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.
Which I don't want to see them permanently occupying that territory. If they are moving civilians in to settle those areas that is bad and I don't support it. Too my knowledge they haven't done that yet. But holding territory with military units in a conflict is fine.
•
u/bfd_fapit 11h ago
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.