The analogy was about the very specific and critical claim that Israel is killing innocent civilians unintentionally. The point of looking at the same scenario domestically is that it becomes clear that the killing would be considered by everyone to be intentional.
Let’s just call “collateral damage” what it is: the international killing of innocent people: murder. Then we can have an honest conversation about supporting a war, with the obvious burden being on the person advocating for it to demonstrate that this is absolutely necessary with no conceivable alternatives.
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
You claim that Israel is killing civilians intentionally. This is a false claim.
First, we have to address the false claim that you have enough data, information, and evidence to say Isarel is intentionally killing innocent civilians in their execution of the war. You do not. They do not.
Dave:
Without appealing to a set of theories or laws around war, just explain it. How does the foundational concept of intent change because a politician or a group of politicians declare a word and it takes place on foreign soil?
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
The reason actual experts like @SpencerGuard keep "invoking legalities & doctrine" is because these are the rules that govern warfare. Just like domestic laws prohibiting "murder" (your term from previous post on topic) & other categories of homicide, conduct of armed hostilities is governed by rules as well.
This philosophical difference between contexts explains why intent works differently in both - and the philosophical reason for this difference is a function of different concepts of necessity.
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
"Proportionality" is also a component of the law of armed conflict. i.e. it's not proportional to blow up a church with 100 non-combatants because one enemy soldier or terrorist ducked in there to avoid you. Such an act would be treated as a war crime.
Now, there's no hard and fast rules for what is proportional and what isn't, but I think you could make a very defensible argument that leveling Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths and displacement is out of proportion given the number of actual Hamas fighters.
No it is not. That's idiotic. War is hell, literally and physically.
If 1 enemy is hiding behind human shields? The harm caused to them is entirely on the enemy. That enemy is out to kill you, your comrades in arms AND your civilians. You kill him dead, unless he surrenders.
Don't kid yourself. The vast majority of Gazans supported Hamas on 10/7 and still support them to this day. The number of "civilian deaths" is shockingly LOW. No army in all of history has gone to such lengths to avoid civilian losses as the IDF. Not one.
Abridged summary of the discussion:
Dave:
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
Dave:
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
"Proportionality" is also a component of the law of armed conflict. i.e. it's not proportional to blow up a church with 100 non-combatants because one enemy soldier or terrorist ducked in there to avoid you. Such an act would be treated as a war crime.
Now, there's no hard and fast rules for what is proportional and what isn't, but I think you could make a very defensible argument that leveling Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths and displacement is out of proportion given the number of actual Hamas fighters.
No it is not. That's idiotic. War is hell, literally and physically.
If 1 enemy is hiding behind human shields? The harm caused to them is entirely on the enemy. That enemy is out to kill you, your comrades in arms AND your civilians. You kill him dead, unless he surrenders.
Don't kid yourself. The vast majority of Gazans supported Hamas on 10/7 and still support them to this day. The number of "civilian deaths" is shockingly LOW. No army in all of history has gone to such lengths to avoid civilian losses as the IDF. Not one.
Found the Israeli shill.
LOAC is a thing in civilized countries. It's taught to US service members exactly as I just explained it.
Just LoL.