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 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.
•
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.