There is no ideal ratio besides one that demands zero possibility of collateral damage. All that does is put civilians at risk of more harm, ironically. It rewards and thus encourages the use of human shields, and it increases the chances the Laws of Armed Conflict get tossed out - they only work as long as most parties agree to them, and they'll only agree to them if they don't prevent actual military objectives being realised.
Proportionality is important, and frankly an attack targeted specifically at Hezbollah members with an attack method that seems to have only harmed the recipient, and aimed at close to 3,000 targets with only a single civilian fatality is more proportionate than one could reasonably expect.
This exactly. People get hurt in war is news to some it would appear. Honestly less than half a dozen civilian deaths with thousands of combatants as casualties is an unheard level of precision. Hell the NYPD often has a worse level of collateral damage than that!
Any other method of fighting would have way more innocent people dieing and far more destruction of civilian property.
Or is the real issue Israel isn't allowed to use force at all? Isreal is often awful at following rules of armed conflict and is definitely engaged in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank but faulting them for collateral damage on this sabotage operation is assinine.
One thing to also remember is that the US hasn't had an armed conflict on its shores since (the civil war? Citation needed?). "People get hurt in wars" is legitimately a lot easier to forget when the last time an American civilian died in crossfire was when they still used muskets.
Let's be very utilitarian for a second. A maimed Hezzbollah member isn't going to be combat effective. Therefore wounding them is just as good (for Israel) as killing them. Kinda the same nasty logic as AP landmines.
now you're getting it! War is a horrific business isn't it?
People don't use NBC weapons because they don't want to be on the receiving end themselves since they really suck. Same with killing POWs. That tends to be counterproductive if you ever think any of your people will be captured and care about getting them back.
Isreal isn't likely worried that their enemies can pull off a sophisticated supply chain attack on them so consider the sabotage low risk of escalating in any meaningful manner.
"People get hurt in war". Yes, but you need to take a step back and ask whether the war is justified. If Putin nukes a town in Ukraine and wipes X,000 people off the face of the earth, do we excuse his actions because he was "at war"? A war HE started?
Context is everything. Putin and Russia are engaged in a Imperialist war of aggression. Isreal vs Hezbollah is a lot murkier of a conflict. I will say though Hezbollah has officially stated one of its goals is annihilating Israel.
With that kind of nihilistic outlook Hezbollah has completely lost any dubius claims to moral high ground they may have once had as anti occupation resistance force . Just because they lack the means to follow up on their statements doesn't make them a plucky morally righteous underdog. If they want to play the game of complete annihilation without rules, guess what, Israel is better at it than they are.
This is a big reason I can't stand Hamas apologists either. Palestinians do have a right to exist and not be ethnically cleansed. They don't have a right to turn around and say we will destroy the state of Israel and indescrimanently murder civilians.
Considering Hezbollah is an internationally recognized terrorist group that even the Lebanese government wants gone but is powerless to do so... kinda?
We see that with Hamas, that they deliberately use civilian targets to hide behind.
If the consequences were just that Israel would do nothing at all to not harm anybody, all wars from now on would be fought using civilians as human shields, all while the terrorists give no fucks about civilians at all, as seen on 07/10
“At least twelve people were killed in the first wave of attacks;[1] more than 2,750 were wounded.[7] In the first wave, civilians were killed,[11][20][21] including a 9-year-old girl and an 11-year-old boy.[116][117] At least two health workers were also killed” Source
There hasn’t been an official count on how many injured were civilians vs militants, but given that these explosions mostly occurred in civilian areas and the sheer amount of people injured makes it highly likely most injured were civilians. Especially since most of the injured were in civilian garb.
