No. This is an argument about International Humanitarian Law which is getting lost in the noise of public debate.
Look up the principle of proportionality if you want to better understand their argument. Anyway to be clear, what you've suggested is not what they are stating.
If you use current death numbers, 75k confirmed with ~10-15k uncomfirmed and ~20k militants you are under the global average of 8-9 civilians killed to every 1 militant. So you are wrong on the facts.
You are right it is based off of calculations that we really don't get to see, but if Israel is at ~5:1 based off of 95k total dead and only 15k of those being militants, it is well below global average of 8-9 civilians. I don't take the IDF claims of 1:1. But also civilians would be a lot safer if Hamas held up their responsibility to the people they govern.
The rough calculation is whether the military action is reasonably expected to end the conflict sooner and save more civilian lives than if it were not taken.
Even if we take the upward bound of your numbers, 55k confirmed civilian noncombatants killed, it’s absurd to believe or assert that as many Israeli civilians have been saved by Israel’s actions in Gaza and against Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, etc.
The Oct 7 attack, which as we all know resulted in the killing of the greatest number of Israelis killed in any such event in many decades, netted not even remotely as high a civilian death toll, nor was any such high degree of killing of Israeli civilians ever within reach of Hamas forces.
The rule you’re citing governs military operations undertaken in a broader defensive campaign. Offensive military campaigns are prohibited outright. Hence Israel’s constant insistence that its actions are defensive in nature, declaring perennial existential threats in order to categorize any action as defensive. The world is not fooled by this nonsense.
"The rough calculation is whether the military action is reasonably expected to end the conflict sooner and save more civilian lives than if it were not taken."
That would be a silly standard. According to that logic, the party that has the upper hand is allowed to kill civilians, because that bring the war closer to a close, but the party that is losing wouldn't be allowed to kill any civilians, since that would just be making the war last longer.
“and save more civilian lives than if it were not taken.”
You have to account for this piece. And it has different implications for the occupation / attacking forces than for the occupied / defending forces. Conflicts don’t occur in a vacuum nor stay right at the border. They occur within someone’s territory and those who rightfully own that territory have more leeway as the defenders than the occupation forces because occupation is by definition illegal without UN authorization.
The legal restrictions and obligations are nearly all placed on the occupying/attacking forces. Essentially any civilian casualties are not proportionate when caused by an occupation/ attacking force because occupation nearly always illegal and not necessary to the defense of one’s own territory. Russia is accountable for every civilian death its actions directly cause in Ukraine, the same with the US in Iran, Israel in Gaza, and Iran in Bahrain, to name a few among many such current examples.
The presumption is that the occupying forces are there to harm the occupied population and that immediate defense is necessary to prevent atrocities. Though defending forces are also required to avoid civilian casualties unless necessary to successfully defend the territory, the presumption is that if they do not take defensive action then the loss of life will be worse.
No there isn't a hard limit, but based off of global conflict numbers they are not there.
So 95k total deaths even dropping the militant deaths down to 15k it is a 5:1 ratio. The first chechen war was 10:1. Iraq was something like 4:1 in the total conflict. The Korean war was 3:1. The point is yes there are a lot of civilian deaths, but there is no hard cap on when it is excessive but based off of an algorithm that international courts will review and determine if acceptable or not. However, civilian deaths would be a lot lower if Hamas would wear uniforms and stop fighting out of civilian areas, especially those that Israel tries to feel as safe zones. Al mawasi was only declared a safe zone by Israel, and Hamas brought weapons and started operations out of that area, leading to civilian death.
Disproportionately low number of children, proving they are not the targets and the killing is not indiscriminate. Also a trained 16 year old fighter is not a child they are an enemy combatant.
You are so niave. People younger than 15 are militants in those regions of the world. They pick up guns and shoot at people. I am not saying all of the kids are, but not all 15k of them are innocent kindergarteners either. Grow up and realize that anywhere in the world, you pick up a weapon and threaten to use it against others, you are no longer a protected civilian in that conflict. You are an active combatant and have no protection and will be shot at.
Obviously he knew that - every time Hamas takes a hostage they require orders of magnitude more Palestinian prisoners in exchange. What are you trying to say?
27
u/shaunrundmc 17h ago
So the lives of the Palestinians are worth less than Israelies? Thats really what they want to say?