Remix clone Hacker News

Regardless, total deaths don't matter, only deaths that were the result of crimes matter, in this context.

Some of those deaths are going to be legal targets killed during combat, which is not evidence of a war crime. You have to split things out for the numbers to mean anything.

▲

xg15 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between those numbers, by using methods of combat that have exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.

The most extreme instances of this are the deliberate withholding of aid, both in the "total siege" in the beginning of the war, as well as operations like now in the north.

You might hit a lot of legitimate targets with this, but it's also guaranteed you will impact all the civilians in the area.

Generally, in this entire war (and also long before), Israel is far too quick with the "Human shields"/"collateral damage" argument to my liking, and using it as an excuse to basically disregard considerations for civilians at all.

(It's also instructive to see how different the hostages and palestinian civilians are treated in IDF considerations, despite both groups technically being "human shields")

▲

bawolff 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> But the problem is that Israel's style of warfare is (intentionally or not) blurring the distinction between those numbers, by using methods of combat that have exceptionally high rates of collateral damage.

I'm not sure that is true. Urban combat is notoriously bloody, and other conflicts of this nature have seen similar orders of magnitude deaths.

Additionally, civilian deaths are not neccesarily indicative of war crimes. Certain types of collateral damage are allowed where others are not (rules are complex and quite frankly oblivious), so you would also have to separate the legal collateral damage from the illegal collateral damage.

> The most extreme instances of this are the deliberate withholding of aid, both in the "total siege" in the beginning of the war, as well as operations like now in the north.

Well that allegation is the main basis for this warrant. However so far it seems like only a very small porportion of the deaths are attributable to that practise. To the point where so far the icc found that there wasnt enough evidence for a charge of extermination. I think about roughly 15 people have to die for it to be considered extermination. So it seems like so far there isn't evidence that a significant number of deaths in this conflict are related to that method of war. Of course new evidence can always come to light later. (Its important to note that siege warfare is still a warcrime even if nobody dies. The counter side is israel would probably try and argue (for the recent activity at least) that they gave civilians an opportunity to evacuate and thus it wasn't directed at civilians).

	▲	bawolff 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> (rules are complex and quite frankly oblivious) Too late to edit, but i meant to say ambigious not obvlivious.

▲

ignoramous 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the problem is that Israel's style of warfare ... The most extreme instances

Yep. The complication is, the Strip is close to being totally dependent on Israel, and yet chose war. I doubt any other country ruled by right-wingers, with that much power over their already (diplomatically, economically, socially) cornered enemy, would have acted any differently. I guess, the sequence of events reeks of desperation & despair from all sides and has ended up exposing one & all.

▲

xg15 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's not as if life was particularly pleasant there before the war. Israel was already before restricting the maximally attainable quality of life. Or as if the Palestinian control group in the West Bank who had chosen cooperation was faring any better.

Also that stuff is exactly what international humanitarian law is supposed to prevent. Obligations of the occupying power and all.

▲

ignoramous 4 days ago | parent [-]

Agree. Like I said, this war has exposed facists, racists, hawks, hypocrites and their nexus (on every side).

	▲	xg15 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed.

▲

babkayaga 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

edanm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

runako 4 days ago | parent [-]

You're describing conditions that occur in many asymmetric/guerilla wars. None of these are novel tactics whose acceptability must be evaluated from first principles now.

Further, none of these should come as surprises to Israeli commanders, who will have seen these tactics from Hamas in the past.

The bottom line is that any military can only control its own conduct as it represents its citizens in battle.

	▲	dlubarov 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[flagged]
	▲	edanm 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> You're describing conditions that occur in many asymmetric/guerilla wars. None of these are novel tactics whose acceptability must be evaluated from first principles now. Some of those conditions are similar, some aren't. In most cases, the group doing guerilla warfare isn't actively trying to get their own citizens killed, or if you want to be generous, simply doesn't care if they get killed or not. That said, you're partially right that these conditions have occurred before. That's why many military experts make comparisons to similar situations, like parts of the Iraq war or even closer, fighting against ISIS. In most of these analyses I've seen, they claim that the IDF performs as well as the US army did in similar situations in terms of protection of civilians, civilian to combatant killed ratios, etc. > Further, none of these should come as surprises to Israeli commanders, who will have seen these tactics from Hamas in the past. I don't think anyone is surprised by how Hamas is acting, except much of the international community who simply refuses to accept how Hamas is acting. > The bottom line is that any military can only control its own conduct as it represents its citizens in battle. Yes, but if there are legitimate military goals to achieve - and there certainly were legitimate goals to achieve in the beginning of the war - then the military has to fight the battle its enemy is giving it. There simply isn't a way to fight Hamas without inflicting civilian casualties, because of the way it fights. You can choose not to fight it at all, but that wasn't really a choice that was available to Israel on October 7th. (Whether the war should've continued for so long is a different matter.)

▲

culi 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The ICC doesn't claim 41 deaths were the result of war crimes. That claim is made by an irrelevant Wikipedia article that is undergoing an edit war. It was recently switched from "62,413 conservative estimate" to "41+"

ICC doesn't claim how many deaths are due to war crimes. GP is purposefully sowing misinformation