Israel (now broader Mid East discussion) (21 Viewers)

[Arathrael]

Legitimately curious as to your opinions, not dropping a landmine question:

What, in your opinion, constitutes acceptable rules of engagement for the IDF in this conflict? Or, if you prefer it put a different way, what military actions against Hamas and/or Hezbollah would not constitute a war crime?

I think one of the ways people talk past each other in these conversations is taking specific statements and treating them as if they're much broader - or even different - ones. E.g. here, the question implies that the suggestion is being made that every military action being taken is a war crime, when what's been referred to specifically is targeting a school, and the killing of civilians that took place in general.

So right off the bat, it should be clear that, "military actions that don't target schools or kill civilians as has taken place" aren't being included as war crimes in those statements. So unless someone holds the belief that every military action taken by the IDF is doing one or both of those, there's no implication that every military action is a war crime there.

So I would actually come back to you here to start off with and say, do you think that? Do you think that the IDF can't engage without targeting schools or killing civilians at this scale? Because that would seem to be the crux of the matter.

 

[livefromDC]

Legitimately curious as to your opinions, not dropping a landmine question:

What, in your opinion, constitutes acceptable rules of engagement for the IDF in this conflict? Or, if you prefer it put a different way, what military actions against Hamas and/or Hezbollah would not constitute a war crime?

The same rules of engagement we expect all countries to follow. What Russia is doing is also wrong, but it's effective, no? Just because it works doesn't mean the collateral damage is worth it. It's a difficult situation made worse by inexcusable actions, that action being, targeting civilians.

If in a year the US finds itself at war with Russia trying to help Ukraine root Russia out of Ukrainian territory, I would also be opposed to bombing the Russian army if they started using Ukrainian school children as human shields. I think you would be as well. Wouldn't you?

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[baarbogast]

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Legitimately curious as to your opinions, not dropping a landmine question:

What, in your opinion, constitutes acceptable rules of engagement for the IDF in this conflict? Or, if you prefer it put a different way, what military actions against Hamas and/or Hezbollah would not constitute a war crime?

Nothing. Israel had a security failure. Their government failed on Oct 7.

It was pathetic that they weren’t able to stop people in motorcycles and paragliders. Especially with the level of surveillance they had.

Israel had no right to murder 40,000 civilians because it failed to protect its people.

Just like we had no right to invade Afghanistan or Iraq after 911.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I think one of the ways people talk past each other in these conversations is taking specific statements and treating them as if they're much broader - or even different - ones. E.g. here, the question implies that the suggestion is being made that every military action being taken is a war crime, when what's been referred to specifically is targeting a school, and the killing of civilians that took place in general.

So right off the bat, it should be clear that, "military actions that don't target schools or kill civilians as has taken place" aren't being included as war crimes in those statements. So unless someone holds the belief that every military action taken by the IDF is doing one or both of those, there's no implication that every military action is a war crime there.

So I would actually come back to you here to start off with and say, do you think that? Do you think that the IDF can't engage without targeting schools or killing civilians at this scale? Because that would seem to be the crux of the matter.

And I think another one of the ways people talk past each other is, without supporting context, reading something into someone's question that isn't there.

I can certainly guess why you might be generally gun shy in this thread given the past few days' activity here, but I'd ask you to take my question at face value. If you hadn't already shown a propensity to post at length, I wouldn't have asked such a broad question of you. Certainly, I have a beginning perspective on this, as all thinking humans do, but I'm far from set in stone on it and am sincerely looking for additional grist for my mind's mill -- hence, the question.

Go back and look at any of my posts or reactions on this or other threads if you feel that's worth your time to "smoke out" any subterfuge, but it's not a gotcha question. I'm simply interested in your opinion, not setting you up for a left hook. And given that you're not hesitant to go back-and-forth multiple times covering the same ground with folks whose opinions you are unlikely to change, it's a bit surprising that you're gun shy on this question from me. The only potential "trick" here (and it's not really even even that) is if your unyielding, nay, totally unflinching position is that Israel should have taken no military action whatsoever in response to October 7; in which case I'd suggest that you've been a bit disingenuous in some of your earlier posts on this thread.

If it helps, my starting position is that I think it's clear that Israel has committed war crimes in this conflict. But my starting position is also that I think there is/was an (as yet not fully clear to me) underlying ethical basis to their "once-and-for-all, in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound" mindset...that has become a slippery slope to those very war crimes. Also, as mere additional context for my initial mindset and NOT as false situational equivalency, I think that the Allies were ethically justified in causing frighteningly high numbers of civilian casualties in WWII...and also guilty of multiple war crimes as well (for example, writ large Dresden and, on a more intimate level, looking the other way for many, many occupational rapes of French and German women (at least those not carried out by black soldiers)).

So, again I ask: what, in your opinion, constitutes acceptable rules of engagement for the IDF in this conflict? Or, if you prefer it put a different way, what military actions against Hamas and/or Hezbollah would not constitute a war crime?

Justice Potter's definitional approach doesn't work here. You have to know these things rather specifically ahead of time, not just know it when you see it.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Nothing. Israel had a security failure. Their government failed on Oct 7.

It was pathetic that they weren’t able to stop people in motorcycles and paragliders. Especially with the level of surveillance they had.

Israel had no right to murder 40,000 civilians because it failed to protect its people.

Just like we had no right to invade Afghanistan or Iraq after 911.

Thanks for your honesty and clarity of position.

 

[Arathrael]

And I think another one of the ways people talk past each other is, without supporting context, reading something into someone's question that isn't there.

I can certainly guess why you might be generally gun shy in this thread given the past few days' activity here, but I'd ask you to take my question at face value. If you hadn't already shown a propensity to post at length, I wouldn't have asked such a broad question of you. Certainly, I have a beginning perspective on this, as all thinking humans do, but I'm far from set in stone on it and am sincerely looking for additional grist for my mind's mill -- hence, the question.

Go back and look at any of my posts or reactions on this or other threads if you feel that's worth your time to "smoke out" any subterfuge, but it's not a gotcha question. I'm simply interested in your opinion, not setting you up for a left hook. And given that you're not hesitant to go back-and-forth multiple times covering the same ground with folks whose opinions you are unlikely to change, it's a bit surprising that you're gun shy on this question from me. The only potential "trick" here (and it's not really even even that) is if your unyielding, nay, totally unflinching position is that Israel should have taken no military action whatsoever in response to October 7; in which case I'd suggest that you've been a bit disingenuous in some of your earlier posts on this thread.

If it helps, my starting position is that I think it's clear that Israel has committed war crimes in this conflict. But my starting position is also that I think there is/was an (as yet not fully clear to me) underlying ethical basis to their "once-and-for-all, in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound" mindset...that has become a slippery slope to those very war crimes. Also, as mere additional context for my initial mindset and NOT as false situational equivalency, I think that the Allies were ethically justified in causing frighteningly high numbers of civilian casualties in WWII...and also guilty of multiple war crimes as well (for example, writ large Dresden and, on a more intimate level, looking the other way for many, many occupational rapes of French and German women (at least those not carried out by black soldiers).

So, again I ask: what, in your opinion, constitutes acceptable rules of engagement for the IDF in this conflict? Or, if you prefer it put a different way, what military actions against Hamas and/or Hezbollah would not constitute a war crime?

Justice Potter's definitional approach doesn't work here. You have to know these things rather specifically ahead of time, not just know it when you see it.

Let me put it another way. If the starting point is that "targeting schools and killing large numbers of civilians is a war crime," then literally any of the military actions that the IDF has carried out that didn't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians would generally qualify as 'not a war crime' on that basis. And while you could add other protected areas like 'hospitals' to schools, I would think most people would recognise that would still leave a vast array of actions that did neither of those things.

Which would make your question essentially, "list military actions that don't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians." But that seems like too broad a question - surely everyone agrees there are military actions that don't target schools or kill large numbers of civilians? - to be of any use.

Which is why I asked if you agree that the IDF can engage without targeting schools or killing large numbers of civilians. Because if you do, then why you do need someone to describe specific actions that don't do that? "List everything that isn't a war crime," seems a lot less pertinent than, "list things that are a war crime."

