95
submitted 1 month ago by filister@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A 1:22 target-to-civilian ratio is not proportional. No matter how you rationalize who the target is. This argument is not a valid justification.

I'd guess that there are probably going to be investigations, stuff like murder or rape. I don't expect that you're going to have the people here found to have acted inappropriately, though.

How many investigations have you heard of personally? Is the absence of a guilty verdict from a terrorist-state on its own soldiers what's allowing you to say there are no war crimes going on and America should continue selling weapons?

[-] tal@lemmy.today -5 points 1 month ago

A 1:22 civilian-to-target ratio is not proportional. No matter how rationalize who the target is.

As best I can tell, there's no hard-and-fast established doctrine for determining weight of acceptable collateral damage.

But I'd point out that this guy is probably going to be considered a high-value target, someone that Israel would consider the loss of to have a disproportionate impact on the war relative to an individual infantryman. That is, losing him disrupts command-and-control.

Even if there were some firm number for warfare in an urban environment, like "1:5" or something, his value is probably going to be higher than that. Most countries aren't going to do F-16 strikes on an individual infantryman, questions of collateral damage aside.

It might be possible to look at the wargaming scoring rules that countries have used in wargaming exercises to try to get a feel for what militaries consider the "military value" of high-level figures relative to an individual soldier, and that might give some idea of what they might consider the ratio to be in a general sense. But my point is just that whatever the ratio is, it's going to be more than 1.

How many investigations have you heard of personally?

I mean, it's not really a topic that I'd personally follow. If it's typical of most countries, there are some, but soldiers tend to get the benefit of doubt, as they're in dangerous situations, and tend to be granted more leeway than someone in civilian situations are. That is, they aren't super-common, but do happen.

kagis

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/04/508162405/israeli-soldier-convicted-of-manslaughter-for-killing-wounded-palestinian

An Israeli military court has convicted a soldier of manslaughter for shooting and killing a Palestinian assailant who was already incapacitated.

The shooting happened in the occupied West Bank in March of 2016, and was captured on camera.

The judges found that 20-year-old Sgt. Elor Azaria acted in cold blood when he shot and killed Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, NPR's Joanna Kakissis reports from Jerusalem:

"Al-Sharif had been shot and wounded after stabbing an Israeli soldier. Eleven minutes later, Azaria shot the motionless Al-Sharif in the head.

But that just goes to the argument that they do happen. As to this particular situation, as I said in my prior comment, I do not expect that Israel will find the people who bombed the guy to have acted inappropriately.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

So what's the math here that you're applying? Given how Netanyahu is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths from this year alone, would you consider it proportional to level Tel Aviv just to kill him? What's your cut-off for acceptable civilian casualties based on the persons history and role? How many days of headlines should there be of civilians getting massacred, most of which didn't even have an enemy combatant in the casualty list, before we deem that this excuse can no longer be used by Israel for you? At what point do you consider these attacks disproportionate by a foreign invading army who started an unprovoked war?

One example in the face of hundreds of thousands,or even millions, over decades is not enough to convince me that this due process works. You may as well try to sell me that African-Americans are treated well by cops based on one incident where they convicted a cop of shooting a black kid for no good reason.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Thank you for the good discussion and arguments.

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
95 points (93.6% liked)

World News

39153 readers
1473 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS