The United Nations (U.N.) condemned a recent attack by Israel on a convoy of ambulances leaving a Gaza hospital. “I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shi…
The United Nations (U.N.) condemned a recent attack by Israel on a convoy of ambulances leaving a Gaza hospital. “I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shi…
That’s my personal opinion and is not really relevant.
However, so far the numbers were not higher than in other wars.
The past wars in Gaza or the proportion of civilian deaths in wars in general? I understand that it’s your personal opinion that’s why I was curious. 1/5, maybe 1/10? That’s not a lot, is it? Do you feel that changes with the importance of target? Does it have to be important targets or are there acceptable numbers that you’d attach to any combatant?
Not OP, but this is just a bunch of hypothetical nonsense. Any scenario would vastly change the numbers. Say it’s a Rogue terrorist group with multiple nuclear weapons, that is set on launching in 24 hours… the allowable civilian casualties could be almost as high as a total city population. Too many variables for your question.
I’m asking for their opinion, how is that nonsense? I was specific in the context of the situation, so there really aren’t that many variables. I even volunteered the main things that would account for exceptions. What would you say with the specifics at hand?
They said they do have an opinion on it. They mention those numbers aren’t out of line with previous conflicts, so does that make the current ratios normal? If we’re here to discuss these topics, then why not this one? How is this anymore taboo then a thread about an ambulance convoy being targeted?
Deciding how many civilians can be killed for each target is for another discussion. Ideally the lower the number is, the better. That’s unfortunately not possible though
Would a ground campaign of selective engagement of hostile targets not lower that number? I mean, when someone shoots at you, or has a gun or is in front of you in a terror tunnel (hostages not withstanding) doesn’t that lead to a much lower toll? Israel fields one of the best trained and equipped forces in the world. How could they not have conducted this with the support of very limited/targeted strikes? This is a legitimate question that is being asked globally. You don’t think what I just laid out was possible?
Can I ask what exactly you mean by “selective engagement of hostile targets”?
Sure, beyond firing at people who are clearly not civilians, I mean it in the sense of picking your areas of battle to avoid further civilian casualty. If Hamas is using these people as human shields and PR fodder, then why not use your superior force to engage and disengage based on that. The Hamas terrorists aren’t going anywhere. You can pick and choose your battle conditions and time should only be a factor that opposes them.
You can advance and retreat at your leisure and drain the opponent through attrition. Find an area you know to be clear of civilians and draw the enemy to you. Any of these methods allow you to set the terms of the battle and control the space in a way that most benefits the moral aspect of your cause.
I mean this sounds reasonable. But how do you want to make sure that terrorists don’t bring civilians with them?
Furthermore, how about those that are in the tunnels?