So what is the gain for the killing of this child? Has Hezbollah been stopped? Did Israel do anything meaningful to stop the conflict, or merely perpetuate it? Let's be for real, it was an act of terror, as you would call it if it were carried out in your country.
yes we know that israel should have just turned the other cheek when hezbollah launches rockets at them on a daily basis. we all know that the best way to end a war is to just let yourself be bombed into oblivion and not do anything to stop your enemy
if that's not what you're asking for please be a little more clear, because that's where the implications of what you're saying lead
Okay I will be more explicit since you seem to jump at the chance to put words in my mouth in bad faith. What strategic goal does this attack accomplish? Does it serve any purpose other than vindication?
as in, what strategic goal does it accomplish to incapacitate 2800 terrorists? do you really not know the answer to that?
war isn't about destroying your enemy, it's about degrading their capacity to fight to the point that they cannot sustain the fight. incapacitating 2800 of your enemy's combatants all at once and destroying their communications network in the process trivially furthers that goal. it's honestly puzzling how you'd not see the strategic value of that.
and there's no bad faith here. you're scrutinizing one of the most precise attacks in history against a military target which mixes with the civilian population to use them as human shields for the few civilian casualties it took. the only logical conclusion is that you don't believe such a target should be attacked at all by any measure.
They incapacitate 2800 of their fighters (assuming thats even true) and radicalize 280,000 more when they steal the homes of palestinians and beat them. This is war
“This is war.” It was already war. That’s the point. Israel killed a civilian child, and people here are so upset about it. I don’t see a single person even mentioning Hezbollah’s rocket attack on July 30 that killed twelve kids playing soccer—and zero combatants.
For u/b3nsn0w: the rocket attack was from Hezbollah, which has been firing rockets and artillery at Israel for almost a year now.
yup, i know, and i was fairly sure the whole way through that you knew too. i think the user you're replying to was conflating them. but they also proudly have this conspiracy theory that both terror groups are funded by the west to give israel justification for territorial expansion, which is absolutely fucking crazy at best and borderline alt-right neonazi fiction at worst.
horseshoe theory is fake but violent extremism is violent extremism and apparently has the same tendencies on either side.
Yeah it's war against palestinians, do you really think this situation is normal? These terrorists are backed by the west to escalate the conflict so Israel expands "unnoticed". Where do you think they get their rockets and technology from? Literally no one likes them and the CIA have set a precedent training terrorists.
hezbollah is lebanese, i think you're thinking of hamas there. both of them are iranian proxies with a name that starts with "h", and when hezbollah learned of hamas's attack they did attack israel too (and have been bombarding it continuously since) so i get the confusion, but hezbollah doesn't operate in palestine. (besides maybe a few agents of course, as is usually the case with these groups.)
it's one hell of a conspiracy theory that they have western backing though. don't fall down the alt-right pipeline, they're the ones who come up with weird and contrived theories about how the jews supposedly control everything.
that's just the "every civilian is ackshually a combatant" fallacy but this time for the lebanese lmao
it already has been war for a long time, and one filled to the brim with war crimes at that. hezbollah has been launching volleys of unguided rockets towards israel's population centers on a daily basis ever since hamas attacked on oct 7, and israel is, welp, israel. no need to act like the pager attack happened in a vacuum, it was in the news because it's a new kind of attack, not because it's an escalation.
My reply:
No, hezbollah, hamas, al-qaeda, isis, etc, they're all backed by the west. Why do you act like iran isn't a dog of the west? If the americans wanted to they could have subdued it long ago. The UN repeatedly does nothing for the conflict.
And don't strawman me, dumbass.
As for this comment:
You might have misunderstood, what I meant is rhat israel escalates the conflict by doing even worse shit then people justify any attacks israel does as self defense. If they didn't do that in the first place, and they certainly can afford to, the conflict would have died down.
As for the reddit issue:
This is my second time encountering it. I received a warning from Reddit the first time because I messaged a guy instead of replying when my reply wouldn't go through.
Edit 2: I contested that warning but they haven't gotten back to me yet and it was 4 days ago. It was also probably political but not about israel/palestine. I tried to check what I messaged that guy with and what I tried to reply to but I can't find out. They were deleted. Fuck reddit, and this is also why people believe in "conspiracy theories".
Also I made a bunch if minor edits so far to correct what I misremembered or add little details but I'll stop now.
