Israel-Hamas War 2023

[The Minsky Moment]

In a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.

Because it's not an either/or proposition.  Israel could be justified in obtaining miliary victory over Hamas and yet it does not follow that anything they do that has some connection to that military effort is justified.  I.e. Israel would not be justified denotating its entire nuclear arsenal in Gaza center and killing everyone and everything in the enclave, even though that would clearly and effectively accomplish the military objective.

The principle is recognized in international law as one of proportionality and reasonableness in relation to military necessity.   And so the total number of civilian dead is pertinent because it bears on that analysis.

[grumbler]

In a way I think the number of civilian casualties is mostly irrelevant. Either Israel has a right/valid reason to seek a decisive military victory over its enemies controlling Gaza, in which case I fail to see how they'd have more responsibility for Gazan lives than Israeli ones i.e. the losses are irrelevant, OR they are not justified to seek a complete military victory over (people controlling) Gaza, in which case pretty much any civilian casualty there is unacceptable.

Civilian casualties are not irrelevant, and the choice isn't between allowing Israel to kill as many civilians as it likes by justifying the deaths as part of an effort to "seek a decisive military victory over its enemies" or not justifying civilian deaths at all.  All such reductionist arguments on complex issues are essentially trying to dodge the truth:  that what is and is not "moral" is a matter of interpretation.

I would argue two things in an attempt to clarify my stance on this:
1. Israel cannot decisively defeat Hamas using blunt-force tactics.  For every father, mother, brother, sister, daughter and son that dies, Hamas get a recruit.
2. Israel's right to self-defense is not an absolute; they have no mandate in international law or common decency to defeat Hamas no matter the cost. 

"Absolute victory" over an idea is not a possibility, and Israel would do better if it more carefully considered how much of its moral and diplomatic capital it is willing to erase pursuing the impossible.  Benjamin Netanyahu is not the man they want making that decision, since his concern is to stay out of prison, with the war on Hamas being just a means to that end.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's also not WW2.  The technology has involved to allow more precise targeting although admittedly without eliminating all civilian casualties.  And there are things the US did in WW2 - like the firebombing of Dresden - that are hard to justify from our present standpoint.

[Josquius]

  How do we know what is clearly beyond what would be considered reasonable if we don't what is reasonable?  You were the one who brought up thresholds.  I have no idea what number of dead kid you would consider totally fine.  Nor do I know what you think we should do about it.

Because that's the way the world works outside of the head of the loony right.
It isn't based on simple absolute  A+B=C rules. It's complicated. It's messy.
There's a reason why when countries actually write their rules down they tend to cover far more pages than the simple black and white view would have it and have a whole heap of guidance about sentencing based on surrounding factors.

Different people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it)  but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.

[Valmy]

If Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.

Well they are the governing entity in Gaza, so probably would be against handing themselves over.

[Razgovory]

If I don't have a problem with Israel then I'm aligned with Hamas? What makes you say this kind of stuff?    Josquius, whenever I press you for details on something like this you weasel out of it.  Oh it's complicated, it can't be quantified!  Numbers are far-right!  No, what you are talking about is a feeling.  It feels like Israel has gone too far.  Here is way to present the information that makes you feel better.  A Middle Eastern state kills 30,000 far-right individuals.  Now, doesn't that feel better?

[Razgovory]

If Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.

Well they are the governing entity in Gaza, so probably would be against handing themselves over.

Oh, no.  Hamas is just a terrorist group.  They are like a prison gang.  They don't actually run anything.

[Admiral Yi]

The first time, it might not be deliberate.

The second time neither.

But at some point, it becomes policy.

What is "it?"

Ignoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.

#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.

#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.


There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties.  Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians.   Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis?  Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?

Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?

How can it not be deliberate the first time you ignore collateral damage?

[crazy canuck]

If Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.

What authorities are you talking about? And are you really contesting the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

[Razgovory]

If Hamas is simply a terrorist organization than the authorities of Gaza should have no problem handing them over to Israeli authorities.

What authorities are you talking about? And are you really contesting the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Of course not.  If they are just a terrorist organization than what ever authorities they have in Gaza should be able to hand them over.  If they are just a prison gang then the Palestinians should be happy to hand over these miscreants to the proper authorities.

