Benjamin Netanyahu on an air strike that killed seven aid workers delivering food to Gaza:
Unfortunately, in the last day there was a tragic case of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people in the Gaza Strip. It happens in war.
Is it just me or does Netanyahu sound slightly less than grief-stricken over these deaths?
it’s tough to sound sad when you’re hiding a boner.
Not only was he less than grief-stricken, but he accidentally told the truth: the unintentional killing of civilians IS a rare thing. Normally, it's done intentionally.
The thing is, he is not wrong in saying that.
Too often "we" in "the west" - perhaps overfed on a diet of righteous action films - want to pretend that there can be "clean" war where only the "bad guys" get hurt or killed. But that isn't the way war works. Once the shooting starts and bombs start falling, innocents are going to be hurt or killed, even if the military is doing its best to avoid it.
It seems to me the sane person's response is to recognize this, and thus recognize that indeed "war is hell", and should be engaged in only when absolutely necessary, because we know that we can't do it cleanly.
The real problem seems to be in the continuation of Netanyahu's statement:
“It happens in war, we check it to the end, we are in contact with the governments, and we will do everything so that this thing does not happen again.”
Because we know that this is a lie, and his government will -not- "do everything so that this [kind of] thing does not happen again." (To be fair, nor do most governments who engage in war. Some do less, and some do more, but none do "everything" they can.)
Is he? Because it seems the intentionally killed all the aid workers to hit one suspect who wasn't even in that convoy?
https://digbysblog.net/2024/04/02/it-appears-it-was-on-purpose/
How does that change anything?
In war, we know that there will be "collateral damage" and mistakes. It happens with the US military, it happens with the Dutch military, and pretty much everyone else, as well.
As I said already, the problem is not a recognition that such happens, but the (false) claim that they will do "everything" to prevent it, when they are quite plainly unwilling to do so.
This wasn't collateral damage. The Israelis knew that this was an aid convoy, and they knew civilians were in the vehicles. They then deliberately destroyed the vehicles and killed the civilians, in the mistaken impression that there was a Hamas militant in one of them.
If you deliberately target something, its destruction is not collateral damage. It's the primary, intended damage.
Aside from which, this strike violated several of the laws of war, including proportionality. It was a war crime.
It definitely was a war crime. They independently targeted three different vehicles traveling apart from each other, which means that even if they believed a Hamas member would be traveling with the aid workers they had no fucking clue of in which car, so they decided to kill everyone to make up for their lack of proper intelligence.
You said, “innocents are going to be hurt or killed, even if the military is doing its best to avoid it”
That is not the case here. The IDF knew there were innocents in the three vehicles, and destroyed them all anyway.
The -claim- is that they try to avoid it.
One problem is that in a war, innocents will almost surely suffer, even if the military does their best (and more surely if the military does not). The other, in this case, is that the actors involved are -not- trying to avoid injury to innocents.
And thus the claim is false (as I noted in my first comment).
He’s breaking my heart….
/S
Two separate things can be true:
1. Netanyahu is a self centered, evil guy. It is sad that he leads a country.
2. Historically, during war, civilians represent near 90% of all causalities. Given the extreme population density of Gaza, almost by definition, lots of civilians will die in any battle held within Gaza....thus the phrase war is hell
Regarding your #2:
"Starting in the 1980s, it has often been claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars are civilians, repeated in academic publications as recently as 2014. These claims, though widely believed, are not supported by detailed examination of the evidence, particularly that relating to wars (such as those in former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan) that are central to the claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
Yes, and also modern total war is worse for civilians. Soldiers were most of the casualties in the Civil War.
Bombing cities from airplanes made a big difference. Even WW1 was more military than civilian.
