8 ms·

Thanks for responding. The numbers were halved and the total number dosent account the enlistment age is 15. Secondarily, what do you when the enemy is using

Thanks for responding. The numbers were halved and the total number dosent account the enlistment age is 15. Secondarily, what do you when the enemy is using that expectation as piece of leverage to make it practically impossible to strike more surgically. I’m not the smartest, but I seems like you’re saying that if one side uses their population as attack deterrents and shields that it’s incumbent on the other side to comply?

KittenInABox 2y ago
I think, if what you are saying is true, then Israeli leadership can simply explain themselves as such in court (surrender themselves to the ICC warrant) and be proclaimed not guilty.
- YZF 2y ago
  If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case. It's unclear how justice can be done here and what's the standard of evidence. The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying. There is no independent body reporting numbers, they're either coming from the government of Gaza, i.e. Hamas, or they're coming from Israel. It's just a political circus/war of public opinion.
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
    > If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case. Yes, if their explanations were accepted as conclusive by the prosecutor there wouldn't be a court case, but the prosecutor isn't the final decisionmaker for the court. > The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying. While the details of the charges asked for, beyond their titles, have not been laid out, I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them.
    - YZF 2y ago
      > I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them. They totally do. They halved the number of children and women killed which completely changes the combatant/civilian ratio. > The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case. It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court. Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants. What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted? Is there some sort of uninvolved party that can give us the truth here?
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court. There's quite a history of ICC cases (and they build on a history of ad hoc tribunals like those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.) The kinds of evidence that are acceptable are... not particularly mysterious. > Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants. Yeah, if the ICC operated on the level of these kinds of claims it wouldn't take months of evidence gathering before referrals to get to warrants. > What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted? Once there are actual charges with specifics (right now, we just have the names of crimes for which warrants are being sought, not the specific charges) the kinds of evidence that would tend to disprove the specific charges against specific individuals will be more clear.
input_sh 2y ago
Perhaps reduce the number of acceptable civilian casualties per target? It is public info that Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member. That is a ridiculously high figure in my opinion. I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to witness something on such scale somewhere in the world during my lifetime, but I certainly didn't expect a modern-day "western" "democracy" to get away with it.
- YZF 2y ago
  Were you born before the civil war in Syria? (>300k civilian deaths) Before the war in Yemen? (>300k deaths and I think >20k civilians just from Saudi coalition air strikes) Before the Russia-Ukraine war? (>25k civilians killed just in the siege of Mariupol according to Ukraine) Before the US war with Afghanistan? (>46k civilians killed) There are supposedly 30,000-40,000 Hamas combatants. The IDF said in December that it has killed 8000 Hamas combatants. In February it said 12,000 were killed. I don't know where you're getting your 1:20 ratio. Hamas certainly does not differentiate combatants from other casualties and at any rate you should have zero trust in their numbers. There were probably certain situations where a specific target was attacked with that or even higher ratios but the overall civilian to combatant casualty ratio, while unknown, is almost certainly nothing close to that. What is your reference to "Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member"? I've never heard of that.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > What is your reference to "Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member"? I've never heard of that. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ It's been pretty widely reported; I've seen it repeated in every publication I follow. (Don't forget that Israel triple-tapped an aid convoy because someone thought that a Hamas militant might have contacted them.)
    - YZF 2y ago
      I think we need to be very accurate here. What you said: "It is public info that Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member." Let's look at the quote from your article: "In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants." There are a few problems here: - This is not sourced and we shouldn't treat it as fact. If other publications you read repeated that it doesn't change this. It's also not clear for how long this policy was in place if it was. - This is a question of proportionality in the laws of war sense of the word. I.e. what collateral damage is acceptable when attacking an enemy combatant. If that statement you refer to is factual, which we don't know, it means that strikes against combatants are approved up this threshold. - It's almost certainly not reflecting the total civilian to combatant ratio. It just says that in certain circumstances a combatant was targeted even if there are civilians present. That's something that happens in all wars. We don't have any information on the totality of strikes and which strikes met this exact threshold. I'm not sure what numbers other western armies use. The quote refers compares with previous situations which were not an outright war (and show that at least in the past Israel was a lot more careful about collateral damage). Anyways, if you were more precise in your wording I wouldn't take issue, but I think the casual reader can read something different into what you've said. We can debate the morality of any particular collateral damage under conditions of dense urban environment, human shields, major war etc. but this is something that happens in all wars likely with somewhat different numbers.

KittenInABox 2y ago

I think, if what you are saying is true, then Israeli leadership can simply explain themselves as such in court (surrender themselves to the ICC warrant) and be proclaimed not guilty.

