The best way I can describe it is chatgpt has an urgent salesman like quality to its text. It adds words and sentences that have no informational content but instead are used to increase the emotional weight of the text.
You can still find plenty of reasonable housing in the US. As for young people on the coasts, yea I don't know how they will own a house within the next 10 years.
It's rather shocking that they stayed together over such a long journey that included no stops. I tend to agree with the other commentators that they didn't fly the whole way to South America.
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.
They claim the system has 90% accuracy, so they would have to actually kill about 10% more people than these numbers, to offset the 10% error rate. So between 610500 and 814000. The whole Gaza strip had about 2 million people before the current siege.
The law of armed conflict acknowledges that civilian deaths are inevitable, and only prohibits attacks that are directed at civilians; rather than those which are directed at combatants with expected civilian casualties as collateral damage.
The legal question is whether the civilian casualties are proportional to the concrete military value of the target.
A question that's worth considering is whether, when considering proportionality, all civilians (as defined by law) are made equal in a moral sense.
For example, the category "civilian" includes munitions workers or those otherwise offering support to combatants on the one hand, and young children on the other. It also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.
The law of armed conflict doesn't distinguish these; albeit that I think people might well distinguish, on a moral level, between casualties amongst young children, munitions workers, and informal combatants.
> For example, the category "civilian" includes munitions workers or those otherwise offering support to combatants on the one hand, and young children on the other. It also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.
I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1]
By your argument would you say that all of these are legitimate targets?
> I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1]
I don't think anything in the grandparent post suggested that. If someone used to be a combatant and then ceased fighting, usually they then become a civilian. They don't stay a combatant for life. Reserve forces not on duty are not generally combatants. You have to be in the fight to be a combatant.
Things get more complicated with combatants who don't fully wear uniforms, which is why failing to wear a uniform is a war crime.
It should be noted this isn't so much the grandparent's personal opinion as they are just paraphrasing what the geneva convention says. However there is of course a lot more details to it then that and the devil is in the details.
[Edit: i think i read the post too quickly. The grandparent is incorrect when saying "[Civilians] also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.". If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian. It doesn't matter whether you are formally part of the armed forces. Civilians get protected because we want to protect the innocents stuck in the middle. People who are taking part in a war dont get that protection]
>If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian.
You're not a civilian while you're holding the gun, but you are once you stop shooting again: you lose your protection as a civilian during your period of direct participation. Should have been more clear on that.
It's probably also worth saying that -- while there's a degree of subtlety and complexity when considering the legal and moral position of Israel's armed forces -- there's very little to debate when it comes to actions like the Re'im music festival attack. That kind of action is obviously illegal and morally repugnant.
> while there's a degree of subtlety and complexity when considering the legal and moral position of Israel's armed forces
No, there is no such complexity. There are very obviously undebatable incidents of war crimes by the IDF. Like this footage from a drone who deliberately killed civilians in plain sight and trying to cover the bodies[1] and the IDF targeting aid workers in a location they knew about [2]. Also, there are widespread videos by IDF soldiers committing atrocities and crimes in Gaza and posting it on social media. That is hardly self-defense. This is obvious war crimes against civilians. Not to mention the mass starvation and carpet bombing of civilians. There is very little to debate, and denying them is immoral. You are just using a very old tactic of trying to minimize IDF crimes by claiming their position is complex. Remember the old say "Middle East is complex mess, let's just ignore what is happening there"
The aid worker one is probably the most undebatable one, but it also just happened. How to judge it depends on what happens next. Part of the assumption of war is that it involves people, some of whom are going to be bad - The expectation isn't that a country is perfect, but that it takes steps to prevent war crimes and punish the perpetrators when it happens. We don't know yet whether or not Israel will charge the people involved in the aid worker bombing.
Some of the other things you mention have a lot of grey area, because whether or not they are a war crime don't necessarily depend solely on what happened, but on what Israel's intent was and what they knew at various points in time. Which is information that's hard to know from our vantage point. Some of them could be, but there is also potential that they might not be. Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
> We don't know yet whether or not Israel will charge the people involved in the aid worker bombing
In 2021, Israeli forces killed an American-Palestinian journalist on duty in plain sight [1] I will quote that from Wikipedia
"Israel denied responsibility and blamed Palestinian militants. However, it gradually changed its narrative until admitted she was "accidentally" killed by Israeli fire, but refused to undertake a criminal investigation"
and
"On September 5, the IDF released the results of its own investigation, finding that there was a "high possibility" that Abu Akleh was "accidentally hit" by army fire, but that it would not begin a criminal investigation"
Another example
In 1996, IDF fired shells on UN compound near a village called Qana and caused a civilian massacre. The UN investigated, and Israel refused the results and did not punish anyone [2]. Let's give them a benefit of the doubt, maybe they will just learn and avoid doing it again. Fear not, in 2016 they give us the second Qana massacre [3] without anyone getting punished.
And there are maybe hundred of these events which can establish that Israel doesn't care and IDF don't get punished.