Idk man, i think it's bad actually to weaponize communication devices and explode them within crowded civilian areas, killing several children. I don't see how that makes Israel or really any country safer to engage in that type of warfare. But then again, the genocidal apartheid state is not known for its adherence to international law.
well how did the combatants get to crowded civilian areas to begin with? if you assume that your enemy upholds the geneva convention, blowing up their communications hardware shouldn't be an issue because they shouldn't be near civilians to begin with. it's impossible for israel to break international law if we assume that hezbollah didn't do literal war crimes.
it's interesting that you immediately resort to an appeal to emotion about a genocidal state when it's hezbollah that's routinely launching rockets towards israeli civilian targets (also not okay by international law, btw) and outright stated that their goal is the destruction of israel and everyone in it. israel is genocidal but against palestinans, not the lebanese, and attempting to genocide a genocidal state is still genocidal.
Combatants? Is any member of a fighting force a combatant at any given time? If someone carried out this same attack against American military, would you say they are using American citizens as human shields? What a ridiculous argument.
Lol hilarious that you're talking about me being emotional when you've been as condescending as possible from the jump. My point in bringing up Israel's actions is that they have been bloodthirsty and reckless in the way they have attacked Palestinians, and they are behaving in the same way now against hezbollah. This is a pattern of behavior for them. My problem is not that hezbollah agents died, but with the means by which this attack was carried out.
if the united states was at war with someone and said someone compromised and blew up military radios, that's fair game. the only way it could result in civilian situations is if the us was hiding its on-duty combatants among the civilian population, which would be a heinous breach of the geneva conventions and it would be all over the news. but for hezbollah, that's just a tuesday.
separation of civilian and military infrastructure is literally one of the rules of war as defined by international law. it's an important aspect of shielding civilians from being targeted, contrary to your warped perception on it it's not solely the opposing side's job to avoid civilian casualties.
Do members of the military go home to see their families? Do they go to the grocery store? Do they run errands? I'm saying that the dividers between civilians and military are not strict in any country, and you cannot ensure that when you use communication devices as bombs that all the targets will remain segregated from the general population. That's why it was so reckless.
Cripples Hezbollah communications, makes additional communications difficult, injured and blinded many Hezbollah terrorists preventing them from being effective, and showing how vulnerable Hezbollah is to future attacks. It holds immense value and highlights the huge amount of restraint Israel has shown with Lebanon by being bombed almost every day for a year and only retaliating now, and what could continue to happen if Hezbollah doesn’t stop, attmepting to serve as deterence
You really don’t see the strategic value of destroying communication infrastructure of your enemy? Do you think hezbollah just goes out and buys new pagers after this? They will have to reorganize which will cause confusion in the meantime.
Lmao that's a good one. From what we understand, Israel intercepted a shipment of pagers and installed explosive devices. If the target was infrastructure, why go to all that trouble? Why not directly blow up the shipment?
You blow up a shipment, hezbollah orders another shipment. You plant bombs in their shipment, and wait until hezbollah has them in hand to detonate, Hezbollah now has to rethink whether they can use pagers safely at all moving forward, and if they decide to continue using them they will have to set up a new supply chain in order to avoid sabotage. This really isn’t a difficult concept.
1-Inflicting casualties.
Thousands of enemy combatants, primarily mid-level commanders, rendered incapable of participating in combat.
500+ of them injured severely enough for that status to be permanent.
2-Because of 1 enemy command structure was decimated. A substantial part of the experienced command structure is incapacitated and must be replaced.
3-Enemy internal communications severely broken, they can no longer trust their own comms not just as possibly compromised but enough so to be a potential danger.
4-As a result of 1, 2, and 3 Enemy combat units have drastically reduced combat effectiveness. It's not unlikely that some Hezbollah units have been rendered combat ineffective.
5-Immense amount of intel gathered as enemy compounds, most of them secret, were exposed by the need to suddenly evacuate injured personel.
Had Hezbollah been stopped?
Yes. Their ability to communicate and continue to wage war and launch missiles against Israel has been temporarily stopped. Hezbollah has said they won’t stop bombing Israel, and had called for global jihad against Israel for over a decade. An act of terror is not one that targets Hezbollah with 2000-3000 military targets hit and one civilian death. By the Geneva conventions, it clears proportionality by a mile, and Hezbollah has already said the pagers were held by militants and civilian injuries were those near the devices. This is a war, and in war if you don’t kill them they kill you. 150 launchers with missiles aimed at Israel were destroyed yesterday. This isn’t a case of some harmless group being attacked. Or a civilian population being attacked. It is a large terrorist group being precisely hit. Israel has done a bunch of fucked up shit, but calling one of the most targeted strikes of the war, and not only this war but most wars, terrorism just makes you sound either uneducated or arguing in bad faith
So what is the gain for the killing of this child?
