Hacker News Reader

Comment by golergka | Hacker News Reader

> Killing civilians is not good.

International law looks at this differently. There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields, especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions. The first is a war crime, the second is actually allowed by Geneva conventions. The phrase “killing civilians” throws these differences out of the window and simply shouldn't be used in intelligent conversion about this topic.

View on HN

> There's a huge difference between targeting civilians and striking genuine military targets that have civilian human shields

Even in the latter case, the cost to civilian lives has to be proportional to the the military value/lives saved long-term by ending the threat. This is not proportional: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

But unfortunately, the latter case does not account for all that we've seen in the last few months and years. There's been plenty of "targeting civilians" too

As far as i understand, Israel disputes much of this (not that civilians have died, but that it has been non porpotional). ICC is innocent until proven guilty, so its going to take more evidence than anonoymous leaks to get a guilty verdict.

Additionally they werent charged on the basis of unporportionality afaik, i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine.

> i think all the charges are based around failing to let in enough food aid, causing a famine

No, starvation is only one of the alleged offences: "the use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with other attacks and collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza"

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-...

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the case is when it gets to trial. The legal report https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-p... makes it sound like the primary thing is alleged use of starvation, with other attacks being in the context of that (with the caveat that other charges are still under investigation):

> The Prosecutor seeks arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Minister of Defense, on the basis that they committed the war crime of ‘intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’ under article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the ICC Statute. The Prosecutor also seeks to charge the two suspects with various other war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare under articles 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute

> especially after issuing a warning and taking reasonable precautions

Ahh, yes, like when the IDF told Gazan civilians by evacuation order to move to the south of Gaza because they were going to intensify bombing in the north.

And then increased bombing of southern Gaza by 85% in the next 10 days...

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

Really?

I think that is a distinction without a difference

If your siblings are killed or maimed in their home or at a party, do you care?

Killing people is a bad thing

Then you disagree with international law and common sense. If my siblings are killed with a rocket that targeted a hospital turned a weapon silo, I would blame those who put the weapons there, not those who launched the rocket.

Obviously Hamas are responsible for the hospital becoming a target.

But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.

Yeah, but it's a magical version in an imaginary realm.

Protecting a few key humanitarian sites from bombing doesn't seem impossible if there was a will to do so.

Maybe you can explain how you envision that working.

The Israeli army would use their miliary assets on the ground. They invaded and established a temporary occupying force to deal with Hamas, so resources other than air are available.

The air force can hit the targets required around the hospital to allow an easier time for ground forces. Reach the hospital, and use those ground forces to secure it.

They already use ground assets. Your plan needs more detail. When the IDF ground forces enter a hospital hallway where Hamas terrorists have positioned hostages in front of them and behind them, what should the IDF do? N.B.: the terrorists are shooting at them.

You mean like this?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/middleeast/idf-accidentally-k...

What do you imagine that demonstrates aside from that it is possible for mistakes to occur? Especially when you're fighting an enemy for whom it is an advantage for you to kill its own population for the propaganda value.

It shows that it doesn't matter where the hostages are because they'll just shoot at everyone anyways

I hope you think enough of yourself to realize that that reasoning is not worthy of you.

And what makes you think the IDF is so discerning in their targets? They attacked the USS Liberty with the intention of killing everyone aboard knowing it was a US vessel and they've been continuously killing tens of thousands of women and children, they also purposely target and kill journalists

OK. You're just spewing bullshit. Thanks.

Links to all of the sources, mostly US government docs, about the Liberty

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1D9Zaet2ypKD7H6gyxYtU...

One source of many about targeting journalists for over two decades

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/middleeast/israel-military-jo...

One source on IDF killing indiscriminately

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/02/middleeast/israel-bo...

And for some extra flavor have a few sources on the IDF posting videos of their abuse of Palestinians

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-09/ty-article-ma...

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/idf-posting-abuse-foota...

Are these actions that of the "most moral army"?

These things are easily googlable yet you haven't bothered to do the slightest bit of reading before dismissing the claims outright. Even the US president had said that the attack on the Liberty was 100% intentional while knowing it was a US vessel

> But there is version of this where weapons at the hospital are removed by force, without bombing it.

Version A (what happens now): Israel calls everybody in the vicinity of the hospital, gives them time to evacuate. Then Israel strikes the hospital with a missile without a warhead. Then Israel actually bombs it.

Version B (what you suggest): IDF storms in with guns blazing.

What version, in your opinion, will result in more civilian deaths?

Two things:

1. In many cases whole Gazen families have bee killed in their homes.

2. I always blame those giving orders. On both sides.

Does anybody look at it like that though? If a sibling of yours was accidentally killed in a car accident would you consider that to be the equivalent as somebody deliberately running down your sibling? While the end result is the same the intent is different.

Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this, but collateral damage of civilians will almost always happen regardless of how careful attacks are planned. I don't think there has ever been a war that occurred in such a densely packed area that has had no civilian causalities.

> Maybe you could argue Israel is not accidentally doing this,

I think there is an element in glee at civilian casualties on both sides

International law thinks there is a significant difference between different types of death in war, and that is the basis of these proceedings.

You can personally think international law is wrong, but that probably won't affect what the ICC does very much.

> Killing people is a bad thing

There are videos of them celebrating on Oct 7 and crowds attacking the hostages when they're brought into Gaza.

Did they think killing is a bad thing?

> Did they think killing is a bad thing?

I do not know, but not on the face of it

But we can all do better than justify our actions on the basis of "they did it too"

That is school yard logic, and nation states can do better

Silly me, tho. The nation states involved all seem to be devoid of principals

Context and nuance are very important. Are the allied forces of WWII all mass murderers?

Or to put it more broadly what distinguishes a soldier who has killed dozens of enemy soldiers from a school shooter who killed dozens of his peers?

According to your statement they are morally equivalent, society at large would vehemently disagree with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com