the same aims? Likely not, which would make the behavior discriminatory based on race, religion, and/or national origin, too. > it still seems reasonable enough for Israel to prioritize their own security. It may not be morally correct from a utilitarian perspective, but it's what pretty much any country would do, just as any parent would save their own child first in an emergency. This makes it sound like you recognize Palestine as a different country (and thus deserving of international recognition, freedom, independence, self-determination, safety, and security). If so, good on you :) If not, Israel is obliged to protect Palestinian civilians under its rule equally to Israeli civilians under its rule. I wish I could say "there's no 3rd option where Israel abuses Palestinians under their rule for decades while taking no responsibility for their well-being", but we've all seen the past decades.
- monkeyfun 2y ago
  Note before reading that my following post is NOT a justification of the evil massacre that Hamas perpetrated. It is however a comparison meant to illuminate something about the concept you've noted. So, food for thought: a lower ratio of civilians to military and security personnel was killed on October 7th (according to Israeli published figures) than tends to be killed in even precision bombings. Note: I can only fairly say "tends to be killed" because it can be difficult to truly get accurate data on military bombing casualties -- but one can absolutely find many individual cases of dozens of civilians being considered valid collateral for 1-3 military targets. Source on deaths: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social... > 695 Israeli civilians, including 36 children, as well as 373 security forces If we use sources like Times of Israel, which ignores police and other emergency personnel, claims become https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-over-80-up-to-date-breakdown-of-oct-7-victims-we-know-about/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-ove... > 859 civilians 274 soldiers So notice that these figures are looking between 1.86 and 3.13 civilians per soldier dead. That means an essentially random massacre which deliberately TRIED to target civilians, but which was primarily performed by individual soldiers, couldn't even cause nearly as many deaths as precision bombings do. And note that, from what I could gather, those figures on Israeli deaths don't include government workers as being valid combatants, when I doubt any Hamas pencil pushers that may exist would get the "luxury" of not being counted as non combatants. The can of worms opened up here only gets messier still if you then start going more philosophical issues like how they seem to have spent the last few decades uncertain if Palestine is basically a mini case of Escape From NY, under outright Israeli military occupation, or an entirely independent country. I'd want to ask the Israeli government if this is a war or a policing action. A minor counterpoint to something you wrote though: I don't think this is often something in terms of their civilians being less valuable, at least not publicly due to the obvious bad optics. I rather think it's a case presented more like a need for some civilians to die now to prevent more from dying later or being "oppressed under illegitimate government" type concerns, etc.
tsimionescu 2y ago
If people who support an immoral attack are military combatants, then clearly we should consider that the vast majority of Israel's population, who support the current genocide, are military combatants. Of course, this is completely insane logic and I don't believe so at all. Killing a civilian is abhorrent, whether that civilian might support an atrocity or not, as long as they weren't actually involved in it.
- candiodari 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kermitdekikker 2y ago
    The real question, of course, is WHAT TO DO once someone violates this principle. As the Israelis have done time and time again, and again, and again.
    - candiodari 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - kermitdekikker 2y ago
        Again, the same argument can be made for the other side. Two things can be true at the same time; both Hamas and Israel do/did terrible things and its tiring that people defend one side no matter what. Their [the Palestinans] story is they didn't have a choice once others violated it and they had to defend themselves, and they make a very strong case. Obviously you find Christian countries in general (and in number, they are the largest faction in the UN general assembly) ... extremely opposed to any enforcement, because they blatantly violated international law again and again and again. *There are overwhelmingly more Christian-majority countries as compared to Muslim-majority countries. Also non of the Muslim counties have veto power. If you make an argument please base it on facts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Coun...
niemandhier 2y ago
Most NGOS concluded that an evacuation of Rafah is impossible. Given the lumber of people and the state of the infrastructure I tend to agree.
HL33tibCe7 2y ago
> What do you call telling civilians you are coming to allow them to safely leave before a bombing starts? That's taking extreme measures to prevent loss of civilian lives, even at the expense of military goals. First of all Israel hasn't called civilians in most cases, hence why 10s of thousands of them have been killed in bombings. Secondly, Israel is not just killing civilians via bombings. It has cut off water and electricity and is causing a famine by preventing aid entering the area. It has destroyed Gaza's health infrastructure completely: countless people with treatable diseases are dying needlessly. > Any random person on the street is more likely than not a sympathizer that Oct 7 was justified. On Sept 12, 2001 in the US that would be enough to call you an enemy, for sure. This is a disgusting attempt to try and justify the murder of civilians, and you should feel ashamed.

ryandrake 2y ago

> The problem people have with Israel is not that they're killing Hamas fighters or that IDF soldiers are being killed. It's that they're killing civilians (amongst other war crimes and crimes against humanity). There is also a deliberate propaganda effort to blur the distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. Look at every conservative news source that reports on pro-Palestinian protests. Every one of them uses the term "Pro-Hamas protestors" instead, even though you'll find very few people there who support Hamas terrorists. This is clearly deliberate. See also the deliberate conflation of IDF = Israeli government = Israeli people = the Jewish Ethnicity = Judaism. So, thanks to propaganda, if you oppose one of them, they think you oppose them all and are antisemitic.

candiodari 2y ago
[flagged]