Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Sheilbh]

Which I think is right.

But also from a purely practical perspective - how in the world is the IDF or any other military supposed to do these mood boards of individual civilian sentiment? At best I can't see that there'd be really any basis to assess whether or not x civilians who may die are willingly sheltering combatants or Hamas supporters, so you'd just be introducing an element of randomness. At worst you're taking intelligence and military resource in a war away from the actual military objectives to - I don't know - analyse video of cvilians or workinng out if they've got a social media profile to decide if they're good civilians or bad civilians.

Treat all civilians the same: identify what the military objective is, take all steps you can (without undermining that objective) to avoid civilian casualties and then determine if the loss of civilian life is proportionate to the value of the military objective. I can't see how else you approach it.

[Admiral Yi]

Treat all civilians the same: identify what the military objective is, take all steps you can (without undermining that objective) to avoid civilian casualties and then determine if the loss of civilian life is proportionate to the value of the military objective. I can't see how else you approach it.

How does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?

[Sheilbh]

How does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?

My understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this. Ultimately it's a bit touchy-feely - you'd have to assign some form of weight or value to the military benefit of the strike and similar to civilian casualties or other impact on civilians.

But I think the process itself is helpful. I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike. "It would make things a bit easier" is probably unlikely to justify many, if any, civilian deaths compared with "it's critical". My view is the weight of civilian casualties or impact should be consistent - so whatever enemy or context you're fighting, civilians are treated the same (to avoid having your thumbs on the scale).

[Admiral Yi]

My understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this. Ultimately it's a bit touchy-feely - you'd have to assign some form of weight or value to the military benefit of the strike and similar to civilian casualties or other impact on civilians.

But I think the process itself is helpful. I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike. "It would make things a bit easier" is probably unlikely to justify many, if any, civilian deaths compared with "it's critical". My view is the weight of civilian casualties or impact should be consistent - so whatever enemy or context you're fighting, civilians are treated the same (to avoid having your thumbs on the scale).

What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient.  In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice.  And, based on the comments of several here, their judgement of proportionality involves the innocence or guilt of the civilians involved.

[Sheilbh]

What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient.  In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice.  And, based on the comments of several here, their judgement of proportionality involves the innocence or guilt of the civilians involved.

Where have I said anything about making it public or transparency?

I don't really understand what you think I'm arguing. My point is simple civilians are not targets because of their status as civilians and there is nothing about them that militaries should be considering that make them more or less fair game. They're not because they're civilians, so instead it's really looking at the value of a military objective.

[The Minsky Moment]

How does one arrive at a determination of proportionality?

My understanding is it's a core principle of the rules of war so all militaries will have a process for doing this - from the Washington Post reporting it's clear the IDF and US have a different standard on this.

I don't know how clear that is.  The military manuals of the two countries say similar things.  The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now.  I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate.  But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.

[The Minsky Moment]

[What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient.  In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice. 

It's proportional to the needs of military operations.  So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry. 

[Tamas]

In practice all this proportionality revolves around what you can get away with. In Vietnam the US made a lot of excess killing but were pretty constrained in terms of what they could had done to North Vietnam. Their public thought it too much and they lost the war (which I am not saying they should had started to begin with).

In WW2 entire cities were destroyed by the Allies but their public didn't mind so nobody cared or cares.

In this case here, it's a matter of perceptions and the winner will be right in the end. For some, 10k and counting deaths is an ok price to pay to remove Hamas (and further other Israeli aims). Others find these deaths outrageous but file 1400 Jews machine gunned down in the "they had it coming" cabinet. Our sensibilities are informed by our (often tribal) affiliations to the two sides, putting higher morals to this is kidding ourselves, with respect to the few exceptions.

[Tamas]

Also I was thinking Israel should have declared in advance what they are going to do, something like they are going to destroy Hamas' powerbase in Gaza to defend themselves and will do what's necessary to achieve this, then will police the region until an internationally agreed party takes over.

