5 ms·

> In 2014, the IDF’s acceptable civilian casualty ratio was one civilian for a high-level terrorist, said Tal Mimran, a former legal adviser to the IDF. In the

by oefrha 2y ago

> In 2014, the IDF’s acceptable civilian casualty ratio was one civilian for a high-level terrorist, said Tal Mimran, a former legal adviser to the IDF. In the Gaza war, the number has grown to about 15 civilians for one low-level Hamas member and “exponentially higher” for mid- and high-level members,” according to the Israeli human rights organization Breaking the Silence, citing numerous testimonies from IDF soldiers. The New York Times reported the number as 20 earlier this week. This is key new information (to me, maybe it’s old news to people following the situation closely) that’s more horrifying than the AI angle. And given the liberal criteria to be classified as combatant and probably downplayed civilian casualties, the ratio has gotta be substantially higher than the already appalling official threshold.

dismalaf 2y ago
It's a variation of the tragedy of the commons problem... The rules of war are meant to protect civilians, but what do you do when an opponent abuses it by using civilians as human shields? And when civilians even harbour the enemy? Should Israel just let Hamas attack them without consequences since Hamas hides among civilians?
- int_19h 2y ago
  Consider the same situation with individuals rather than states. If you're attacked, and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander, is it okay to shoot the attacker along with the bystander to defend yourself? FWIW, laws pretty everywhere say no to that.
  - dismalaf 2y ago
    Is that really the same as Gaza? Most countries have laws saying if you aid a criminal, it's the same as committing the crime yourself. Gazan terrorists are hiding among their friends and families, not random people they took hostage.
    - Maxious 2y ago
      "Bad people can't be recognised on sight; there's no point in trying" https://youtu.be/cj-pZ6rgoN4 https://youtu.be/cj-pZ6rgoN4
      - Jensson 2y ago
        They are trying to separate out the bad guys, you are making a strawman. If Israel tried to kill em all they would have already done so a really long time ago.
        int_19h 2y ago
        Per TFA, they consider 20 civilian deaths to be an acceptable collateral for one Hamas combatant. I don't know in what world this could be possibly called "trying to separate out the bad guys", but I don't live in it.
    - archagon 2y ago
      What is a Gazan supposed to do if they wish to opt out of this situation?
      - benterix 2y ago
        They have no choice at all. And that's one of many tragic aspects of the situation.
      - dismalaf 2y ago
        An individual Gazan, or Gazans as a people? Before the war, many western countries took in Palestinians so that was a way for individuals to opt out. Anyhow, the answer right now is fight back. Stop hiding hostages (assuming any are still alive), stop supporting family members who are terrorists, kick them out of your neighbourhood and grab a gun and fight back. Presumably the terrorists are outnumbered by those who aren't terrorists...
  - Jensson 2y ago
    If millions of people organized and did that it would be different, extremely rare events are handled very differently than massive organized behavior. If you refused to shoot innocent people when fighting evil dictators then it would be trivial to beat you in a war, make a million soldiers hold an innocent person in front of them and you can't win, they will go and take over the world and then you would be ruled by terrorists, nobody wants that.
  - edanm 2y ago
    The question isn't if you're attacked and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and does nothing. It's if you're attacked, the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and continues attacking you, while at the same time he's holding your kid hostage and torturing him. In that situation, I think most moral and legal systems say it is ok to risk the innocent bystander to save your child, if there is no other way to get him back. (Of course, this isn't a perfect analogy either. Hamas is still holding a 100 hostages while hiding behind innocent people, but it's very much arguable whether "there is no other way to get the hostages back" at this point, among other things.)
    - omnimus 2y ago
      Perfect analogy except instead of killing the attacker and bystander to get the hostage you also take out 40 other bystanders in 200m radius and just to be sure level every building in that radius to the ground.
      - edanm 2y ago
        Of course a simplistic analogy won't be good, on either side. In reality it's not a lone attacker, it's a paramilitary that is also the governing body of Gaza. It's not like a cartel invading Texas - it's like the Mexican government sending its army to invade Texas, then hiding its army amongst civilians. And it's like this is happening in the broader context of the Mexican government believing that the US has stolen its land and trampled on its rights for the last 75 years. No analogy is perfect.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  That's not what's going on. Read about Lavender and Where's Daddy, and how they were configured to kill whole families + neighbors. More similar to collective punishment: demolishing the houses of terrorists, in the West Bank. But now killing the whole family plus neighboring families, instead. It just doesn't make sense to accept 15 civilian fatalities, to kill a Hamas militant who himself didn't even participate in the October terror attack. (Maybe he would have done if he could, but he didn't, for whatever reason. About 3000 attacked Israel, but there's sth like 30 000 in Hamas in total.)