I also refuse the logic that Israel should investigate war crimes by its army. That is absurd, like waiting for Russia to investigate and take their words for Bucha massacre. IDF have very well documented war crimes in the past and IDF is the occupying forces of Palestine and is mass starving 2.3m to death in Gaza right now. Believing that they will carry honest investigation and punish their soldiers is laughable.
And let's not forget to add the IDF lie, and they are blatant Liars. We still remember them claiming week days in Arabic are names of Hamas operatives [4]. Why do you expect us to believe them? Of course, the Israeli officials and cabinet members calling for violence, crimes against Palestinians are well known to everyone now (Feel free to ask me for examples).
> "On September 5, the IDF released the results of its own investigation, finding that there was a "high possibility" that Abu Akleh was "accidentally hit" by army fire, but that it would not begin a criminal investigation"
I'm not sure what your point is here. Accidentally shooting someone is not a warcrime (there are details here in that it still could be if there is a certain level of negligence), and generally a criminal investigation would only be started if there was sufficient evidence in the preliminary investigation to suggest it was intentional.
Could israel be lying about it? Sure. Militaries doing cover ups would hardly be a new story. But this isn't the (metaphorical) smoking gun you think it is.
> In 1996...
1996 was quite a long time ago at this point.
> I also refuse the logic that Israel should investigate war crimes by its army
That's generally what is expected of any army under international law. If they don't then the higher ups become responsible.
In the event of a failure to prosecute, then it goes to the ICC to investigate and charge (israel isn't a member, but palestine is, so anything involving palestine nationals or territory counts, which is basically this whole war. If ICC didn't have juridsiction over something, then the procedure is the UN is supposed to create a special tribunal).
So its not like its solely up to israel to investigate/punish. That is just the first step and what is required for israel to comply with international law. If they fail to uphold their obligations there are other bodies to enforce albeit in practise powerful countries are often ignored by them.
>No, there is no such complexity. There are very obviously undebatable incidents of war crimes by the IDF. Like this footage from a drone who deliberately killed civilians in plain sight
I don't think these things are as unequivocal as you suggest. I mean, you're assuming those people are civilians. Maybe they're not. Almost certainly we will never know for sure, and if you can't acknowledge that then you're not being objective.
> I don't think these things are as unequivocal as you suggest. I mean, you're assuming those people are civilians. Maybe they're not. Almost certainly we will never know for sure, and if you can't acknowledge that then you're not being objective.
I actually expected this reply from you. And expected that you will not see the video and will not get interested in the story. [1] The video shows that they were not armed. If you're just going to define anyone you kill as, maybe he was Hamas. Then of course you will kill everyone and claim that. You don't kill unarmed people walking in plain sight. If this not obvious to you, then you are just wanted to justify the killing of each Palestinian.
Dropping the gun is not sufficient to claim civilian status. Military bases are full of soldiers that may not be armed, or even awake. That lack of a gun does not suddenly grant them civilian status.
That's not what I said: I said that civilians who engage in fighting lose protection as civilians. Members of armed forces, whether currently armed or not, are legitimate targets (with certain exceptions; like the wounded, those who have surrendered etc).
> By your argument would you say that all of these are legitimate targets?
I am not your parent commenter, and do not necessarily subscribe to any of their arguments, but I can answer your question directly: yes, to some people, the conscription of all people in a certain age range does make them legitimate targets.
In particular, from my perspective, one of the primary downsides of the inclusion of women in the armed forces is specifically that it legitimizes taegetting (other) women as a military target.
So, to be explicit, if an organization I conscripts women into their military and someone else targets I women militarily, then I will hold I morally responsible for their fate. Similarly, if an organization H utilizes children as soldiers (or human shields) and other children are militarily targeted, I will consider H morally responsible for their fate. (And to be more explicit still: sucks for all the men everywhere.)
Except that Israel has no business engaging in armed conflict or "war" on a territory they occupy and control. That's the only legal issue that matters. Any armed conduct by Israel in Gaza is by international definition deemed ILLEGAL. There's no right of self defense when you're the predator.
do I read your tone right, and you suggest that would be a reason to celebrate for someone? for whom? you believe the aim of the Israeli military action is territory?
Yes, but specifically the Palestinian impact is why it’s such a terrible policy for Israel unless you assume their goal is perpetual war. Most people do not want to kill other people but each innocent killed like this is leaving behind friends, family, and neighbors who will want vengeance and some fraction of them will decide they need to resort to violence because the other mechanisms aren’t being used. Watching this happen has been incredibly depressing as you can pretty much mathematically predict a revenge period measured in decades.
This assumes they're going to leave enough people alive to even enact vengeance. If they murder everyone, than there's no need to worry about any Gazan revenge; there will be no Gazans.
It's very plausible. Keep in mind that from the get-go, the major global powers, (including Russia!) have adopted the mindset of Israel can do no wrong, and we can't criticize them at all
Israel could glass the entire Gaza strip and the reaction would be a slap on the wrist at best.
