Israel-Hamas Thread II

[essentialsaltes]

Since we know 70% of Palestinians supported Hamas and their attacks in Israel through the years the odds are the civilians hit aren't innocent at all.

That's just gross. They are non-combatants. Many of them children. Whether they pass your litmus test for innocence or not, the rules of war oblige Israel to make efforts to avoid their deaths. Time will tell whether their efforts were in accordance with international law.

 

[o_mlly]

That's just gross. They are non-combatants.

Not all civilians are innocent. Civilians engaged in the military supply effort are legitimate targets when they are engaged in that effort.

Many of them children.

Time will tell whether their efforts were in accordance with international law.

Yes, to judge Israeli acts as immoral or illegal now is to deny them due process.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

If there is a ceasfire, who will guarantee Hamas will not repeat the massacre again? Should not there be more pressure on Hamas to release all hostages and surrender? This way we can guarantee a ceasfire.

But then we have other proxies of Iran i.e. Hezbollah, who will attack with other Iranian proxies in the future. Then what?

 

[RDKirk]

Did you read the citations?

You posted that you thought the notion of proportionality in war was quite novel. No, it is not, as the citations provided attest.

All just wars are wars of self-defense. Aquinas wrote that acts of self-defense must be proportionate: "an act [of self-defense] may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end."


If a lethal act of self-defense is proportionate, then its morality always requires that the act and the actor's intention is to save one's own life.

You may be confusing Augustine's comment that, "love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like" refers to the objective of the act. Rather, the good saint is qualifying those particular intentions of the actor as immoral.

Strawman?

Thank you for your service.

You are failing to accurately recognize the ideal you're arguing to support.

The modern concept of "proportionality" being discussed in reference to this war is not what Augustine and Aquinas discussed. The way I characterized "proportionality" it is the way it is being promoted today: "They killed twelve of ours, so we may only kill twelve of theirs."

That does not end the war, that continues it.

 

[o_mlly]

You are failing to accurately recognize the ideal you're arguing to support.

Strawman. Can you cite my post where I argue as you claim. I think not.

 

[RDKirk]

Strawman. Can you cite my post where I argue as you claim. I think not.

So, what are you arguing with me about?

 

[o_mlly]

So, what are you arguing with me about?

​

No, my professor was a lawyer who was realistic about how law works in the world, fallen as it is.

I'm kinda losing you here. What is your point - that law determines morality? I think not.

My point is that in this fallen world, power determines law.​

 

[RDKirk]

​

​

​

My point is that in this fallen world, power determines law.​

Okay, so you're disagreeing that in this fallen world power defines law?

 

[o_mlly]

... so you're disagreeing that in this fallen world power defines law?

No, I'm disagreeing as to what was posted: that power determines the laws of conducting a just war. I don't see any point to continue this exchange further.

 

[RDKirk]

No, I'm disagreeing as to what was posted: that power determines the laws of conducting a just war. I don't see any point to continue this exchange further.

Well, international law is what the nations with dominating international power says it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds​

Civilian proportion of deaths is higher than the average in all world conflicts in 20th century, data suggests

Haaretz published an analysis by Yagil Levy, a sociology professor at the Open University of Israel, which found that in three earlier campaigns in Gaza, in the period from 2012-22, the ratio of civilian deaths to the total of those killed in airstrikes hovered at about 40%. That ratio declined to 33% in a bombing campaign earlier this year, called Operation Shield and Arrow.

In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron, the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy described as “unprecedented killing” for Israeli forces in Gaza. The ratio is significantly higher than the average civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead, according to Levy.

Haaretz headline:

The Israeli Army Has Dropped the Restraint in Gaza, and the Data Shows Unprecedented Killing​

The IDF chief of staff recently boasted of the army's precise munitions and its ability to reduce harm to noncombatants. But the data shows that in the war on Hamas that principle has been abandoned

 

[RDKirk]

Civilians make up 61% of Gaza deaths from airstrikes, Israeli study finds​

Civilian proportion of deaths is higher than the average in all world conflicts in 20th century, data suggests

Haaretz published an analysis by Yagil Levy, a sociology professor at the Open University of Israel, which found that in three earlier campaigns in Gaza, in the period from 2012-22, the ratio of civilian deaths to the total of those killed in airstrikes hovered at about 40%. That ratio declined to 33% in a bombing campaign earlier this year, called Operation Shield and Arrow.

In the first three weeks of the current operation, Swords of Iron, the civilian proportion of total deaths rose to 61%, in what Levy described as “unprecedented killing” for Israeli forces in Gaza. The ratio is significantly higher than the average civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world during the 20th century, in which civilians accounted for about half the dead, according to Levy.

Haaretz headline:

The Israeli Army Has Dropped the Restraint in Gaza, and the Data Shows Unprecedented Killing​

The IDF chief of staff recently boasted of the army's precise munitions and its ability to reduce harm to noncombatants. But the data shows that in the war on Hamas that principle has been abandoned

If deaths could be confined solely to combatants, the war would never, ever cease.