The Thirty Years War resulted in massive loss of life both military and civilian. Wikipedia:
"Aggregating figures from known battles and sieges, historian Peter Wilson estimates those either killed or wounded in combat totalled around 450,000. Since research shows disease either killed or incapacitated two to three times that number, that would suggest military casualties ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 million dead or otherwise rendered unfit for service.[13] Pitirim Sorokin calculates an upper limit of 2,071,000 military casualties,[162] although his methodology has been disputed. In general, historians agree the war was an unprecedented mortality disaster, and that the vast majority of casualties, whether civilian or military, took place after Swedish intervention in 1630.[163]
Based on local records, military action accounted for less than 3% of civilian deaths, with the major causes being starvation (12%), bubonic plague (64%), typhus (4%), and dysentery (5%).[164] Although regular outbreaks of disease were common for decades prior to 1618, the conflict greatly accelerated their spread, due to the influx of soldiers from foreign countries, the shifting locations of battle fronts and displacement of rural populations into already crowded cities.[165] This was not restricted to Germany; disease carried by French and Imperial soldiers allegedly sparked the 1629–1631 Italian plague. Described as the "worst mortality crisis to affect Italy during the early modern period",[166] it resulted in some 280,000 deaths, with higher estimates of around 1 million.[167] Poor harvests throughout the 1630s and repeated plundering of the same areas led to widespread famine; contemporaries record people eating grass, or too weak to accept alms, while instances of cannibalism were common.[168]
The contemporary consensus is the population of the Holy Roman Empire declined from 18 to 20 million in 1600 to 11 to 13 million in 1650, and did not regain pre-war levels until 1750.[169] Nearly 50% of these losses appear to have been incurred during the first period of Swedish intervention from 1630 to 1635. The high mortality rate compared to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in Britain may partly be due to the reliance of all sides on foreign mercenaries, often unpaid and required to live off the land.[170] Lack of a sense of 'shared community' resulted in atrocities such as the destruction of Magdeburg, in turn creating large numbers of refugees who were extremely susceptible to sickness and hunger. While flight saved lives in the short-term, in the long run it often proved catastrophic."
Another example of soldiers bringing disease to civilians is the Spanish invasion of what is now Mexico and Central America, which brought deadly disease (smallpox, as I recall) to millions of indigenous people.
Then there's the civilian death toll in WWI and WWII, etc. many of them bombed.
Hamas managed a 2.5 to 1 civilian to combatant ratio on 10/7, or even less in the highly likely case that some of the civilians were armed and fought back.
Why should the IDF be held to a lower standard?
emh1969 and Ogemaniac -
1) I am not trying to support Israeli use of force
2) don't know the proper civilian ratio (I just used Google). The net is full of different data on this point, but it always seems more civilians than soldiers are killed...
3) don't think the world knows how many civilians have really died in Gaza: how many of the 32,000 killed are Hamas members???
Rather, my point, while tragic, in a dense place such as Gaza, a high percentage of combat deaths are almost always going to be civilians.
middleoftheroaddem
Just to be clear, i wasn't calling you out. Just correcting what you wrote since it appeared to be erronous. Though admittadly it's a diffcult stat to caluculate.
Sympathetic as I am to your point, the Gaza Health Ministry doesn't break down their statistics, we don't know the civilian:military ratio with any precision. From what I can tell it might be in the 2.5:1 range.
Seriously though, Hamas is a terrorist group and the IDF presents itself as a modern enlightened military that follows the laws of war, and Israel is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Saying that maybe don't have a worse civilian:military ratio is hardly praise.
And the 32,000:1200 ratio remains.
The IDF has since killed 20x the people killed on 10/7. Mostly children
Seems like they already are held to a lower standard than Hamas.
The argument that civilian casualties are an inevitable part of war is irrelevant in this case. The Israelis deliberately targeted vehicles that they knew civilians were in.
Including at least vehicles 2 they knew were 100% civilians. This wasn't a case of a single explosive taking out three vehicles traveling close together when only one was the target. This is a case where supposedly they knew one had an intended target, and they still separately shot at two other vehicles full of civilians.
Yes.
Will Israel last as long as the Christian Kingdoms did in Palestine?
His regret is that he's done something that might end his political career sooner than later.
But remember, ti's all Hamas' fault. If Hamas didn't exist, Isrealis and Palestinians would be living in peace together. And if you believe that, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you...
Not the beachfront Gaza property that Jared and the Netanyahu government are prepping for sale? "Some work needed."
Shhhhhh...send me a DM and I'll cut you in....
It's almost as if he regards all non-Israeli lives with the same respect he has for Palestinian lives.
Which puts Bee-bee's attitude towards the United States into perspective, doesn't it?
Ooops,.we killed a reporter we just talked with...
ooops...we killed people waving a white flag in front of reporters...
ooops...we killed our own hostages...
ooops...we killed an aid convoy...
Doubt that ‘kill anything that moves’ as a rule of engagement conforms to the Geneva Conventions….
And that actually is the rule of engagement in parts of Gaza.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000
After the attack, Netanyahu thought to himself that he wasn't going to let this crisis go to waste and started an ethnic cleansing program. It was always going to be like this with him.
You can't stop the killing of innocents without, you know, killing a few yourself.
How about killing 20x as many?
And yet, Biden keeps on sending bombs to Israel.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/29/us-weapons-israel-gaza-war/
Biden is considering $18 billion more to Israel.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/2/biden-considers-18bn-arms-transfer-to-israel-including-f-15-jets-report
I don't think Biden can get away with this shit and be re-elected. He acts like he is immune from the laws of politics and morality. For me, the lesser-of-two-evils calculation is becoming murky.