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Let me put it another way. If the starting point is that "targeting schools and killing large numbers of civilians is a war crime," then literally any of the military actions that the IDF has carried out that didn't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians would generally qualify as 'not a war crime' on that basis. And while you could add other protected areas like 'hospitals' to schools, I would think most people would recognise that would still leave a vast array of actions that did neither of those things.

Which would make your question essentially, "list military actions that don't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians." But that seems like too broad a question - surely everyone agrees there are military actions that don't target schools or kill large numbers of civilians? - to be of any use.

Which is why I asked if you agree that the IDF can engage without targeting schools or killing large numbers of civilians. Because if you do, then why you do need someone to describe specific actions that don't do that? "List everything that isn't a war crime," seems a lot less pertinent than, "list things that are a war crime."

Hmmm.

And not "hmmm" because I have to hesitate about your specific question. That's pretty easy; I agree that they can do as you propose (although there is still fuzziness around what constitutes "huge numbers of civilians", but I'm happy to Justice Potter that for purposes of this discussion). But rather the real bugaboo is the question following on to that easy answer of "yes, they can". And that is the age-old question of: at what cost? To me, the bigger challenge is indeed the specific answers to THAT question.

I get WhoDatPhan78's position. I disagree with its simplicity, but the finality with which he staked out his one-sided position precludes any further worthwhile discussion there for me personally.

Rather, in trying to form a definitive opinion in my own mind, I struggle more with all of the unknowns and the recency bias associated with them. Just as a single (and incredibly abbreviated) example of one unknown and its interplay with recency bias as it plays in my own head:

Take as a given (not objectively so, but rather subjectively since it's between my ears that we're talking about) that there is either a) an ethical underpinning to Israel's initial decision to go all-in; or b) a la 9/11, Israel's understandable fury has led them to grabbing an increasingly toothless tiger by the tail. In this resultant conflict, certainly Hamas will not stop its practice of intermingling with civilians for its own survival or longevity. And equally certainly, the IDF has calculated, in some form or fashion, the repeated impact on its forces (and, potentially, that of the human shields themselves) caused by taking Hamas strongpoints building-by-building with infantry, as opposed to simply blowing them and all of their guilty and innocent inhabitants to smithereens. And perhaps their (naturally biased) calculations show the associated losses to the IDF to be unsustainable in the context of future potential conflicts with Hezbollah, Iran, etc. and thus an issue, in their minds, of continued national existence. Calculations similarly made, for example, by the architects of Operation Downfall, and the USAAF and RAF European Theatre air groups.

And then further, from the Israeli mindset, reference the world's current lack of (and, for that matter, always non-existent) outrage regarding Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo (in the context of the known lack of war production impact), or Hiroshima (in the context of the USSR's imminent joining in the Pacific War), or Nagasaki (in the context of Hiroshima). All in perverted service of a greater good. And further imagine Israel thinking (correctly or otherwise) that they're just thiiiis close to killing the tiger once and for all.

Again, I don't affirmatively make (or, for that matter, refuse to make) situational or moral equivalencies with WWII, or even Iraq for that matter. But certainly there is an equivalency in the way humans attempt to process such a calculation in the heat of the moment.

And that is why the specifics of rules of engagement are critically important, especially in the context of what is objectively known as fact, and what can be constructively guessed at regarding all of the many unknowns.

Naturally, WhoDatPhan78 might (quite rightfully) argue that this leaves aside all of the very relevant arguments about what Israel could/should have done prior to October 7th to avoid this whole mess, and what Israel could/should do in that same space after they achieve their "objectives". But however right that argument might be, it doesn't deal with the present reality. Which, again, is why the details of messy things like rules of engagement are important, and why I asked the question in the first place.

 

[SamAndreas]

It's not the argument that's simple, it's the premise. Because either a school is targeted or it isn't. And either legitimate targets being believed to be present can make it acceptable to target a school in spite of the presence of civilians being used as human shields, at least under some circumstances such as these ones, or it can't.

