The Islamophobia split on the left.

[Tahuti]

Soldiers sign up to be shot at; civilians don't.

There are certainly times in urban operations 'amongst the people' that you miss mortars, air strikes and artillery, but that's the price you pay for being a professional soldier and claiming to be the good guys.

Exactly. The problem is that they not just shoot on soldiers. The counterattacks are what kept them from killing civilians. The overall problem is that you never see the deaths of Israeli civilians that are still alive because of the actions of Israel.

80% of the Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza were civilians

According to IDF estimates, the civilian : combatant ratio is 1:1. Though before you start screaming 'bias!', note that the 80% figure is based on sources based in Gaza.

Now, Israel takes a numbers of measures to protect civilians (outside of counterattack). If these measures weren't taken, the casualty rate of Israeli CIVILIANS would be potentially higher than that of the Palestinians. There is generally a perverse incentive to increase civilian casualties on your own side in order to gain international sympathy, though fortunately for those that live in Israel, Israel cares more about its own people than it cares about conforming to the very herd you are - no doubt unintentionally - part of.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The ratio is irrelevant anyway. 1000 civilians deaths or 1600 civilian deaths are both a lot of deaths.

Would your rationale be that by killing these, lets take the cautious number, 1000 civilians, Israel prevented the death of more than a 1000 civilians? Or maybe close to 1000 civilians?

Or would we as reasonable people agree that this campaign didn't save that many civilians by a long, long shot?

 

[Takhisis]

People should watch a film called Ajami. People on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are human beings who are screwed by their rulers.

btw a discussion on whether criticising Islam should be done or not has been hijacked by the usual suspects into how criticising Israel is wrong. Kudos, CFC!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are human beings who are screwed by their rulers.

CFC, the gist. The gist, CFC.

 

[Smote]

What about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan? Those have killed many innocents too. Is the U.S. committing genocide in Pakistan?

The use of the word genocide is extreme and unwarranted in both cases.

If you're going to portray yourself as a civilised country fighting against terrorists then I think you ought to be held to a different standard!

Shouldn't everyone be held to that standard, regardless of PR campaigns?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Right, genocide.

There's this thing with managing to capture something in the technical definition of a term, and there's the emotional attachment to the term. In this case, however one would be able to defend using the term, I feel it was designed to be used in different circumstances. The term in this case is so strong it becomes impossible to get around it. It has to be addressed and as we can see, it takes over the conversation. I can't think for the life of me how introducing this term will improve the discussion, so in my opinion it should never enter the discussion.

Purely a subjective argument mind you.

 

[Borachio]

It's an interesting word, is genocide.

 

[Arakhor]

I believe it was Mouthwash who first polluted the water with that specific term, but regarding drone strikes, I think there's a definite case to be made that they are excessive and perhaps even unnecessary.

 

[Flying Pig]

I did try to avoid it, but was called out for essentially trying to say the same thing without using the word.

 

[Mouthwash]

I think that if you employ military force on an area filled entirely with people from a different ethnic group with a laughably small level of concern for whether you hit a military target or a civilian one, you're committing genocide. My point was that the term is controversial, not that I don't support it.

I think if you invent your own definition of genocide you can make it fit pretty much anything. (It fits what Hamas is doing to Israel reasonably well.)

Perhaps there's a different level of evil required from the people doing it, but I don't think it makes much difference to the Palestinians in question whether the Israelis are deliberately bombing civilians or just bombing so carelessly that they hit far more civilians than militants. I'm the first to acknowledge that military operations in hostile civilian areas with no clear divide between onlookers and enemy are horrendous, usually brutal and more likely than most to lead to serious foul-ups, but that doesn't excuse giving in to the natural tendency to stop caring about the civilians who hate you and help the enemy so much that you end up killing them.

So if Israel kills one militant and two civilians, is that disproportionate? Twice the number of civilians are, after all, dead.

Name any urban war zone on a comparable scale with fewer causalities than all of the Gaza wars combined.

