The world should not forget this.
> Lavender listed as many as 37,000 Palestinian men
> they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes
37000 * 15 = 555000 37000 * 20 = 740000
The legal question is whether the civilian casualties are proportional to the concrete military value of the target.
A question that's worth considering is whether, when considering proportionality, all civilians (as defined by law) are made equal in a moral sense.
For example, the category "civilian" includes munitions workers or those otherwise offering support to combatants on the one hand, and young children on the other. It also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.
The law of armed conflict doesn't distinguish these; albeit that I think people might well distinguish, on a moral level, between casualties amongst young children, munitions workers, and informal combatants.
I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1]
By your argument would you say that all of these are legitimate targets?
I don't think anything in the grandparent post suggested that. If someone used to be a combatant and then ceased fighting, usually they then become a civilian. They don't stay a combatant for life. Reserve forces not on duty are not generally combatants. You have to be in the fight to be a combatant.
Things get more complicated with combatants who don't fully wear uniforms, which is why failing to wear a uniform is a war crime.
It should be noted this isn't so much the grandparent's personal opinion as they are just paraphrasing what the geneva convention says. However there is of course a lot more details to it then that and the devil is in the details.
[Edit: i think i read the post too quickly. The grandparent is incorrect when saying "[Civilians] also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.". If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian. It doesn't matter whether you are formally part of the armed forces. Civilians get protected because we want to protect the innocents stuck in the middle. People who are taking part in a war dont get that protection]
You're not a civilian while you're holding the gun, but you are once you stop shooting again: you lose your protection as a civilian during your period of direct participation. Should have been more clear on that.
It's probably also worth saying that -- while there's a degree of subtlety and complexity when considering the legal and moral position of Israel's armed forces -- there's very little to debate when it comes to actions like the Re'im music festival attack. That kind of action is obviously illegal and morally repugnant.
No, there is no such complexity. There are very obviously undebatable incidents of war crimes by the IDF. Like this footage from a drone who deliberately killed civilians in plain sight and trying to cover the bodies[1] and the IDF targeting aid workers in a location they knew about [2]. Also, there are widespread videos by IDF soldiers committing atrocities and crimes in Gaza and posting it on social media. That is hardly self-defense. This is obvious war crimes against civilians. Not to mention the mass starvation and carpet bombing of civilians. There is very little to debate, and denying them is immoral. You are just using a very old tactic of trying to minimize IDF crimes by claiming their position is complex. Remember the old say "Middle East is complex mess, let's just ignore what is happening there"
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/3/22/gaza-dr...
[2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/central-world-kitchen-aid-worke...
Some of the other things you mention have a lot of grey area, because whether or not they are a war crime don't necessarily depend solely on what happened, but on what Israel's intent was and what they knew at various points in time. Which is information that's hard to know from our vantage point. Some of them could be, but there is also potential that they might not be. Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
In 2021, Israeli forces killed an American-Palestinian journalist on duty in plain sight [1] I will quote that from Wikipedia
"Israel denied responsibility and blamed Palestinian militants. However, it gradually changed its narrative until admitted she was "accidentally" killed by Israeli fire, but refused to undertake a criminal investigation"
and
"On September 5, the IDF released the results of its own investigation, finding that there was a "high possibility" that Abu Akleh was "accidentally hit" by army fire, but that it would not begin a criminal investigation"
Another example
In 1996, IDF fired shells on UN compound near a village called Qana and caused a civilian massacre. The UN investigated, and Israel refused the results and did not punish anyone [2]. Let's give them a benefit of the doubt, maybe they will just learn and avoid doing it again. Fear not, in 2016 they give us the second Qana massacre [3] without anyone getting punished.
And there are maybe hundred of these events which can establish that Israel doesn't care and IDF don't get punished.
I also refuse the logic that Israel should investigate war crimes by its army. That is absurd, like waiting for Russia to investigate and take their words for Bucha massacre. IDF have very well documented war crimes in the past and IDF is the occupying forces of Palestine and is mass starving 2.3m to death in Gaza right now. Believing that they will carry honest investigation and punish their soldiers is laughable.
And let's not forget to add the IDF lie, and they are blatant Liars. We still remember them claiming week days in Arabic are names of Hamas operatives [4]. Why do you expect us to believe them? Of course, the Israeli officials and cabinet members calling for violence, crimes against Palestinians are well known to everyone now (Feel free to ask me for examples).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shireen_Abu_Akleh
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_massacre
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Qana_airstrike
[4] https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20231116-...
I'm not sure what your point is here. Accidentally shooting someone is not a warcrime (there are details here in that it still could be if there is a certain level of negligence), and generally a criminal investigation would only be started if there was sufficient evidence in the preliminary investigation to suggest it was intentional.
Could israel be lying about it? Sure. Militaries doing cover ups would hardly be a new story. But this isn't the (metaphorical) smoking gun you think it is.
> In 1996...
