[QatzelOk]

So the IDF can deliberately target and kill civilians but it is not "terrorism" because they supposedly honestly believe that there is a military target there too.

Does it matter how well founded or sincere the belief is?

The bolded question is an interesting one because Israel was created by Jewish atheists.
How sincere was their belief? Totally non-existent, if "belief" means in God.

And the structure "Jewish atheists" is an interesting one as we rarely hear about Catholic atheists, Prespyterian atheists, Russian orthodox atheists, etc. (Imagine if Catholic atheists from North America launched a project to ethnic-cleanse millions of Italians so that they could "reclaim" the Vatican.)

The "religious" flavor of the Isreal project is just there to add Hollywood gravitas to yet another European colonial project built out of greed and enabled by racismTM.

The Puritans played the same role in the genocide of the First Nations: "angelic dolls strategically placed in front of genocidal land-acquisition projects."

“[W]ar between Palestine and Israel … is not a war around religion or between faiths or gods. It’s a war for that which is no longer being produced — land … The Palestinians are the Indigenous people of the region. They are thus equivalent to the Navajo, Apache and Seminoles of the West.” - Political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal

[JohnRawls]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

Yes and? It clearly states that combatants are using that civilian infrastructure, its fair game with some exceptions. (Hospitals I think come to mind the most)

Civilian infrastructure by default is not protected if it is used to wage war.

[wat0n]

1. Israel is bombing northern Gaza. How is all of northern Gaza a military target?

"All" of northern Gaza? Is literally every millimeter being bombed?

2. @wat0n already provided an article describing how the use of guided weapons has not resulted in less destruction or less collateral damage.

Correct, and that use was likely legal.

Precision weapons fulfill the principle of distinction and each attack was likely proportional. I say "likely" because the very concept of "proportionality" in IHL is very vague.

3. What is the current proportion of Palestinian deaths that are civilians? What is the allowed limit?

We don't know for sure. There's no hard limit, because proportionality is measured by looking at each attack and not at aggregate figures, and for each attack one must know what military advantage would an attacker expect to achieve and compare it to what damage would this attacker expect to do to civilians in the process.

That means, then, that this comparison is 1) inherently subjective, you're comparing two things that are arguably not comparable, 2) depends on the attacker's knowledge of the situation at the time of the attack, which is not something us - who are looking at this from the outside - can know and 3) one can't judge from aggregate figures either because this calculation is done looking at each attack individually, again, based on information that isn't really public.

Going back to the Mosul example, the level of destruction we saw there is not something the US expected, and to see something like that happening due to the use of precision weapons is paradoxical because of how counterintuitive it is. Each individual attack was expected to do little collateral damage to civilians that were outside the building to be hit and such damage would be limited to those who would be in the same building ISIS fighters were. Furthermore, the attacks were expected to kill all the ISIS fighters targeted, making it unnecessary to use more than a single projectile to hit them.

In reality, the attacks would be too weak to kill ISIS fighters, so they'd survive and flee to another building while civilians - who are less likely to know how to take cover - would be killed and even then they'd often be killed by being crushed by their dwellings and not by the explosion itself. This would then lead Iraqi ground troops to request another attack, creating a loop that would, in effect, destroy much of Mosul.

[Fasces]

Yes and? It clearly states that combatants are using that civilian infrastructure, its fair game with some exceptions. (Hospitals I think come to mind the most)

Civilian infrastructure by default is not protected if it is used to wage war.

You literally said that for a strike against civilians to be legitimate, it must be proportional.

The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine,[1] is a military strategy of asymmetric warfare, outlined by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of General Staff Gadi Eizenkot, which encompasses the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to deny combatants the use of that infrastructure[2] and endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end.[3][4]

Why are we tying ourselves and our legal definitions in such desperate knots to avoid implicating Israel, if not because:

An answer that gets closer to the fundamental truth of the Western led order is "what makes a particular strike a war crime or not is the identity of the perpetrator. our allies? Not a war crime. Our enemies? War crime."

[JohnRawls]

You literally said that for a strike against civilians to be legitimate, it must be proportional.



