The issue is how culpable civilians are in Hamas' atrocities.
The Israeli government is currently at ~30 killed Palestinians for each 1 killed Israeli.
Presumably, whatever anyone's opinion, there's some ratio that is unjust. Or is killing every Palestinian in Gaza just?
Last I checked, Exodus' Covenant Code [0] was also pretty clear on this, and it didn't include any multiple.
>> Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
FWIW most Western militaries have specific ratios that are deemed acceptable for neutralizing a target (i.e. killing a baddie). These ratios are usually ranked based on the target's importance with a regular soldier being very low and a military leader being ranked very high. Often collateral damage from strikes against high value targets is more acceptable because the high value target is accompanied by lower value targets adding to the ratio.
I'm not aware of any such ratio used by the IDF. I've recently heard an Israeli government spokesperson say that the IDF has killed 13,000 Hamas including "civilian combatants". My guess would be that the IDF uses a very loose definition of whom they define as a combatant (note that the US for example has never used the term "civilian combatant" as that mixes the two groups: if they're a combatant they're not civilian and vice versa). Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it's worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any "Western" military even the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Given the rhetoric of Israeli government spokespersons, officials, politicians and other talking heads, I think it's more likely that the IDF effectively has no limits on how many Palestinian civilian casualties are acceptable per target. Former IDF soldiers have mentioned eliminationist rhetoric like "the terrorists who did Oct 7 are the kids we spared" or "anyone who hasn't left after the evacuation order should be assumed to be Hamas". This doesn't inspire confidence.
>> They also discuss the three cardinal principles of targeting: distinction (which prohibits intentionally targeting civilians or civilian objects), precautions (which requires taking all feasible measures to mitigate civilian harm), and proportionality (which for each individual attack requires balancing the anticipated military advantage against the expected civilian harm) and the rules, procedures, and policies the IDF has in place to follow these principles in every attack.
> Given that Israel also does not seem to acknowledge the 30,000+ lower bound on total deaths from IDF attacks in Gaza, it's entirely possible that Israel's ratio could be as low as 2 civilians per combatant in aggregate. But it’s worth noting that this would still be much higher than anything used by any “Western” military
> The most comparable recent US engagement was destroying ISIS in Mosul.
My point wasn't that the US is better. My point was that there were widespread protests opposing the US's "collateral damage" in their wars after 9/11 and Israel is doing worse.
The number you're citing is also the effective ratio based on the reported deaths, not an official or leaked guideline and this wasn't "the US" but "the US-led Iraqi Security Forces" (not a Western military, even if it is in practice US-led). The tweet you cite also references a Pacific battle between the US and Japan in WW2 (when the US infamously dehumanized the Japanese to an uncomfortable degree - surely the nuclear bombs trump that battle in terms of civilian casualties) and a battle that was part of the "Korean War" which in retrospect has become infamous for its war crimes, mostly committed by the US.
These are battles of infamy. You don't get a medal for being better than that, those are the table stakes if you want to shout about being the "most humane military".
Also, the reason I called 30,000+ the "lower bound" is because the process used by the "Hamas-run health ministry" is extremely conservative (it's not just a tally - the "fake deaths at hospital parking lot" story everyone ran with was a translation error into English that conflated "injured" and "deceased") and seems to have broken down earlier this year along with the remaining infrastructure in Gaza.
> The IDF has a robust decision making process, in excess of a single “ratio” approach.
That's a no then unless you think other militaries don't have decision making processes.
I'm not going to engage with you further as we seem to have either fundamentally opposed value systems or fundamentally opposed perceptions of reality.
I don't have to engage with every single person on HN to any extent just because I post on HN. I can also decide to engage with a post without having to commit to engaging with everything else that posters wants to add. I think it provides useful context if I clarify in advance WHY a follow-up might not receive a reply from me. In fact, most discussions on HN aren't back-and-forths between two people and arguably benefit from that.
But what is their definition of “combatant”? The IDF massacred a group of escaped Israeli hostages because the IDF didn’t realize they were Israeli before too late. The escaped hostages had stripped down to thir underwear to show they where unarmed. Neverthless the IDF said the “felt threatend” by them. Presumably these victims would be considered “combatants” if they had not turned out to be be israeli.
Strictly speaking, they are all "civilians", since Gaza is not a state (it is just the coastline of the western Negev - a geographic region of Israel) and does not have regular armed forces. Does this mean that these "civilians" have carte blanche to commit any unthinkable atrocity and remain unpunished?
Most of them are illegal combatants and none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them.
Also, there is documented evidence that even their "civilian civilians" participated in atrocities, not to mention that a significant portion of them elected and supported terrorist "government".
I'm guessing that the so-called "civilian combatants" in these reports are people who are on the payroll of a terrorist organization, such as police officers, security guards, tunnel builders, etc. - anyone who helps/supports the terrorist "government", but may not be 100% militants by themselves. I.e. like the difference between a regular support soldier and a special forces.
Good to remember the real world consequences for the people on the ground when we declare combatants as non-state paramilitaries rather than recognising them with fuller status.
Indeed the Geneva Convention doesn't apply which means lots of things are on the table that otherwise wouldn't be. This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
> This is how the British state forces were able to use chemical weapons against the civilian population in Northern Ireland.
I'm guessing these Catholics from Northern Ireland were British citizens, right?
This is something between separatism and civil war (although much closer to the former than the latter).
A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons, similarly to what Egypt did when they controlled Gaza.
A significant portion of Gaza's population today is descended from Egypt, they even speak with the Egyptian accent.
And majority of the advanced weapons were smuggled via Egypt.
I wasn't making an analogy, just pointing out another time when the definition of what was and wasn't a war had real world consequences for people on the ground.