But then I realised that would have only helped people like me, those who are pro-Israel but not partial to killing Muslims just for the heck of it. Nobody loudly demanding a ceasefire now or chanting "from the river to the sea" would have stayed home and have had a different outlook on the conflict, so why tie their own hands by playing with their cards on the table?

[crazy canuck]

Tamas, the international rules of war regarding the requirement for proportionality were created after WWII.

[Barrister]

Also I was thinking Israel should have declared in advance what they are going to do, something like they are going to destroy Hamas' powerbase in Gaza to defend themselves and will do what's necessary to achieve this, then will police the region until an internationally agreed party takes over.

But then I realised that would have only helped people like me, those who are pro-Israel but not partial to killing Muslims just for the heck of it. Nobody loudly demanding a ceasefire now or chanting "from the river to the sea" would have stayed home and have had a different outlook on the conflict, so why tie their own hands by playing with their cards on the table?

Militarily it would do Israel nothing good to publicly announce their overall strategy.

I just hope and trust that they have one.

[crazy canuck]

[What you are saying in effect is armed forces have an obligation in the interest of transparency to provide their targeting algorithms and then we, the public, have the right to judge their algorithms as sufficient or insufficient.  In other words, "proportionality" has always been and will always remain, a political choice. 

It's proportional to the needs of military operations.  So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry. 

Agreed.  There is a wide range of what might fall within the definition of proportional.  From the legal precedent created in Israel that gives wide latitude so long as there is a valid military target which provides the widest interpretation, to people like Professor Byers who have a more narrow interpretation.

But all those knowledgeable about international law understand that proportional response is required.

[Sheilbh]

In practice all this proportionality revolves around what you can get away with. In Vietnam the US made a lot of excess killing but were pretty constrained in terms of what they could had done to North Vietnam. Their public thought it too much and they lost the war (which I am not saying they should had started to begin with).

In practice it gives militaries with vast destructive potential a way of working out how they can use that. The principle that you shouldn't kill civilians or non-combatants or people not involved of the fight is centuries old.. Fair to say it wasn't always observed well, but until the 20th century there was a practical limitation of who had weapons and their range. If you weren't in the path or wake of any army then your experience would be very different from people living away from the conflict. In the 20th century technology changed that and how do you apply the old rules to this new world.

In WW2 entire cities were destroyed by the Allies but their public didn't mind so nobody cared or cares.

Not sure that's true. As I say about Bomber Command more or less being written out of the narrative (it's where David Irving cut his teeth as a historian was revising that gap - before he indulged his real passion: Holocaust denialism) and still being highly contentious now. Or, say Coventry and Dresden becoming twin cities, or all the Oppenheimer discourse. I think there was caring and still is.

I don't know how clear that is.  The military manuals of the two countries say similar things.  The US has never had to fight in this kind of situation with a heavily armed terrorist group running an autonomous region right on the border and with thousands armed militants deliberately mixed with the civilian population. Especially if you increased the size of the adversary to fit proportionally with the relative size of the US. Somehow I doubt that the US would would act with appreciably more restraint then Israel is doing now.  I agree that in this conflict, the US is trying to play a calming role with Israel which is appropriate.  But that is not necessarily a guide as how the US would act if faced with a similar a situation of its own.

This is true - and as we've seen with Ukraine and briefings to the Washington Post, officials in the Pentagon are not averse to judging their allies and friends based against something the US has never/does not have to do.

[Admiral Yi]

Where have I said anything about making it public or transparency?

"I think there is value in forcing a military to actually quantify on their own terms the benefit of a strike."

Though on reflection i would need an unfounded assumption to reach my conclusion.  Quantification also has the benefit of removing individual biases and judgements from the equation.  In other words, we don't want the 49 people who die next to the one shooter to be treated unfairly compared to the 1 guy who dies next to 6 shooters.

[Admiral Yi]

It's proportional to the needs of military operations.  So there is a big judgmental component but it is not a purely subjective inquiry. 

A proportion is a ratio, which by definition has two defined terms.  If you only define one term (military needs) then proportionality is, yeah, subjective.