[Tamas]

You guys are describing the need for Israel to put artificial limits on utilising their military power. If their war is justified (as in, they need to destroy the source of mortal danger to their citizens from Gaza) and they do limit themselves in pursuing the successful conclusion of the war, they prioritise civilians of the opposing side over their own.

If we argue that no, Israel has no right in this case to prioritise the safety of its own citizens over others' then why are we saying that they are justified to use some military force but not all? If it is not justified to sacrifice, say, 1000 enemy(-controlled) civilians as collateral damage, why is it justified to sacrifice 1?

[Admiral Yi]

Different people and groups have different views on what an "acceptable" number of civilian casualties for Israel to inflict was (even there we aren't talking about simple numbers you can pin on a board, there's a tonne of other factors around it)  but where they've got to now is so far beyond the pale even US support isnt as bluntly unconditional as it once was.
If you don't have a bit of an issue with some of the shit Israel has got up to lately, you don't question just a little the braindead endless campaign against civilian areas with no end in sight, then you're solidly aligned with Hamas and Co as far as being a decent human being goes.

Different people have different views on acceptable civilian casualties but yours is the right one.

[viper37]

The first time, it might not be deliberate.

The second time neither.

But at some point, it becomes policy.

What is "it?"

Ignoring potential collateral damages when you pick a potential target, not triple checking what you are hitting.

#1 is the equivalent of a police officer opening fire blindly in a crowd to catch a potential suspect fleeing.

#2 is the equivalent of a police officer shooting at a crowd because he thought he saw a suspect fleeing.


There are measures to be put in place to minimize civilian casualties.  Israel is deliberately ignoring them because the victims are Palestinians.  Would it bomb Tel-Aviv if one high value target was potentially hiding in a crowd of 100 Israelis?  Then claiming "Sorry, shit happens" ?

Would the US do it in a war, over, and over, and over, and over again?

How can it not be deliberate the first time you ignore collateral damage?

If you keep ignoring the consequences, how can it not be a deliberate policy to kill civilians as a way to inflict maximum terror when you kill your presumed targets?

We've had this discussion before when Israel was claiming it killed Hamas targets but was unable to say whom it killed.  They strike at civilians gathered in an open place saying they killed a "Hamas leader" but were unable to name him or say what he did specifically and how dangerous he was.

This time, it was aid workers.  Like Raz said, usually, "it's only UNRWA", so they already forfeited their lives in his eyes, because they are from the UN.

There's generalized outraged because there was no mistake possible for a human eye.  A careful analysis by a human would have revealed it was an aid vehicle that had already declared its presence in the area and that there was no gunman.

But that does not conform with Israel's official policy: strike first, deal with any fallout later.

Since there are never any consequences, they will keep doing it over and over and over again.

And some people will keep saying it was an accident.

Imagine if there were no consequences for high speeding and drunk driving in a residential zone. Then you hit a child.  Police and ambulance come.  Then the driver leaves the scene, no consequences, whatsoever.

Does the driver stop drinking and speeding in residential zone? Will he respect the 50km/h rule or will he keep driving at near 3x the speed limit while drinking vodka?


If there are no consequences for Israel's actions, why would they change their policies of targeting civilians when they suspect there's a "Hamas" militant in the area?

Is the goal really to simply eliminate Hamas when they authorize kill ratio varies from 15/100 civilians to 1 possible legitimate target?

If a police officer shoots in a crowd to attain a suspect, is it a an accident when a bullet hits a passerby?

[Admiral Yi]

If you keep ignoring the consequences, how can it not be a deliberate policy to kill civilians as a way to inflict maximum terror when you kill your presumed targets?

If you keep ignoring the consequences it is either a deliberate policy to kill civilians or it shows you are totally indifferent.

But the "keep" doesn't prove the "ignore."  If you ignore the consequences a single time it proves the exact same thing.

But if they're doing something other than ignoring the consequences then the fifth or tenth or millionth time they do something other than ignore the consequences doesn't prove they are ignoring the consequences.

[Zoupa]

Israel is giving as much deference to civilian casualties as any country does fighting a major war. It gives more consideration than countries like Russia.

That is objectively false.  Despite employing far greater firepower in Ukraine, Russia has killed just less than 11,000 civilians in 25 months.  Israel has killed over 30,000 in six months.

Where are those numbers from? Russia has killed more in Mariupol alone.