Blockading 2 million civillians to starvation, destroying all the hospitals and universities....If that isn't genocide, the word has lost its meaning. Words are empty. Deeds are the true dispositor of intent.
I may be confused about the use of the word “targeting” and possible technical definitions applied to it in reference to ‘Israel not targeting civilians’...
It is a deliberative military process in which the goal is not to completely guarantee 0 civilian casualties but asses the military value of a target amongst several factors such as the fleeting nature of the target, the future ability of that target to cause more harm to military forces or civilians, and morale harm to the enemy’s ability to continue to have military capabilities to harm. What Mr. ARKIN, I think, is highlighting is that the end state and objectives of the IDF are to strike military / Hamas / PIJ targets that happen to be in highly dense civilian terrain. Civilians are not the target even though they are become a result.
What you’re talking about is the notion of proportionality. I’m concerned about the statement of Israel not targeting civilians which presents itself broadly and with abundant clarity to be a false one. I respect bill and appreciate his work which I why I wondered if I was missing something regarding terminology.
No, I am not talking about proportionality. That is specific to an element of targeting which has a proportional consideration : is a particular target worth militarily the cost of collateral damage?
And again to use the military context which is what you asked about the use of the word “targeting”. I would argue that the IDF are indeed targeting legitimate military targets in each of their strikes. It just so purposefully happens Hamas and PIJ are completely embedded into the civilian infrastructure and residences. IDF does seem to have a different proportionality threshold than US and other western forces, this can be argued as counter productive. Questions like should IDF only be using PGM or ground raids vs. “dumb bombs”are worthwhile.
IDF are also approaching the fight from a very different lens than US and coalition forces did knowing the populace was a key terrain element to win and not just avoid damaging. Hence why the leaders and politicians continually evoke WW2 (total war justifications).
I don’t think the IDF view civilian terrain in quite the same manner as we did in the GWOT, civilians are not essential to their victory against destroying Hamas, as a military and governing body. I believe they see it more as obstacles that should be avoided when possible but won’t halt an attack on military targets just because they are adjacent. One could argue this is strategic and moral misjudgment, but diminishing popular support for a government and military is not unheard of through air and ground campaigns. It sounds out of vogue after Vietnam, Iraq, AFG, etc. but significant precedence.
Blockading 2 million civillians to starvation, destroying all the hospitals and universities....If that isn't genocide, the word has lost its meaning. Words are empty. Deeds are the true dispositor of intent.
I may be confused about the use of the word “targeting” and possible technical definitions applied to it in reference to ‘Israel not targeting civilians’...
It is a deliberative military process in which the goal is not to completely guarantee 0 civilian casualties but asses the military value of a target amongst several factors such as the fleeting nature of the target, the future ability of that target to cause more harm to military forces or civilians, and morale harm to the enemy’s ability to continue to have military capabilities to harm. What Mr. ARKIN, I think, is highlighting is that the end state and objectives of the IDF are to strike military / Hamas / PIJ targets that happen to be in highly dense civilian terrain. Civilians are not the target even though they are become a result.
What you’re talking about is the notion of proportionality. I’m concerned about the statement of Israel not targeting civilians which presents itself broadly and with abundant clarity to be a false one. I respect bill and appreciate his work which I why I wondered if I was missing something regarding terminology.
In short, the IDF doesn’t factor civilians into the equation.
No, I am not talking about proportionality. That is specific to an element of targeting which has a proportional consideration : is a particular target worth militarily the cost of collateral damage?
And again to use the military context which is what you asked about the use of the word “targeting”. I would argue that the IDF are indeed targeting legitimate military targets in each of their strikes. It just so purposefully happens Hamas and PIJ are completely embedded into the civilian infrastructure and residences. IDF does seem to have a different proportionality threshold than US and other western forces, this can be argued as counter productive. Questions like should IDF only be using PGM or ground raids vs. “dumb bombs”are worthwhile.
IDF are also approaching the fight from a very different lens than US and coalition forces did knowing the populace was a key terrain element to win and not just avoid damaging. Hence why the leaders and politicians continually evoke WW2 (total war justifications).
I don’t think the IDF view civilian terrain in quite the same manner as we did in the GWOT, civilians are not essential to their victory against destroying Hamas, as a military and governing body. I believe they see it more as obstacles that should be avoided when possible but won’t halt an attack on military targets just because they are adjacent. One could argue this is strategic and moral misjudgment, but diminishing popular support for a government and military is not unheard of through air and ground campaigns. It sounds out of vogue after Vietnam, Iraq, AFG, etc. but significant precedence.