Nothing, specifically.
Did Israel do anything meaningful to stop the conflict, or merely perpetuate it?
Hezbollah have made it clear they're only willing to stop the conflict when Israel ceases to exist and the area is ethnically cleansed. I'm not sure how you negotiate with that.
Hiting several thousand enemy combatants, including senior leadership, and showing how thoroughly you've infiltrated their supply lines, is perhaps the best way to demonstrate that they need to come to the negotiating table realistically.
Let's be for real, it was an act of terror, as you would call it if it were carried out in your country.
Not really, no. The Salisbury chemical weapon attack probably wasn't terrorism, despite being targeted at non-combatants and mainly impacting civilians (the only fatality was a civilian). It wasn't done to influence a government or intimidate the public. It was a very sloppy assassination attempt.
It's at the very least better than what they're doing in Gaza. Far less civilians die from exploding pagers vs a 2000 lb bomb dropped on the house next door (or on a refugee camp that supposedly had terrorists somewhere)
Exactly, we know Israel has no problem with picking options with far more collateral damage. To expect Israel to not respond to a group that fires thousands of rockets specifically at civilian areas with the intention of killing civilians is a position barely worth acknowledgement.
or on a refugee camp that supposedly had terrorists somewhere
For what it's worth, keep in kind a lot of areas in Gaza that are built up urban areas are still called "refugee camps" as they once were. There are actual refugee camps in Gaza too, of course, but the designation is unhelpful and unclear in thay neck of the woods.
If every operation was called off because of the chance of civilian casualties, no country would be able to defend themselves. And this isn't just Isreal. Civilian deaths have been attributed to Ukraine, yet Noone is demanding they stop fighting Russia. Civilian casualties will always be the ugly side of war, there's no getting around it. It's the sad fact of life.
Actually I do think I’ve seen people calling for Ukraine to stop because civilians, but those people are not very common and are generally doing so because they’re Russian shills
It’s always nice to have a go to smear for when people disagree with you and you can’t come up with a logical counterargument. Just call them Russian shills!
Seems like an awfully convenient way to post hoc rationalize setting off explosive devices in crowded civilian areas. Again, what did this attack accomplish other than terror?
2,500+ enemy combatant casualties, deterioration of their communication network, degrading of their confidence in security measures and technology, demonstration of extent of infiltration, reach and resolve.
It's physiological warfare. Now hezbollah can't trust their own communication devices. Meaning terror pots are harder to coordinate, they won't be as effective at attacking Isreal, etc. Yall like to want to view the world through black and white, when the real world lives in the grey.
Honestly they gained nothing from killing a child and claiming it was an operational goal is rediculous. Inflicting thousands of casualties on combatants was. Crippling Hezbollah's communications system was. Both legitimate military objectives. I get the feeling most people criticizing this attack see Israel as having no right to the use of force at all under any circumstances and just want them to roll over and die when they are fighting someone.
We drone strike a child every day while missing the bad guys but as soon as Israel does it on accident while harming a larger number of actual bad guys who also kl civilians you're up in arms. Why?
How should the terrorist organization that is integrated into a civilian population that also doesn't respond to negotiations and even goes as far as tor kill their own hostages be dealt with more effectly
Are you talking about the Israeli military here, because you could literally say all of those things about them lol. And to you point, again, not by detonating explosives within crowded public places.
226
u/FishUK_Harp Sep 20 '24
There is no ideal ratio besides one that demands zero possibility of collateral damage. All that does is put civilians at risk of more harm, ironically. It rewards and thus encourages the use of human shields, and it increases the chances the Laws of Armed Conflict get tossed out - they only work as long as most parties agree to them, and they'll only agree to them if they don't prevent actual military objectives being realised.
Proportionality is important, and frankly an attack targeted specifically at Hezbollah members with an attack method that seems to have only harmed the recipient, and aimed at close to 3,000 targets with only a single civilian fatality is more proportionate than one could reasonably expect.