Why are we tying ourselves and our legal definitions in such desperate knots to avoid implicating Israel, if not because:

Why is attack on civilian infrastructure non-proportional if its used by the enemy combatants? I don't understand your argument here at all. The main idea behind proportionality is that you don't commit mass murder for 1 combatant or something like that. So unless it is a Hospital and a Mosque/Church filled with refugees than proportionality will be okay.

In the same sense it is hard to charge Russia for attacking all of the Ukrainian power grid to turn off power during the Winter. It is as close as an attack on critical civilian infrastructure as you are going to get that is borderline for the argument, far worse than what Israel is doing in Gaza if all power goes out. On the other hand everyone are saying that Butcha is a war crime. There was almost no fighters in Butcha when they killed people and simply mass executing civilians because you are afraid of civilians coordinating air strikes or artillery strikes is not a good excuse. That is definately not proportional.

[wat0n]

@JohnRawls my understanding is that there were no Ukrainian soldiers in Bucha, and in any event tying civilians up, torturing and executing them suggests they were in fact targeted and not killed during combat.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls my understanding is that there were no Ukrainian soldiers in Bucha, and in any event tying civilians up, torturing and executing them suggests they were in fact targeted and not killed during combat.

It is a bit more complicated, army who thought that there would be no resistance got resisted so they blew their casket of sorts and civilians did help target them with artillery strikes. Put on top of that the general bad discipline and ignorance of human in the Russian army rights on top of it being a "rich suburb" and you get Butcha.

[Pants-of-dog]

So there is no indication that Israel is avoiding civilian targets in northern Gaza.

There is evidence that using precision munitions does not decrease civilian casualties at all.

The number of civilians that can justifiably be killed is subjective and vague.

Since that is the case, it is difficult to argue that IDF tactics do not constitute a war crime.

[JohnRawls]

So there is no indication that Israel is avoiding civilian targets in northern Gaza.

There is evidence that using precision munitions does not decrease civilian casualties at all.

The number of civilians that can justifiably be killed is subjective and vague.

Since that is the case, it is difficult to argue that IDF tactics do not constitute a war crime.

That is for you to prove. Simply saying that they are not avoiding is not going to cut it. You need to prove that they are intentionally targeting civilians WITHOUT any militants nearby or that they break the proportionality principle. Both cases are not possible to prove in my book due to Hamas tactics and behaviour.

Edit: And even after that, Israel will basically say that Hamas is doing the same if proven actually. Since firing rockets randomly at Israel is a war crime for 100%. So we are back at square one sort off.

This Israel - Palestinian stuff is just stupid honestly. Get rid of the extremists on both sides and then there is something to talk about. Otherwise this is pointless to discuss. Just hang Likud and Hamas-Other radicals and be done with it.

[Fasces]

Why is attack on civilian infrastructure non-proportional if its used by the enemy combatants?

I am not the one characterizing the force deployed as "disproportionate". That is the literal characterization of the doctrine given by the IDF leadership itself - that the strikes target civilian areas with a "disproportionate" response to demoralize the civilians.

Even the IDF itself isn't using being as weasel about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no "proportionality principle".

It is an unverifiable and subjective notion that is used by western countries to ignore their culpability.

The claim was that deliberately targeting and killing civilians is acceptable if the location being targeted is a military location.

Northern Gaza is being bombed.

Is northern Gaza a military location?

[JohnRawls]

There is no "proportionality principle".

It is an unverifiable and subjective notion that is used by western countries to ignore their culpability.

The claim was that deliberately targeting and killing civilians is acceptable if the location being targeted is a military location.

Northern Gaza is being bombed.

Is northern Gaza a military location?

Yes if there are combatants in places that are being bombed.

[wat0n]

So there is no indication that Israel is avoiding civilian targets in northern Gaza.

That's not how it works. It is you who has to prove Israel is targeting civilians.

I am pretty sure you would not accept if we applied this standard of guilty until proven otherwise to Black people who are accused of a crime. Why don't you apply it to everyone?

There is evidence that using precision munitions does not decrease civilian casualties at all.

