[wat0n]

How does the Ukraine example shows that distance and proportionality have nothing to do with each other?

Both Moscow and Kiev have been attacked even though they are not in the frontlines.

Now, please provide evidence that the IDF considers the nu:her of civilian deaths when considering an attack.

The IDF does its best to warn and let civilians in the vicinity of a military target to evacuate before attacking. That is evidently a measure to decrease collateral damage to them.

And of course, as I have also shown, they sometimes even call attacks off when there are just too many civilians around.

[Pants-of-dog]

How does the fact that military targets can exist far from the front lines somehow refute the idea that it is not justified to kill civilians who are nowhere near any combat?

And I am still waiting for evidence that the IDF considers the number of civilian casualties in an attack.

[wat0n]

How does the fact that military targets can exist far from the front lines somehow refute the idea that it is not justified to kill civilians who are nowhere near any combat?

Has anyone accused Ukraine of disproportionate attacks over bombing Russian military targets even when there have been civilians killed?

And I am still waiting for evidence that the IDF considers the number of civilian casualties in an attack.

You already got it: Evacuating civilians is an example.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Ukraine argument seems to once again have nothing to do with distance and proportionality.

And there is still no evidence of the IDF considering nu:hers when looking at possible attacks.

[wat0n]

Moscow and Kiev are hundreds of kilometers away from the battlefield. Certainly, father away than the distance between any two points in Gaza.

I already mentioned the evidence, the IDF allows civilians to evacuate, if feasible, before any attacks.

[Pants-of-dog]

Repetition is not an argument.

Please show that the IDF tried to evacuate civilians prior to the attack on the residential towers in Al Yarmouk in Gaza City on October 25th. Or the recent bombing in the Nuseirat refugee camp. Or that it has done so in an effective manner for 50%+1 or more of all attacks that may include civilian casualties.

[wat0n]

Denial is not an argument.

The warnings to civilians to flee areas Israel is going to operate where they are very much well known, and yes those broad warnings are both legal and evidence of Israel's desire to limit civilian casualties.

If Israel did not care, it would just not warn them at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, evidence that these warnings actually happen would be better than simply repeating the claim over and over again.

[wat0n]

Just a quick Google search

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/middleea ... index.html

[Pants-of-dog]

Please quote the relevant text.

It us not my job to make your argument for you.

[wat0n]

Israel drops leaflets on parts of southern Gaza suggesting possible expansion of offensive against Hamas
By Andrew Carey and Christian Edwards, CNN
3 minute read
Published 11:59 AM EST, Thu November 16, 2023

Jerusalem
CNN
—
Israel has dropped leaflets across parts of southern Gaza calling on civilians to evacuate and “head towards known shelters,” indicating Israel could soon expand its ground operation against Hamas to the south of the enclave.

Leaflets were dropped Wednesday on four communities to the east of Khan Younis, the largest city in southern Gaza, warning people living there to “evacuate your residence immediately.”

Lazy as ever.

[Pants-of-dog]

The part where they talk about how they were unable to track down a leaflet or talk directly to anyone who had seen a leaflet has not been quoted.

There is no way to determine if this was effective or even done as claimed.

Nor does it provide evidence about the recent attack on Nuseirat, as requested.

Or the attack on Al Yarmouk in Gaza City.

Nor does it show that these warnings happen consistently or frequently enough to avoid casualties.

[wat0n]

More laziness by @Pants-of-dog

The director of the Norwegian Refugee Council, which has staff in Gaza, suggested Wednesday in a social media post that members of his local team had seen the leaflet. Reuters also said it had spoken to people who had seen it.

It seems to have been effective since most people moved.

They also do seem to have warned people in Nuseirat, Gaza City and to have been done consistently and frequently enough to get civilians to evacuate, given that most did.

I will note this does show there is a bound on the civilian casualties Israel is willing to accept, given the consistent use of warnings to let civilians evacuate.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that the quote shows that CNN never saw the leaflet nor talked to anyone who did. If this was a court, it would be considered hearsay and would not be admissible as evidence.

Now, please provide evidence for the incidents mentioned, or for the statistical threshold mentioned earlier. Thank you.

[wat0n]

Yet the Norwegian Refugee Council, an anti-Israel NGO, did confirm those leaflets were dropped. So did people who work for Reuters.

That alone is evidence of existence of a limit of acceptable civilian casualties for Israel, even if they do not make any figures public (and under IHL that figure is not the same in each and every attack).

[Pants-of-dog]

No. The Norwegian RC and Reuters said they spoke to people who say they saw the leaflets. Neither the NRC nor Reuters saw the leaflets.

And the evidence for the incidents mentioned and the statistical evidence is still missing.

Without these, these two incidents and the majority of killings, seem to have been surprise attacks against civilians.

[wat0n]

No, the Norwegian RC said its staffers had seen the leaflets. @Pants-of-dog seems to be illiterate.

There's no way the attacks were surprise since civilians were warned to evacuate beforehand.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, someone (the Norwegian RC) said that someone else (their staffers) said that they saw it.

This is called “hearsay”.

And we are still waiting for the evidence concerning the two major attacks or, the statistical evidence.

[wat0n]

It's actually called "first hand testimony of workers in the field, reported on CNN".

I will note dropping those leaflets is good enough evidence of warning civilians about upcoming military operations.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show the first hand testimony.

The mention of the tweet by the NRC is not first hand. Nor is it second hand. It is third hand.

————-

More importantly, there seems to be no evidence that the IDF warned peoole before the attack on the apartment towers (very 9/11!) or the Nuseirat attack, or for the majority of attacks.

Therefore it is incorrect to claim that the IDF warns people on any significant level.