As obvious point of fact, all the civilians killed in past actions have been futile deaths.

The question is: What does it take to force Hamas to permanently cease hostilities?

That's a real question for you, @essentialsaltes . What do you think it will take to permanently end hostilities in a real world where neither the Palestinians nor the Israelies are willing to accept an idealistic 2-state solution? Seriously...what's your answer?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The question is: What does it take to force Hamas to permanently cease hostilities?

The answer should not be "commit war crimes".

 

[RDKirk]

The answer should not be "commit war crimes".

You might as well have said "fairy godmother."

Wars end when the losses become intolerable. Clearly this war has not reached that point.

The loser in a war will always accuse the winner of war crimes, the winner will always define the actions that won the war in his favor as justified.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, your crystal ball is in desperate need of a severe overhaul. How much courage does it take to secretly attack unarmed men, women and children at play?

I presume you purposely ignored what I said about abhorrent acts because, well, you know, there was a high horse ready and waiting. Guess it seemed a waste not to mount up.

 

[Bradskii]

Secondly, even if the numbers are accurate, I don't really see the problem.

The number of posts trying to deny the death toll gives the lie to that statement.

 

[Bradskii]

Not all civilians are innocent. Civilians engaged in the military supply effort are legitimate targets when they are engaged in that effort.

View attachment 340321

Just what in hell's name is posting a picture of some poor kid with a gun meant to imply? In this context, when it has just been stated that innocent children are being killed, what are you trying to say? Not all kids are innocent? Some are actually combatants in this mess? That they may he valid targets?

This thread is reaching new lows.

 

[Occams Barber]

I presume you purposely ignored what I said about abhorrent acts because, well, you know, there was a high horse ready and waiting. Guess it seemed a waste not to mount up.

I haven't even bothered to come near this thread since it's being played as a zero sum game.

If you deplore the actions of Hamas you are obviously indifferent to the civilian deaths in Gaza

If you are concerned about civilian deaths in Gaza you're obviously anti-Semitic.

If you're a Christian you support the idea that the Jews have a God given right to Israel

If you read real history you recognise the historic injustices done to the Palestinian people.

OB

 

[rjs330]

That's just gross. They are non-combatants. Many of them children. Whether they pass your litmus test for innocence or not, the rules of war oblige Israel to make efforts to avoid their deaths. Time will tell whether their efforts were in accordance with international law.

And Israel is doing that if they can. Geez you guys are acting like Israel is just walking up to random kids in the street eating a lollipop and shooting them in the head.

Non-combatants can be terrorists too. Being a terrorist doesn't mean you have to pick up a gun. Supporting terrorists in other ways doesn't make you innocent. And if you have your kids with you then you are guilty of their deaths as well. Terrorists don't get to live their lives in a vacuum.

 

[civilwarbuff]

There was evidence provided in that article.

"One of General McChrystal’s aides in Afghanistan calculated that at the beginning of that war there were 1,500 to 2,000 insurgents. Four years later, there were 30,000 to 35,000. A 2010 report found that for each incident involving civilian casualties in Afghanistan, there would be at least one additional violent clash in that same district over the next six weeks. The authors referred to this as the 'revenge' effect."

It's called counter-insurgency mathematics and it's been proven to be true in many conflicts going back to at least the 1980's.

I read through the description and while there may be something to it I don't believe that anyone can predict that because of A then B happens especially when dealing with the emotions and beliefs of human beings. It is far more complex than that. The report posted has several places where the authors appear to be grasping by using words such as maybe, possibly and 'evidence suggests'. I can't tell if they actually talked to terrorists to find out what really makes them tick or not; it does not seem they did (a fatal flaw IMO). At first I was going to criticize it for lack of peer review then I noticed it is a working paper; essentially a collection of theories with what the authors believe supporting evidence; far from a finished piece of work. I think if it were submitted for peer review as is it might very well be rejected. It seems to me that they first came to conclusions and then attempted to construct 'evidence' and tables to support those conclusions (just my opinion); working papers tend to come together in relatively short order. They are expected to be re-written.....sometimes several times and without peer review should be taken well.....somewhat lightly.
And of course you are familiar with this old homily:
In research, you might have come across the phrase “correlation doesn’t imply causation.” Correlation and causation are two related ideas, but understanding their differences will help you critically evaluate sources and interpret scientific research.

Correlation describes an association between types of variables: when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables. These variables change together: they covary. But this covariation isn’t necessarily due to a direct or indirect causal link.


Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other; there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. The two variables are correlated with each other and there is also a causal link between them.

A correlation doesn’t imply causation, but causation always implies correlation.

Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples

Correlation means there is a statistical association between variables. Causation means that a change in one variable causes a change in another variable.

www.scribbr.com