Depends on the case.

The number of civilians that can justifiably be killed is subjective and vague.

Since that is the case, it is difficult to argue that IDF tactics do not constitute a war crime.

The number of civilians who can be killed as collateral damage while attacking a legitimate military target is indeed subjective and vague. This logically does not mean you can claim killing civilians under those circumstances is always a war crime and therefore you can't say it is difficult to argue IDF tactics don't constitute a war crime. In reality, it is hard to make that call - and that's because IHL is vague in this regard - so I don't.

[wat0n]

I am not the one characterizing the force deployed as "disproportionate". That is the literal characterization of the doctrine given by the IDF leadership itself - that the strikes target civilian areas with a "disproportionate" response to demoralize the civilians.

Even the IDF itself isn't using being as weasel about it.

Disproportionate in what sense?

[ingliz]

@wat0n

What would be considered a proportionate response by a neutral observer?

If you are @wat0n, a self-professed neutral, using artillery or a big JDAM bomb on a residential area to take out a lone terrorist.

[Fasces]

Disproportionate in what sense?

It's an IDF self-characterization. They define it as a deliberately disproportionate response.

Wat0n & johnrawls: prove Israel commits war crimes

IDF: our doctrine is to bomb civilian areas with disproportionate force

Wat0n & JohnRawls: but did you actually mean that?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

What would be considered a proportionate response by a neutral observer?

I don't know, what would?

If you are @wat0n, a self-professed neutral, using artillery or a big JDAM bomb on a residential area to take out a lone terrorist.

Has Israel done that?

You don't even care about distinction, you're okay with massacres like Bucha, there's no reason to care about what you think is proportionate or not, herr Ohlendorf.

It's an IDF self-characterization. They define it as a deliberately disproportionate response.

Wat0n & johnrawls: prove Israel commits war crimes

IDF: our doctrine is to bomb civilian areas with disproportionate force

Wat0n & JohnRawls: but did you actually mean that?

You did not answer the question.

Disproportionate in the sense of using overwhelming force? Disproportionate in the sense the harm on civilians they expect from their attacks is greater than their military advantage?

Note the IDF also said it considered Hezbollah was using villages like Dahiyah, all of it, for its own military ends, to the point of turning them into military bases.

[Fasces]

Note the IDF also said it considered Hezbollah was using villages like Dahiyah, all of it, for its own military ends, to the point of turning them into military bases.

And yet they self-described their response as 'disproportionate'.

[wat0n]

And yet they self-described their response as 'disproportionate'.

Which why I'm asking you, in what sense?

If they're correct or it's at least based on honest intelligence, it would not be clearly disproportionate to attack those villages with full force under IHL - it'd be necessary to do that rather stupid comparison between military advantage and incidental harm to civilians. But such force would be far, far greater than anything Hezbollah can muster.

[Fasces]

They weren't attacking Hezbollah. They were targetting civilian infrastructure that Hezbollah had a theoretical potential of using - in the same way that a farmer becomes a legitimate target because his wheat feeds soldiers - while simultaneously demoralizing civilians through a show of force (shock and awe).

If they are lowering their standards to that level, and calling their own attacks 'disproportionate' while doing so... if the IDF itself can say what it is...

The first time strategic bombing became a tactic of war was in WW2, the pioneers themselves said that if they lost the war, they would be prosecuted as war criminals. These men are making these decisions accepting that they are immoral and criminal, yet accepting it, because they believe in the victory.

You are in a position where you simultaneously accept that immorality, in theory, but are in complete denial about the ethical cost - despite the fact that there is no ethical cost to you. You're not stuck in an impossible trolley problem between protecting your comrades and killing civilians. Despite that, you want to have your cake and eat it too - bombing of this nature is a war crime, but Israel doesn't commit war crimes, as such, this bombing was not a war crime even if Israel itself characterizes it as such.

They have to weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions in a very real way, and they recognized their own hypocrisy. Why can't you?

It costs you literally nothing to condemn this action - with zero practical effect - and yet you're spending energy trying to jump through intellectual hoops to justify the unjustifiable.