by oefrha 2y ago

dismalaf 2y ago

It's a variation of the tragedy of the commons problem... The rules of war are meant to protect civilians, but what do you do when an opponent abuses it by using civilians as human shields? And when civilians even harbour the enemy? Should Israel just let Hamas attack them without consequences since Hamas hides among civilians?

int_19h 2y ago
Consider the same situation with individuals rather than states. If you're attacked, and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander, is it okay to shoot the attacker along with the bystander to defend yourself? FWIW, laws pretty everywhere say no to that.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  Is that really the same as Gaza? Most countries have laws saying if you aid a criminal, it's the same as committing the crime yourself. Gazan terrorists are hiding among their friends and families, not random people they took hostage.
  - Maxious 2y ago
    "Bad people can't be recognised on sight; there's no point in trying" https://youtu.be/cj-pZ6rgoN4 https://youtu.be/cj-pZ6rgoN4
    - Jensson 2y ago
      They are trying to separate out the bad guys, you are making a strawman. If Israel tried to kill em all they would have already done so a really long time ago.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Per TFA, they consider 20 civilian deaths to be an acceptable collateral for one Hamas combatant. I don't know in what world this could be possibly called "trying to separate out the bad guys", but I don't live in it.
  - archagon 2y ago
    What is a Gazan supposed to do if they wish to opt out of this situation?
    - benterix 2y ago
      They have no choice at all. And that's one of many tragic aspects of the situation.
    - dismalaf 2y ago
      An individual Gazan, or Gazans as a people? Before the war, many western countries took in Palestinians so that was a way for individuals to opt out. Anyhow, the answer right now is fight back. Stop hiding hostages (assuming any are still alive), stop supporting family members who are terrorists, kick them out of your neighbourhood and grab a gun and fight back. Presumably the terrorists are outnumbered by those who aren't terrorists...
- Jensson 2y ago
  If millions of people organized and did that it would be different, extremely rare events are handled very differently than massive organized behavior. If you refused to shoot innocent people when fighting evil dictators then it would be trivial to beat you in a war, make a million soldiers hold an innocent person in front of them and you can't win, they will go and take over the world and then you would be ruled by terrorists, nobody wants that.
- edanm 2y ago
  The question isn't if you're attacked and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and does nothing. It's if you're attacked, the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and continues attacking you, while at the same time he's holding your kid hostage and torturing him. In that situation, I think most moral and legal systems say it is ok to risk the innocent bystander to save your child, if there is no other way to get him back. (Of course, this isn't a perfect analogy either. Hamas is still holding a 100 hostages while hiding behind innocent people, but it's very much arguable whether "there is no other way to get the hostages back" at this point, among other things.)
  - omnimus 2y ago
    Perfect analogy except instead of killing the attacker and bystander to get the hostage you also take out 40 other bystanders in 200m radius and just to be sure level every building in that radius to the ground.
    - edanm 2y ago
      Of course a simplistic analogy won't be good, on either side. In reality it's not a lone attacker, it's a paramilitary that is also the governing body of Gaza. It's not like a cartel invading Texas - it's like the Mexican government sending its army to invade Texas, then hiding its army amongst civilians. And it's like this is happening in the broader context of the Mexican government believing that the US has stolen its land and trampled on its rights for the last 75 years. No analogy is perfect.
cutemonster 2y ago
That's not what's going on. Read about Lavender and Where's Daddy, and how they were configured to kill whole families + neighbors. More similar to collective punishment: demolishing the houses of terrorists, in the West Bank. But now killing the whole family plus neighboring families, instead. It just doesn't make sense to accept 15 civilian fatalities, to kill a Hamas militant who himself didn't even participate in the October terror attack. (Maybe he would have done if he could, but he didn't, for whatever reason. About 3000 attacked Israel, but there's sth like 30 000 in Hamas in total.)