But I would say two things: First, not only Catholics were targeted during the Troubles. If tear gas is used to dispel a riot then it not only those involved on both sides but also anyone down wind from it. My mother lost her eyesight from tear gas related injuries because she had to walk past a flash point daily on her return from work.
Secondly, while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
I remember when during the 2020 civil rights protests in the US people were talking about the Geneva convention and calling what the police did "in violation" of it, especially wrt chemical warfare, only to be surprised to find out it doesn't apply outside formal wars.
I think if we want to make comparisons, an important difference is that Gaza has been existing in a limbo where Israel insists it's a sovereign territory because Israel withdrew from it but also insists it's part of Israel because they want to control its borders and what goes in and comes out of it.
Also, in addition to everything that happens in Gaza, Palestinian Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank have also been targeted by Israel despite Hamas being largely confined to Gaza.
> a war had real world consequences for people on the ground
no need to point obvious things
> not only Catholics were targeted
In case everyone were targets, and not just separatists - then it's closer to civil war. It only shows how cruel Brittish were (or still are), and all the double standards with regards to Israel.
> while citizens of Northern Ireland are British by birth they were also entitled by birth to Irish citizenship after 1956.
Granting citizenship to people in breakaway separatists regions is the strategy employed by Putin. Russia first grant them citizenship, and then uses this as a pretext for military invasion in order to protect their newly acquired "citizens".
Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic, but granting citizenship to foreign people in confict areas is still problematic.
> A better analogy would be if the Republic of Ireland settled its citizens there en masse and provided them with weapons,
This did actually happen, but the other way around. The British settled citizens en masse in Ireland and provided them with weapons. This was called the Ulster Plantation. Even today many people in the North of Ireland speak with a dialect derived from the Scots language.
Interestingly, Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor in Jerusalem, was recorded to have said that the Balfour Declaration’s purpose was to form a “little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” [0]
> Obviosly, Republic of Ireland doesn't employ this tactic
No, and I think the comparison is a little unfair. It's true that these things can be abused tactically but it's not always the case.
I'm familiar with Anglo-Saxon and Norsemen colonization of Celtic people in Britain and Ireland.
The latter is referred as a series of "Plantations"[1, 2].
Interestingly, while in some western/highland parts of Britain, Celts kept their language, but adopted Anglicanism as a religion, in most of the Ireland they kept their Catholic religion, but adopted English language, and only in some western parts of Ireland kept both.
Anyway, if we go back to medieval times, then we can also talk about Arab and Ottoman colonization of Israel.
---
[1]. Israel condemns London's Ulster plantation project after private colonisation contract was awarded by the Queen
> Interestingly, Ronald Storrs, the first British military governor in Jerusalem, was recorded to have said that the Balfour Declaration’s purpose was to form a “little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.”
And to further this, historical and current Israeli restrictions on West Bank Palestinians and authorization and promotion of Israeli settlers seem like exactly the playbook one would run for crypto-annexation.
> none of the Geneva Conventions should apply to them.
The Geneva Convention is (currently) humanity's best attempt at codifying ethical aspects of war. Unfortunately, it is not some lofty goal to aspire to. Oh no. It is the result of discussion and compromise. In other words, it literally is the lowest possible ethical standard we agreed to hold each other to. We should strive to do better, not worse.
Therefore:
all of the Geneva Convention applies, always, to everyone.
So-called "international law" is not really a law, but only a set of political treaties. In addition, the jihadists and other bad actors do not recognize it.
Japan killed 2403 Americans at Pearl Harbor, to which the US retaliated by killing over 2 million Japanese, with more than 100 thousands in a single day.
So don't tell me about "conventions" that apply to some and don't apply to others. It's not some Law of Physics. It's a man-made stuff, invented by corrupt politicians.
If the international treaties do not work - they shouldn't be treated as written in stone - instead they should be changed and adapted to the realities of the modern assymetric wars. And also everyone should be treated the same - no double standards, otherwise nobody should recognize them.
We program the world through incentives, positive and negative. Malicious agents must be disintensivized/punished, and if that doesn't work - destroyed.
Elsewhere reported to be 100:1 for high-ranking Hamas targets
>> Several of the sources described how, for certain categories of targets, the IDF applied pre-authorised allowances for the estimated number of civilians who could be killed before a strike was authorised.
>> Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.
This talk of a ratio is mostly irrelevant. Palestinians are not being killed as a matter of retribution. They are being killed as enemies or collateral in the pursuit of enemies.
If Israel could neutralise Hamas and retrieve the hostages with zero casualties, they would do it. That's obviously impossible.
With the ratio of the dead being about 4 civilians to every 1 Hamas fighter it checks out with other major wars. Considering Hamas is a gurella force that's actually quite good.
Gen Westmoreland might provide some insight on the consequences of making enemy KIA the reward function, and the incentives that back-propogates to the classifier.
And to the IDF's credit, as much as I have issue with their absent strategic goals and tactical choices, they are fighting a guerrilla insurgence in one of the most density populated areas in the world.
So, it could have been worse? But it still isn't great.
The ratio of civilian to military deaths of the October 7th attack is very similar to Israel's in Gaza, around two thirds.
Israel has been caught multiple times willfully killing civilians in this conflict, and there are hundreds of statements by politicians, officers and soldiers calling for atrocities or even genocide. Israel is not a moral actor, and far more comparable to Hamas than any real democracy.
The Israeli government is currently at ~30 killed Palestinians for each 1 killed Israeli.
Presumably, whatever anyone's opinion, there's some ratio that is unjust. Or is killing every Palestinian in Gaza just?
Last I checked, Exodus' Covenant Code [0] was also pretty clear on this, and it didn't include any multiple.
>> Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
[0] https://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/21.html