Comment by altacc

Comment by altacc 3 days ago

2 replies

You could listen to testimony from those within the IDF:

"the IDF judged it permissible to kill more than 100 civilians in attacks on a top-ranking Hamas officials" ... "We’ve killed people with collateral damage in the high double digits, if not low triple digits" ... "they were authorised to kill up to “20 uninvolved civilians” for a single operative, regardless of their rank, military importance, or age" ... "It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/03/israel-gaza-ai...

When looking at this we have assess both the theoretical rules of combat and the actual implementation of those and compare them to an ally nation in other active combat zones like the US, UK, NATO forces in various places. No army is good at being ethical, foir want of a better word, but the Israelli government and the IDF seem to fail much more at holding to what most people would consider acceptable standards of behaviour.

13415 2 days ago

I always try to base my judgments on the actual numbers rather than qualitative anecdotal evidence since the latter is relatively worthless (for statistical reasons alone). The problem is also that you can always find some people who support some narrative. Often these people don't know the numbers themselves.

  • altacc 16 hours ago

    A problem with numbers is that they are very prone to manipulation. Who gets to decide who is a combatant and who is a civilian? The IDF's computer algorithms like Lavender system categorise large numbers of people as enemy combatants without any evidence or visible reasoning. Who's numbers do you use? Do you include indirect deaths as a result of of IDF action? And on and on. Lies damn lies and statistics.

    Regardless of number I think people can be judged on their intent, actions & policies they put in place and enforce. That's what we judge people on in courts of law.