1996 was quite a long time ago at this point.
> I also refuse the logic that Israel should investigate war crimes by its army
That's generally what is expected of any army under international law. If they don't then the higher ups become responsible.
In the event of a failure to prosecute, then it goes to the ICC to investigate and charge (israel isn't a member, but palestine is, so anything involving palestine nationals or territory counts, which is basically this whole war. If ICC didn't have juridsiction over something, then the procedure is the UN is supposed to create a special tribunal).
So its not like its solely up to israel to investigate/punish. That is just the first step and what is required for israel to comply with international law. If they fail to uphold their obligations there are other bodies to enforce albeit in practise powerful countries are often ignored by them.
> We don't know yet whether or not Israel will charge the people involved in the aid worker bombing
To
> Could israel be lying about it? Sure. Militaries doing cover ups would hardly be a new story
> So its not like its solely up to israel to investigate/punish
Thanks for showing that this discussion is not useful.
PS:
> 1996 was quite a long time ago at this point.
So what? Holocaust was more than 80 years at this point? Does this make us forget this horrible history?
I don't think these things are as unequivocal as you suggest. I mean, you're assuming those people are civilians. Maybe they're not. Almost certainly we will never know for sure, and if you can't acknowledge that then you're not being objective.
I actually expected this reply from you. And expected that you will not see the video and will not get interested in the story. [1] The video shows that they were not armed. If you're just going to define anyone you kill as, maybe he was Hamas. Then of course you will kill everyone and claim that. You don't kill unarmed people walking in plain sight. If this not obvious to you, then you are just wanted to justify the killing of each Palestinian.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/19/gaza-journal...
I am not your parent commenter, and do not necessarily subscribe to any of their arguments, but I can answer your question directly: yes, to some people, the conscription of all people in a certain age range does make them legitimate targets.
In particular, from my perspective, one of the primary downsides of the inclusion of women in the armed forces is specifically that it legitimizes taegetting (other) women as a military target.
So, to be explicit, if an organization I conscripts women into their military and someone else targets I women militarily, then I will hold I morally responsible for their fate. Similarly, if an organization H utilizes children as soldiers (or human shields) and other children are militarily targeted, I will consider H morally responsible for their fate. (And to be more explicit still: sucks for all the men everywhere.)
Sure would be convenient if Hamas is 6% of the population
Which is what I kinda assume Hamas wanted in the first place.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-killed...
You've got two sides, Able and Baker, with a range of opinions on both sides, from a moderate majority to an extreme minority.
Able extremists attack Baker in a way which is big, shocking and violent.
Baker is provoked into retaliation against Able. Crucially, the retaliation is against the whole of Able, including the moderates.
When it all dies down, there are less Able moderates and more Able extremists. (Because if someone dropped an Acme piano on my family, I'd be tempted to strap on the Acme exploding underpants, too).
This "leverage your enemy's strength to radicalize your own people" approach is common. 9/11 is probably the clearest example, but you could even see the non-violent Civil Rights protests in America in this light (march, provoke violent response, gain converts and sympathy). If this wasn't one of the factors behind the October attacks, Hamas are dumber than I give them credit for.
Thus, I see "the Palestinian people will not forget this" as "the cycle of violence is locked in for another generation".
I however disagree with the framing in the example. Starting from the event that Able attacked Baker without mentioning the reasons or the context clearly portrays Baker as not having done anything to provoke such an attack. Nothing ever happens in a vaccuum.
Adding at "step zero" with that information in would not change my argument at all. The relative righteousness of the two sides has nothing to do with strategy selection. For the purposes of this abstract argument, it's unnecessary fluff.
Israel could glass the entire Gaza strip and the reaction would be a slap on the wrist at best.
For 100 targets, 90 are 'correct', plus 20x civs per-target is 90/2100 or 4% real accuracy.
Say you use a model that's only 50% accurate and limit yourself to 10 civs per-target, you're at 50/1100 or 4.5% accuracy!
I guess my point is that no self-respecting datascient would release a 50% accurate model, let alone one used to make life or death decisions and yet, in the application of this model, decisions made by humans about its use has made it no better than doing exactly that.
"we really need to missile this guy or he will kill more" vs "well we got 37 badies and also kim and yashonda, damn i really liked yashonda"
Actually after writing this my mind went farther, "since yashonda was a good person we actually have a whole bunch of hard facts about how good a person she actually was, did a lot of help for her community and was a real pillar of helping the next generation of kids be less violent...too bad we didn't add any of that info into the kill-algorithm "
The main crux of the story is the automated target acquisition and the policy to engage the target in civilian homes - there are intelligence errors and collateral damage.
The questions are: is the intelligence gathering and decision making ethical and is the accepted collateral damage ratio reasonable given the scale.
This is different from for example Russian strategy to target whole neighborhoods to inflict terror in the civilian population by indiscriminate killings.
Instead the West keeps supplying Israel with weapons and munitions.