People often bring this up without noting that such a ratio would not be unusual in urban warfare against a well-prepared enemy even when the attacking army is doing what it reasonably can to reduce civilian casualties. Compare it to Mariupol, an example of what happens of the attacking army is unconcerned about civilian casualties: 25/26 of Ukrainians killed were civilians according to Ukrainian estimates. (8/9 were civilians if we use the Ukrainian numbers for how many of their soldiers were killed but the more conservative Human Rights Watch numbers for civilian deaths.)
If you trust the casualty numbers that the UN Is using, then they imply approximately 3.7 civilians killed for every combatant (with the assumptions that children make up half the population and that children are never combatants). I don’t trust those numbers but I admit that if I did, I would think they didn’t look good for Israel. I suppose we’ll have a better idea of what the truth is years from now when historians reach a consensus, but until then I’m going to reluctantly trust Biden’s judgement because the US government probably has secret information unavailable to the public. (Biden is biased by his need to be re-elected, but I don’t get reports from the CIA so that’s the best I can do.)
As for justification: Israel should make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties while accomplishing its legitimate military objectives, but Israel should not sacrifice its ability to accomplish those objectives in order to protect civilians. In other words, Hamas doesn’t get to hold Palestinian civilians as hostages against Israel. If they try, then they are to blame for the resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is simply unworkable in practice, because the ability of Hamas to put Palestinian civilians at risk is almost total.
What is the maximum number of children that it acceptable for Israel to kill in order to accomplish its objectives? Is there no ceiling? Any number of children is acceptable as long as Hamas is wiped out?
If you present me with a trolley problem in which the only way to destroy Hamas also kills a million children, I won’t know what the right answer is. I suppose it would depend on what would happen to Israel if Hamas wasn’t destroyed.
However, the moral calculus for nations is not the same as it is for individuals. The standard established the last time the Western world fought a war it took seriously does seem to be “as many as it takes” and I suspect that this would still be the standard if such a war happened again. (All those nuclear missiles we have ready aren’t precise weapons…) In that context, demanding that Israel should show restraint that other countries haven’t and wouldn’t seems like hypocrisy.
It’s easy to act self-righteous when that has no consequences, but in practice most people on this planet live in countries (including democratic countries) that probably would actually kill the children in an analogous scenario.
Okay? But this was about you, not the governments that run those countries. You said you wouldn’t know what the right answer is.
The right answer is obviously don’t kill a million children and the fact that you don’t realize that it’s obvious is highly disturbing to say the least.
People often bring this up without noting that such a ratio would not be unusual in urban warfare against a well-prepared enemy even when the attacking army is doing what it reasonably can to reduce civilian casualties. Compare it to Mariupol, an example of what happens of the attacking army is unconcerned about civilian casualties: 25/26 of Ukrainians killed were civilians according to Ukrainian estimates. (8/9 were civilians if we use the Ukrainian numbers for how many of their soldiers were killed but the more conservative Human Rights Watch numbers for civilian deaths.)
Even if that is true, which is certainly isn’t when it comes to children, why does that make it justified?
If you trust the casualty numbers that the UN Is using, then they imply approximately 3.7 civilians killed for every combatant (with the assumptions that children make up half the population and that children are never combatants). I don’t trust those numbers but I admit that if I did, I would think they didn’t look good for Israel. I suppose we’ll have a better idea of what the truth is years from now when historians reach a consensus, but until then I’m going to reluctantly trust Biden’s judgement because the US government probably has secret information unavailable to the public. (Biden is biased by his need to be re-elected, but I don’t get reports from the CIA so that’s the best I can do.)
As for justification: Israel should make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties while accomplishing its legitimate military objectives, but Israel should not sacrifice its ability to accomplish those objectives in order to protect civilians. In other words, Hamas doesn’t get to hold Palestinian civilians as hostages against Israel. If they try, then they are to blame for the resulting civilian casualties. The alternative is simply unworkable in practice, because the ability of Hamas to put Palestinian civilians at risk is almost total.
What is the maximum number of children that it acceptable for Israel to kill in order to accomplish its objectives? Is there no ceiling? Any number of children is acceptable as long as Hamas is wiped out?
If you present me with a trolley problem in which the only way to destroy Hamas also kills a million children, I won’t know what the right answer is. I suppose it would depend on what would happen to Israel if Hamas wasn’t destroyed.
However, the moral calculus for nations is not the same as it is for individuals. The standard established the last time the Western world fought a war it took seriously does seem to be “as many as it takes” and I suspect that this would still be the standard if such a war happened again. (All those nuclear missiles we have ready aren’t precise weapons…) In that context, demanding that Israel should show restraint that other countries haven’t and wouldn’t seems like hypocrisy.
Seriously? You don’t know?
Because I would say most people on this planet would say don’t kill the million children.
It’s easy to act self-righteous when that has no consequences, but in practice most people on this planet live in countries (including democratic countries) that probably would actually kill the children in an analogous scenario.
Okay? But this was about you, not the governments that run those countries. You said you wouldn’t know what the right answer is.
The right answer is obviously don’t kill a million children and the fact that you don’t realize that it’s obvious is highly disturbing to say the least.