There's millions of Palestinians living in the West Bank or as refugees abroad, expelled or descended from those expelled in previous rounds of ethnic cleansing. Even if IDF go final solution on the 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza ghetto, this will not be the end of all Palestinians or the Palestinian struggle. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_diaspora
Could you please clarify what you mean by "Hamas wanted in ghe first place"? If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the attack on the 7th of October, right? May I perhaps add that just on the days preceding that attack, Israelis killed a Palestinian in the West Bank[0]. So it was not really peaceful before that specific date.
I don't see any point in rehashing the I/P infinite regress. You end up trying to figure out where bronze age tribes lived. For the purposes of this conversation I'm going to step away from I/P and look at the strategy that I believe was used in the abstract.
You've got two sides, Able and Baker, with a range of opinions on both sides, from a moderate majority to an extreme minority.
Able extremists attack Baker in a way which is big, shocking and violent.
Baker is provoked into retaliation against Able. Crucially, the retaliation is against the whole of Able, including the moderates.
When it all dies down, there are less Able moderates and more Able extremists. (Because if someone dropped an Acme piano on my family, I'd be tempted to strap on the Acme exploding underpants, too).
This "leverage your enemy's strength to radicalize your own people" approach is common. 9/11 is probably the clearest example, but you could even see the non-violent Civil Rights protests in America in this light (march, provoke violent response, gain converts and sympathy). If this wasn't one of the factors behind the October attacks, Hamas are dumber than I give them credit for.
Thus, I see "the Palestinian people will not forget this" as "the cycle of violence is locked in for another generation".
I agree with you. Let's not rehash this finger pointing argument. It doesn't get us anywhere.
I however disagree with the framing in the example. Starting from the event that Able attacked Baker without mentioning the reasons or the context clearly portrays Baker as not having done anything to provoke such an attack. Nothing ever happens in a vaccuum.
> Starting from the event that Able attacked Baker without mentioning the reasons or the context clearly portrays Baker as not having done anything to provoke such an attack.
Adding at "step zero" with that information in would not change my argument at all. The relative righteousness of the two sides has nothing to do with strategy selection. For the purposes of this abstract argument, it's unnecessary fluff.
I wasn't necessarily trying to point fingers at a specific party. I wanted to better understand the parent's comment and while doing I wrote what I assumed was meant by them. I agree that to solve this issue that has been going on for many, many years we will have to go to the root cause and address that.
"Our system is 90% accurate if you don't count the 15-20 innocent people taken out for each hit". I know they're measuring the accuracy of target identification but that's laughable when used in this context.
For 100 targets, 90 are 'correct', plus 20x civs per-target is 90/2100 or 4% real accuracy.
Say you use a model that's only 50% accurate and limit yourself to 10 civs per-target, you're at 50/1100 or 4.5% accuracy!
I guess my point is that no self-respecting datascient would release a 50% accurate model, let alone one used to make life or death decisions and yet, in the application of this model, decisions made by humans about its use has made it no better than doing exactly that.
These kinds of accurate numbers of acceptably killed innocents is really hurting a specific part of my sympathy brain somehow.
"we really need to missile this guy or he will kill more" vs "well we got 37 badies and also kim and yashonda, damn i really liked yashonda"
Actually after writing this my mind went farther, "since yashonda was a good person we actually have a whole bunch of hard facts about how good a person she actually was, did a lot of help for her community and was a real pillar of helping the next generation of kids be less violent...too bad we didn't add any of that info into the kill-algorithm "
It doesn't matter if they used dumb or smart bombs to destroy the target. When their selected target entered the building then the whole building became the target by extension. Smart bomb would have equally destroyed the building. Important comparison between dumb and smart bomb is only the probability to hit the target (the building) and IDF used precise diving maneuvers with dumb bombs and avoided hitting high rises with dumb bombs, making the probabilities close. That is not the issue here.
The main crux of the story is the automated target acquisition and the policy to engage the target in civilian homes - there are intelligence errors and collateral damage.
The questions are: is the intelligence gathering and decision making ethical and is the accepted collateral damage ratio reasonable given the scale.
This is different from for example Russian strategy to target whole neighborhoods to inflict terror in the civilian population by indiscriminate killings.
The West can stop it in a moment by imposing the same sanctions as it imposed on Russia. Or in a day, if it imposes that same sanctions that Iran or North Korea are subject to.
Instead the West keeps supplying Israel with weapons and munitions.
It's funny because your exact logic can be used to justify the attacks you're talking about. Israel has been attacking Gaza and Hamas, and occupied Gaza even pre Hamas (and always controlled Gaza's borders even with Egypt). That means that it was fully ok because it was just Palestinians using what they can for self defense.
See how batshit insane that logic is ? Remember, Israel has never stopped colonizing the west bank even after they stopped the armed struggle. So according to you, Israel deserves everything it gets in self defense.
That type of logic works well when you only apply it to the side you favor but it completely falls apart especially in this mess of a conflict
Thanks for this. Listening to an author on a podcast is great hack for getting a good summary of a researcher’s or book author’s views. (Especially business books)