Personally, I lean towards the notion that "Look what you made me do," isn't a defense for war crimes.

I don't understand this whole "war crimes" concept. I never have.

A war is made of continuous criminal acts so to speak. It's what it is. Speaking of "war crimes" is kind of like saying "war-war."

Why would one say the word "war" twice?

 

[SamAndreas]

Let me put it another way. If the starting point is that "targeting schools and killing large numbers of civilians is a war crime," then literally any of the military actions that the IDF has carried out that didn't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians would generally qualify as 'not a war crime' on that basis. And while you could add other protected areas like 'hospitals' to schools, I would think most people would recognise that would still leave a vast array of actions that did neither of those things.

Which would make your question essentially, "list military actions that don't target schools or kill huge numbers of civilians." But that seems like too broad a question - surely everyone agrees there are military actions that don't target schools or kill large numbers of civilians? - to be of any use.

Which is why I asked if you agree that the IDF can engage without targeting schools or killing large numbers of civilians. Because if you do, then why you do need someone to describe specific actions that don't do that? "List everything that isn't a war crime," seems a lot less pertinent than, "list things that are a war crime."

That list of everything which is not a "war crime" during a war is an empty set.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I don't understand this whole "war crimes" concept. I never have.

A war is made of continuous criminal acts so to speak. It's what it is. Speaking of "war crimes" is kind of like saying "war-war."

Why would one say the word "war" twice?

Now that's a philosophical rabbit hole with some twists and turns. I love the idea conceptually, especially if the end result was that we would end the madness of killing one another in favor of trying to maximize the laughter of children.

But, in the end, we're just flawed animals with a larger brain pan, who sheet, piss, procreate and eventually die, and rules, even those nonsensically intended to regulate our killing of one another, have some subjective value, I think.

 

[Arathrael]

Naturally, WhoDatPhan78 might (quite rightfully) argue that this leaves aside all of the very relevant arguments about what Israel could/should have done prior to October 7th to avoid this whole mess, and what Israel could/should do in that same space after they achieve their "objectives". But however right that argument might be, it doesn't deal with the present reality. Which, again, is why the details of messy things like rules of engagement are important, and why I asked the question in the first place.

Right. But then we should be looking at international human law, and the principles of proportionality, distinction, and precaution, which are what - at least nominally - cover this. Which is more of an essay type question than it is a simple and very broad "what are they allowed to do," question.

As I'm not, hopefully understandably, going to write an essay on this myself, I'll link to one, from Médecins Sans Frontières: https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/proportionality/

To the point, and to address part of your comment, I would agree with the statement there that trying to use "the overall strategic objective of its war to globally justify the alleged proportionality of massive civilian deaths and destruction" is wrong.

Edit to expand on that a little as I've got a moment: Specifically, I think it's wrong both as a general principle - I don't think what clearly qualifies as a war crime in itself can be categorised as not a war crime on the basis of nebulous broader objectives and asserted future outcomes - and I also think that specifically, it's wrong in its own terms. That is, to boil it down to its essence, it's an "the ends justify the means" argument, but in this context the means will not lead to those ends. It's a conflict driven not by a few individuals, so it's not one that can be ended simply by killing those individuals (at whatever cost), it's a conflict driven by a long set of complex factors including survival, retaliation, anger, hatred, oppression, resistance, etc., etc, etc. The 'means' here, in terms of the actions of the IDF and the cost associated with them, seem far more likely to feed that and drive future conflict, not starve it and reduce it.

 

[Arathrael]

I don't understand this whole "war crimes" concept. I never have.

A war is made of continuous criminal acts so to speak. It's what it is. Speaking of "war crimes" is kind of like saying "war-war."

Why would one say the word "war" twice?

If I set the rules, I would agree with you. I don't set the rules though (probably just as well on balance), so I'm speaking in the context in which we live, where some things that would be clearly considered crimes in any other context are somehow A-OK if you label them 'war', but at least some things are still seen as going over a (far too distant) line and still count as crimes.

That said, even if we still considered it all crime, there would still be distinctions to be made. Shoplifting and murder are typically both crimes, but they're not the same.