Please cite your source. Please tell everyone (without gaslighting) how Israeli ROE is not in accordance with the law of armed conflict?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
War in Israel
- Thread starter Mirage
- Start date
- Status
Please cite your source. Please tell everyone (without gaslighting) how Israeli ROE is not in accordance with the law of armed conflict?
Reference the Financial Times article I posted a few pages back. I'm done talking to you though. You always make it so personal and vindictive, and you never actually read and understand my posts, so it's just a dumb waste of time (ie, you claim I referenced international law when I didn't, you claim I compared the reasons Russia and Israel went to war when I didn't, etc etc). Make whatever angry response you want, but don't expect me to follow you in a race to the bottom as I have mistakenly done before.
The article states nothing of Israel committing violations of the law of armed conflict, in fact, it states the opposite. The article cites numerous public warnings and notices of kinetic strikes and operations to civilians. Completely the opposite of the Russians (which you brought into the conversation, not anyone else).
If you can’t handle direct contradictions or critical assessments to your claims or arguments, then maybe reconsider what you post. Feel free to fill out the AW Hurt Feelings report with the mods. Nothing I’ve stated has been a personal attack.
Aren't you a VP guy?
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Hey man, did you forget what website you're on? You're not arguing with a cheetos eating 20 year old on reddit. You're arguing with actual military officers who have actually deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. What some 20-something year old aspiring journalist writing for the Financial Times thinks about the application of ROE means jack and shit... short of talking to a JAG, you're speaking to relative SMEs on the topic.
Last edited:
Did you even read the article? Or my excerpts from it quoting SECDEF? Do you think he knows anything? How bout me.. you know, an actual military officer who has deployed multiple times to fight in the middle east, trained in CAS and ROE? Wtf... Who forgot what forum they were posting on?
Here's another article. Maybe the president is informed enough.
The president and SECDEF are finally getting around to agreeing with me. Maybe some on here will too.
So you aren't a VP guy?
…but that’s not what you stated.
Let’s refresh the conversation.
Utilizing your professional experience as a SME, and in accordance with the appropriate references, Please state why or what conditions Israel is or isn’t acting in accordance with the law of armed conflict? Evidence from credible sources in the area of operations is highly encouraged.
BattlingTrain
SNA Pro-Rec Y
To be fair when I was 20 I was a cheetos loving redditor in Afghanistan ?. Well technically 24 but close enough.
***edited: spelling
No. MH-60S.
In order to bring this back to the extremely fine line between what is lawful (within the context of armed conflict) and what is moral (within the context of right v. wrong) I’d like to add some history upon which most of this is based. Add to that we should be careful to separate the currently leading idea of “what is lawful” from the social media idea of what is “click worthy.” (I feel that Biden’s views are shifting because of a popularity contest, not genuine concern for one side or the other, and I would likely accuse a republican POTUS of the same).
Winston Churchill launched Operation Gomorrah, the bombing of the city of Hamburg on July 24, 1943. Five days later more than 50,000 civilians were dead. Two-and-a-half years later, when victory was practically guaranteed, the city of Dresden, crowded with refugees and of little strategic importance, was devastated by Allied bombers making it a symbol to the world of the cruelty of modern warfare. A month later, on the other side of the globe, the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo killed some 80,000 citizens. After the raid, U.S. Army General Curtis LeMay declared, “There are no innocent civilians.” Yet noncombatant immunity was the bedrock of the just war doctrine enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and Curtis LeMay did not go to jail.
The deaths were, without a doubt, indiscriminate, but that was countered with the idea that since the combatant state (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and by the Cold War the Soviet Union) are totalitarian societies all of its citizens were, in effect, combatants. Interestingly, a similar argument is being used by all sides - recognized state and terrorist organization - in the “long war” of terrorism as each struggles to find a a justification (or morality) for killing of civilians to achieve war aims.
If you are looking for a great read I recommend Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombings of Civilians in Germany and Japan, by A. C. Grayling. I don’t agree with Grayling as a whole, but he offers a lot to think about especially as we currently imagine “just war” theory. I am a ground combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ll openly say that where I once sought to aid the cause of “proportional response” and “soft war” I now wonder if a demanding, cruel, and devastating “hard war” might not have been kinder and more moral in the long run. That is the question I think Israel is dealing with now.
Really I think George Orwell hit the nail on the head way in 1944 in an article titled “As I Please,” where he noted that there is “something very distasteful in accepting war as an instrument and at the same time wanting to dodge responsibility for its more obviously barbarous features.” Remember, at this time the Associated Press called the allied air campaign “terror bombing” because, well, it was. Orwell felt that limiting war (or trying too) was “sheer humbug” while he condemned those who “parrot cry” against “killing women and children” while interestingly noting that “It is probably better to kill a cross section of the population than to kill only the young men.” Sounds harsh, but it is worth considering if one is being honest in the very difficult debate.
Winston Churchill launched Operation Gomorrah, the bombing of the city of Hamburg on July 24, 1943. Five days later more than 50,000 civilians were dead. Two-and-a-half years later, when victory was practically guaranteed, the city of Dresden, crowded with refugees and of little strategic importance, was devastated by Allied bombers making it a symbol to the world of the cruelty of modern warfare. A month later, on the other side of the globe, the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo killed some 80,000 citizens. After the raid, U.S. Army General Curtis LeMay declared, “There are no innocent civilians.” Yet noncombatant immunity was the bedrock of the just war doctrine enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and Curtis LeMay did not go to jail.
The deaths were, without a doubt, indiscriminate, but that was countered with the idea that since the combatant state (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and by the Cold War the Soviet Union) are totalitarian societies all of its citizens were, in effect, combatants. Interestingly, a similar argument is being used by all sides - recognized state and terrorist organization - in the “long war” of terrorism as each struggles to find a a justification (or morality) for killing of civilians to achieve war aims.
If you are looking for a great read I recommend Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombings of Civilians in Germany and Japan, by A. C. Grayling. I don’t agree with Grayling as a whole, but he offers a lot to think about especially as we currently imagine “just war” theory. I am a ground combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I’ll openly say that where I once sought to aid the cause of “proportional response” and “soft war” I now wonder if a demanding, cruel, and devastating “hard war” might not have been kinder and more moral in the long run. That is the question I think Israel is dealing with now.
Really I think George Orwell hit the nail on the head way in 1944 in an article titled “As I Please,” where he noted that there is “something very distasteful in accepting war as an instrument and at the same time wanting to dodge responsibility for its more obviously barbarous features.” Remember, at this time the Associated Press called the allied air campaign “terror bombing” because, well, it was. Orwell felt that limiting war (or trying too) was “sheer humbug” while he condemned those who “parrot cry” against “killing women and children” while interestingly noting that “It is probably better to kill a cross section of the population than to kill only the young men.” Sounds harsh, but it is worth considering if one is being honest in the very difficult debate.
While this is a very great response, I would point out a couple things:
First, comparing Hamas to a totalitarian state is not an apples to apples comparison. Hamas isn't even a state, and 70% of Gazans don't even want Hamas "ruling" Gaza. There are no big manufacturing centers, a big war machine to dismantle, etc. Nor is everyone fairly characterized as supporting Hamas (not that they were in Nazi Germany either).
Second, what we did in Dresden was wrong, for the reasons you described. That nobody went to jail for it has more to do with us winning. If Russia did that today, we'd all agree it was a war crime. Beyond the legality, though, it is just wrong morally to needlessly kill civilians, as happened in Dresden and is happening in Israel. If it is ok to kill so many civilians with bombs, is it also ok for soldiers to just go through the streets shooting civilians as indiscriminately as the air force is dropping bombs? What's the difference, morally?
Third, the idea it's better to kill more innocent civilians just so it's a cross section of society and not just soldiers who volunteered (typically, and in the case with Hamas), is bizarre. Would you agree with that logic if the women and children were you're own? Would you support Russia carrying that out in Ukraine, or would you call their murder out for what it is? Should US troops keep tally of young men killed and find an equal number of women and children to execute to benefit the society? How do you think that would win hearts and minds and help us (or Israel) win the long war?
Last edited:
Nope, he shares a considerable amount of the blame for enabling Hamas and stymieing Palestinian statehood along with Israel's utter lack of preparedness for attack. This isn't just my opinion but one that is widely shared and reported on, including in Israel. The lack of preparedness for an attack from Gaza is also a military and security failure of epic proportions, one far worse than ours on 9/11, and Netanyahu was Prime Minister from 2009-2021, then again from 2022.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I think that you should critically reflect upon why multiple people couldn't ascertain this from your posts on the issue.
Certainly you do know that there were civilian casualties as a result of US military action against non-state enemy combatants and people didn't go to jail for it, right?
I used to have students like you…in it for the fight, not the logic or debate.
1. You entirely missed the point that war isn’t about “hardware” (manufacturing, weapons systems, or similar), it is about “software” (human morale). The idea that you fell back on the concept of the “state” or “popularity” already places you behind the power curve of the debate. As I noted days ago, this isn’t the 1970’s, functioning Middle Eastern powers beyond Iran aren’t going to risk their place in the global economy to defend Hamas, but Hamas maintains the capacity to make war, therefore they maintain the capacity to have war made on them. As for their popularity…that is kind of the point. They are growing more and more unpopular because they are inviting Hellfires into the front door of apartment high rises.
2. I dare you to find a war in which no civilians were ever harmed. If the civilian population supports the enemy, regardless of their “state” status then they are subject to proportional targeting with reference to that support.
3. Try thinking deeper. I mean it. Think about the idea Orwell proposes (and I am aware that isn’t easy since I didn’t post the entire article). All wars end - now imagine if War X ended after five years with the loser suffering the deaths of 700,000 men ages 18 to 40 out of a population of, say, 70,000,000 men, women and children. If we took the standard gender ratio of 51% women to 50% men with the standard age ratio that places the majority of the population in that age range, you get the devastation of a society for three or four generations (without considering those wounded in combat). Now take that same war, shorten it by three years because of “terror killing” and spread the deaths across the entire population (women, children, the elderly - why don’t you ever mention them in your concerns?) and you end up with a population harmed by war, but not destroyed as a potentially productive society. Also, I’m never said I agreed completely with Orwell just that his musing should earn our consideration.
As for the rest of your assertions in your final paragraph, they are simply immature. My wife and children have zero to do with it, yet they remain targets in the current war. You know, I worked down at ground zero in NYC immediately after the attack there and saw plenty of crushed mothers (and fathers) removed from the devastation…they did not play a role in the final prosecution of the war. Were they “reasons” to go to war? Yes, they were. Were they boiled down to moralistic calculations that implied we could only kill 3000 some odd enemy - not at all. That’s not how war works, and it never has.
1. You entirely missed the point that war isn’t about “hardware” (manufacturing, weapons systems, or similar), it is about “software” (human morale). The idea that you fell back on the concept of the “state” or “popularity” already places you behind the power curve of the debate. As I noted days ago, this isn’t the 1970’s, functioning Middle Eastern powers beyond Iran aren’t going to risk their place in the global economy to defend Hamas, but Hamas maintains the capacity to make war, therefore they maintain the capacity to have war made on them. As for their popularity…that is kind of the point. They are growing more and more unpopular because they are inviting Hellfires into the front door of apartment high rises.
2. I dare you to find a war in which no civilians were ever harmed. If the civilian population supports the enemy, regardless of their “state” status then they are subject to proportional targeting with reference to that support.
3. Try thinking deeper. I mean it. Think about the idea Orwell proposes (and I am aware that isn’t easy since I didn’t post the entire article). All wars end - now imagine if War X ended after five years with the loser suffering the deaths of 700,000 men ages 18 to 40 out of a population of, say, 70,000,000 men, women and children. If we took the standard gender ratio of 51% women to 50% men with the standard age ratio that places the majority of the population in that age range, you get the devastation of a society for three or four generations (without considering those wounded in combat). Now take that same war, shorten it by three years because of “terror killing” and spread the deaths across the entire population (women, children, the elderly - why don’t you ever mention them in your concerns?) and you end up with a population harmed by war, but not destroyed as a potentially productive society. Also, I’m never said I agreed completely with Orwell just that his musing should earn our consideration.
As for the rest of your assertions in your final paragraph, they are simply immature. My wife and children have zero to do with it, yet they remain targets in the current war. You know, I worked down at ground zero in NYC immediately after the attack there and saw plenty of crushed mothers (and fathers) removed from the devastation…they did not play a role in the final prosecution of the war. Were they “reasons” to go to war? Yes, they were. Were they boiled down to moralistic calculations that implied we could only kill 3000 some odd enemy - not at all. That’s not how war works, and it never has.
- Status