Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
There was a preliminary investigation where they found a bunch of problems and that the last was killed despite an officer ordering a halt on firing. The IDF decided that they're going to ignore it.
There obviously were problems with prosecuting them as well, it seems. In any case, hanging the entire indictment of the IDF on one case is unwarranted.
I think it speaks to the lack of care permeating their operations. See also the numerous TikToks reveling in the destruction of homes or firing machineguns indiscriminately in populated areas.
I don't put much stock in Tik Toks. In Gaza, the IDF fights a force the essence of which is war crimes: waging offensive war, hostage taking, failing to distinguish combatants from civilians and in fact using civilians as human shields. All of this must be taken into account when considering the split-second actions of IDF soldiers. In the case you've raised, I imagine that the soldiers involved assumed reasonably that the hostages were Hamas militants, had never seen or heard of Hamas militants surrendering under a white flag, and concluded their lives were in danger. Put another way, why would Hamas militants who violate all the norms and laws of warfare suddenly be availing themselves of a feature of 'civilized" warfare, surrendering under a white flag? And keep in mind that Hamas is far better at levelling charges for propaganda purposes than they are at fighting--hence the ratio of allegations to IDF action in these cases seems to point to leniency.
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
Such a scenario would rely on Just War Theory for some of those answers, which is what our military essentially does....and what the IDF under Bibi has not.
I'm familiar with the Just War Theory, Colleen [doesn't it come from Thomas Aquinas?], Colleen. Can you point to what the IDF under Bibi has done that violates that theory? Thanks.
In the Western tradition Aquinas was the first serious scholar to develop a theory, but it has it's roots in Augustine of Hippo. The Gaza war was imminently justifiable to engage in. The problems come from how it's been waged.
The two points I have issues with are: There must be serious prospects of success and the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
Bibi never had an exit strategy and his definition for success has changed more than once. Originally the hostages were a main focus but it quickly switched to the 'total destruction' of Hamas. That's an unattainable goal that has been used to justify a whole lot of carnage disproportionate to the initial attack on Israel. That's my opinion and I'm sure others would see it differently. I also don't think this is a genocidal campaign, but that certainly doesn't make it a completely moral campaign because it isn't.
Over the two decades during which Hamas has ruled Gaza, there have been dozens of attempts by the IDF to limit Hamas' will and/or capacity to terrorize Israel. October 7 was the result. As much as I dislike Bibi, I believe that he is 100% justified to destroy Hamas completely--and that any responsible leader would do the same.
Putting the West Bank aside, what evidence is there that the IDF has not acted according to the law of war? (Hamas propaganda doesn't count.)
It may not be contrary to the rules of war but their total lack of ROEs or desire to punish transgressions sure suck. See the way they handled the murder of the 3 escaped hostages.
The IDF's ROE are fundamentally the same as ours, in conformance with international law. Our military has expressed that they think the IDF does at least as well as we did in Iraq. Mistakes happen in war. Civilian casualties are only war crimes if they are deliberate, or the result of callousness. Hamas has charged the IDF with both of those, but Hamas lies. Civilian casualties are baked into their game plan. Again, I am asking for proof, not Hamas allegations.
Do you think they should have shot the 3 shirtless guys approaching them with a white flag?
Probably not.
It should be investigated.
There was a preliminary investigation where they found a bunch of problems and that the last was killed despite an officer ordering a halt on firing. The IDF decided that they're going to ignore it.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4366786-idf-spokesperson-says-no-changes-on-ground-after-hostages-mistakenly-killed/
There obviously were problems with prosecuting them as well, it seems. In any case, hanging the entire indictment of the IDF on one case is unwarranted.
I think it speaks to the lack of care permeating their operations. See also the numerous TikToks reveling in the destruction of homes or firing machineguns indiscriminately in populated areas.
I don't put much stock in Tik Toks. In Gaza, the IDF fights a force the essence of which is war crimes: waging offensive war, hostage taking, failing to distinguish combatants from civilians and in fact using civilians as human shields. All of this must be taken into account when considering the split-second actions of IDF soldiers. In the case you've raised, I imagine that the soldiers involved assumed reasonably that the hostages were Hamas militants, had never seen or heard of Hamas militants surrendering under a white flag, and concluded their lives were in danger. Put another way, why would Hamas militants who violate all the norms and laws of warfare suddenly be availing themselves of a feature of 'civilized" warfare, surrendering under a white flag? And keep in mind that Hamas is far better at levelling charges for propaganda purposes than they are at fighting--hence the ratio of allegations to IDF action in these cases seems to point to leniency.
War crimes on the opposing side do not obviate international humanitarian law.
Destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, indiscriminate use of dumb bombs, and an excessive civilian casualty rate which will get higher as famine takes hold.
1) It is permissible to damage or even destroy civilian infrastructure if it is being used to military advantage. It is not news that Hamas uses schools, mosques, and hospitals to military advantage. The case of Al Shifa hospital is instructive. Hamas has used it for military purposes for years, and in (I believe) 2014 even admitted as much. During this war, the IDF spent a month imploring medical staff to evacuate the hospital so that they could enter. Medical staff (Hamas) claimed there was no military presence there; and claimed that it was impossible to evacuate the hospital. (Interesting, since during a wildfire where I live the hospital that serves me was evacuated in a matter of hours.) Finally, the IDF entered the hospital, moving patients from area to area for their safety. And guess what? There was so much no Hamas presence there that a two-week long battle ensued. Hamas, which has steadfastly insisted on counting all casualties as civilian, claim that hundreds of civilians, patients, had been killed. The IDF said those were Hamas fighters, the people they had fought against. The IDF claimed that their operations met the gold standard for urban warfare. Hamas screamed war crimes. Everybody lies in war, but, again, you tell me what objective evidence is there of IDF war crimes?
2) No use of munitions is "indiscriminate." They cost a bundle and they are used deliberately. Whether their use amounts to murder or shows a callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure depends on the the law of war, specifically whether reasonable care has been taken and whether damage is proportional to military necessity.
3) Hamas lies about casualties. It is in their interest to cite high casualties. I has been their game plan for years to cite high casualties. The do not and will not distinguish civilians from combatants in their reports. Statisticians are dubious of the reports, stating that they do not reflect naturally occurring events.
There is no doubt that civilians have been harmed. That's why offensive war, using human shields, using infrastructure for military purpose are all war crimes--war crimes that Hamas has clearly committed.
(Under #2, I tried to change "military damage" to just damage, but the edit didn't take.)