It seems that the militants (I dislike the implication that all Palestinians are 'the enemy') are much more precise at targeting soldiers with their rockets, bombs and butcherings than the Israelis. 80% of the Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza were civilians, so that means that Israel kills four civilians every time it kills a soldier. Since 2009 (not counting Cast Lead) 58 Israelis have been killed by the violence in Gaza, of whom 42 were civilians, making 72%. During Cast Lead itself, 10 soldiers were killed for 3 civilians. So not only are the Israeli military doing worse for collateral damage than the 'terrorists' they oppose, they're also killing at a different order of magnitude.

EDIT: I didn't realise that Protective Edge is also a Gaza conflict - there we have 5 Israeli civilians killed for 66 soldiers.

We actually have a thing called the Iron Dome.

 

[Arakhor]

If you reinvent language to suit your aims, you'll never be wrong. However, that is not generally the preserve of rational debate.

 

[Flying Pig]

So if Israel kills one militant and two civilians, is that disproportionate? Twice the number of civilians are, after all, dead.

Name any urban war zone on a comparable scale with fewer causalities than all of the Gaza wars combined.

Killing one militant and two civilians is certainly on a different level to 1000 militants and 2000 civilians, yes. Not to mention that there's a greater tolerance in small numbers; one strike might kill two civilians for one militant, but that's supposed to be an awful mess-up, not business as usual. Since there aren't a lot of high-intensity urban conflicts going on (Baghdad and Belfast would be about the only two I can think of) - but even then, part of the problem is that Israel is prosecuting it like a high-intensity conventional war rather than a counter-insurgency campaign. The fact that the Israeli military thinks it's fighting a war against the Palestinians is perhaps the root of the problem!

 

[bhsup]

Maybe they wouldn't think that if the Palestinians hadn't elected an organization to lead them whose written sworn reason for existence is the utter annihilation of Israel.

 

[Arakhor]

And maybe they wouldn't had been elected if Israel hadn't been constantly focused on depriving the Palestinians of life, liberty and home. Everyone can play the blame game and it gets just as far each time (i.e. not at all).

 

[Flying Pig]

More to the point, even nasty civilians are still civilians. It's a pretty universal fact of counter-insurgency that most civilians will hate you and go out of their way to get you killed, but you still don't kill them in retaliation. When we put on our country's uniform and claim the right to dispense death we are held to a higher standard. It should be noted that I don't know of anyone who ever enjoyed an NI tour. I can't imagine anyone's ever enjoyed one in Gaza either.

 

[El_Machinae]

2:1 is obviously unacceptable in an objective sense. It's more a question of whether it's the "least evil" of the available options. People are willing to do immoral things when they're scared. They'll also try to do the least evil option they can afford.

 

[Mouthwash]

More to the point, even nasty civilians are still civilians. It's a pretty universal fact of counter-insurgency that most civilians will hate you and go out of their way to get you killed, but you still don't kill them in retaliation. When we put on our country's uniform and claim the right to dispense death we are held to a higher standard. It should be noted that I don't know of anyone who ever enjoyed an NI tour. I can't imagine anyone's ever enjoyed one in Gaza either.

What if the only way to fight is through bombing civilian areas? Hamas doesn't fire from them just for PR, y'know.

 

[Arakhor]

What if the only way to fight is through bombing civilian areas? Hamas doesn't fire from them just for PR, y'know.

Then "the enemy" has already won.

 

[Borachio]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a regular military cannot hope to defeat an irregular guerrilla militia except in the very short term.

So, I suggest the IDF take to disguising themselves as Palestinians and infiltrate Gaza and the West Bank until they constitute a majority of the population there.

Maybe they're already doing so.

 

[Flying Pig]

What if the only way to fight is through bombing civilian areas? Hamas doesn't fire from them just for PR, y'know.

For starters it's not: counter-insurgency is done by foot patrols and highly localised use of force rather than bombing anything. If you really want to dislodge the rocket from the civilian house, you have to shoot the guy operating it or the machine itself with a good old-fashioned bullet. If the choice is between shooting at an unacceptable target and withdrawing, you withdraw. That's how the laws of war work.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a regular military cannot hope to defeat an irregular guerrilla militia except in the very short term.

Only if you keep it within the paradigm of 'last one breathing wins' - those campaigns are 'won' when the people that the enemy work amongst are convinced that your side is better for them than the insurgents, and that your side can protect them from reprisals. Once the civilians stop supporting the insurgents, they can't operate.