YZF 2y ago
If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case. It's unclear how justice can be done here and what's the standard of evidence. The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying. There is no independent body reporting numbers, they're either coming from the government of Gaza, i.e. Hamas, or they're coming from Israel. It's just a political circus/war of public opinion.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > If Israel's explanations were accepted then there wouldn't be a court case The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case. Yes, if their explanations were accepted as conclusive by the prosecutor there wouldn't be a court case, but the prosecutor isn't the final decisionmaker for the court. > The UN just made a huge change to their accounting blaming "the fog of war" which puts their numbers much more in line with what Israel was saying. While the details of the charges asked for, beyond their titles, have not been laid out, I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them.
  - YZF 2y ago
    > I don't think the numerical counts that have been adjusted have much bearing on any of them. They totally do. They halved the number of children and women killed which completely changes the combatant/civilian ratio. > The explanations to be accepted by the court would have to be presented as evidence at trial, which would require their to be a court case. It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court. Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants. What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted? Is there some sort of uninvolved party that can give us the truth here?
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > It's hard to see what sort of evidence will be accepted by the court. There's quite a history of ICC cases (and they build on a history of ad hoc tribunals like those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.) The kinds of evidence that are acceptable are... not particularly mysterious. > Hamas claims every single person killed is a civilian (and their combatants fight in civilian clothes) while Israel claims it's targeting combatants. Yeah, if the ICC operated on the level of these kinds of claims it wouldn't take months of evidence gathering before referrals to get to warrants. > What sort of Israel do you think Israel can present that will clearly support its case and will be accepted? Once there are actual charges with specifics (right now, we just have the names of crimes for which warrants are being sought, not the specific charges) the kinds of evidence that would tend to disprove the specific charges against specific individuals will be more clear.

input_sh 2y ago

Perhaps reduce the number of acceptable civilian casualties per target? It is public info that Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member. That is a ridiculously high figure in my opinion. I'd be lying if I said I didn't expect to witness something on such scale somewhere in the world during my lifetime, but I certainly didn't expect a modern-day "western" "democracy" to get away with it.

YZF 2y ago
Were you born before the civil war in Syria? (>300k civilian deaths) Before the war in Yemen? (>300k deaths and I think >20k civilians just from Saudi coalition air strikes) Before the Russia-Ukraine war? (>25k civilians killed just in the siege of Mariupol according to Ukraine) Before the US war with Afghanistan? (>46k civilians killed) There are supposedly 30,000-40,000 Hamas combatants. The IDF said in December that it has killed 8000 Hamas combatants. In February it said 12,000 were killed. I don't know where you're getting your 1:20 ratio. Hamas certainly does not differentiate combatants from other casualties and at any rate you should have zero trust in their numbers. There were probably certain situations where a specific target was attacked with that or even higher ratios but the overall civilian to combatant casualty ratio, while unknown, is almost certainly nothing close to that. What is your reference to "Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member"? I've never heard of that.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > What is your reference to "Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member"? I've never heard of that. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ It's been pretty widely reported; I've seen it repeated in every publication I follow. (Don't forget that Israel triple-tapped an aid convoy because someone thought that a Hamas militant might have contacted them.)
  - YZF 2y ago
    I think we need to be very accurate here. What you said: "It is public info that Israel is fine with killing up to 15-20 civilians for every lowest-ranked Hamas member." Let's look at the quote from your article: "In an unprecedented move, according to two of the sources, the army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants." There are a few problems here: - This is not sourced and we shouldn't treat it as fact. If other publications you read repeated that it doesn't change this. It's also not clear for how long this policy was in place if it was. - This is a question of proportionality in the laws of war sense of the word. I.e. what collateral damage is acceptable when attacking an enemy combatant. If that statement you refer to is factual, which we don't know, it means that strikes against combatants are approved up this threshold. - It's almost certainly not reflecting the total civilian to combatant ratio. It just says that in certain circumstances a combatant was targeted even if there are civilians present. That's something that happens in all wars. We don't have any information on the totality of strikes and which strikes met this exact threshold. I'm not sure what numbers other western armies use. The quote refers compares with previous situations which were not an outright war (and show that at least in the past Israel was a lot more careful about collateral damage). Anyways, if you were more precise in your wording I wouldn't take issue, but I think the casual reader can read something different into what you've said. We can debate the morality of any particular collateral damage under conditions of dense urban environment, human shields, major war etc. but this is something that happens in all wars likely with somewhat different numbers.