There is no way the "lesser of two evils" calculation is becoming murky unless you want it to become murky. There is still a huge moral difference between "sending money and weapons to an ally engaged in terrible war crimes that you wish they wouldn't engage in" and "sending more money and more weapons to an ally under the express condition that they engage in more war crimes than they did under your predecessor's reign." The latter is much more complicit in the immorality than the former.
Afraid not, Austin. If I am feeling doubtful after the incredible cruelty of Netanyahu and the moral and political blindness of Biden, then I think it likely that there are others who are feeling even more so.
Biden is waltzing with Netanyahu into political oblivion.
Biden has drawn back from his initial uncritical support of Israel, too little and too slowly, but he is moving in the right direction. It’s up to us to keep prodding him. TFG, with his well-known admiration for ‘tough guys’ and disdain for the rule of law, does not even bear thinking about. Biden has repeatedly warned Netanyahu agains attacking Rafah without protecting civilians; TFG has told Bibi to ‘finish up; get it done’. I’m not happy about Biden’s Middle East policy, but marginally better on one issue and vastly better on every other issue makes the choice easy.
Why should it be up to us? The experienced leader of the free world should have made the sensible and moral decisions that many of us celebrate him for being able to make.
If he is no longer able to make those decisions, then I, for one, have little inclination to celebrate him. I also know what my opinion is worth to him - - - nothing. My money though, that's another story.
These takes are always hard to understand. Even if we accept your framing of Biden, how that elevates Trump into the lesser of two evils is a bizarro-world logical shuffle that never makes any sense.
Biden will surround himself with people who will work to save the Palestinians. Trump will surround himself with people who explicitly advocate for the genocide of Palestinians.
A few notes for the apologists.
- This accident was a triple-tap - they accidentally ensured there were no survivors.
- They've been accidentally killing UNRWA relief workers at a much higher rate all along. They're mostly Palestinian, so westerners care a lot less. But the results are the same - aid to starving civilians "accidentally" stops.
- Western arms are truly remarkable. They're totally precision when their users need them to be, and they're totally unreliable in the fog of war then their users need them to be.
Anyone who sincerely believes what Bibi is reported to say in English-language media should also read him in translation. You will find it enlightening.
Anyone who is just spouting supportive-sounding bullshit because you support one side over the other has my contempt.
OK, you got my attention, but I do not know how to get a better translation. Do tell.
I don't know of a single good source, unfortunately, and I'm also not fluent. I run Times of Israel and JPost articles through translate.google.com.
Haaretz will frequently paraphrase what he says to domestic audiences. Al Jazeera does sometimes, although I don't trust them as much.
And sometimes US outlets will point out how he delivers different narratives to different audiences (e.g., https://www.thedailybeast.com/bibi-netanyahu-lost-in-translation ).
Good luck.
While we're at it, let's note the 140 or so journalists Israel killed who had been covering Palestine. That big b&w "PRESS" placard is like a target to the Israeli military (I refuse to call them a "defense" force.)
This, I came here to remind Kevin of the triple tap. Three different missiles, retargeting the survivors after they'd recovered from the prior missile strike.
Four missiles fired at three aid delivery cars who had coordinated their course with the IDF. Was the last one "to make sure"?
Oh! And it turns out they intentionally killed aid workers.
https://digbysblog.net/2024/04/02/it-appears-it-was-on-purpose/
This isn’t some squad gone rogue; this was a decision by an officer who didn’t expect so much as a reprimand.
One of the problems is that the IDF high command hasn't issued a general set of rules of engagement. That is left up to field grade commanders in the field. So are targeting decisions. So, different rules apply in different parts of Gaza, without the population being able to figure out what they are.
This does not absolve the leadership of the IDF from culpability. They have a command responsibility to issue orders that would limit civilian casualties. Which is one of the things that the ICJ ordered them to do. The failure to exercise command responsibility means that they own illegal acts committed by their subordinates.
Look up the case of Yamashita Tomoyuki for how that can be enforced.
Not just the IDF High Command, but also the PM who invoked Amelek, and the Cabinet members who have made inflammatory statements, are culpable.
Israel seems to be in race with Boeing to see who can destroy their reputation fastest.
Overall, Israeli leadership doesn't sound credible or cohesive. Israeli actions are much more indicative and explanatory.
Are there some fighters suspected to be hiding out in hospitals? Set siege to the hospitals and destroy them, all the while shooting and killing many of the staff and doctors, leaving their bodies to rot.
Is an armed fighter suspected to be traveling with clearly marked journalists or aid workers?
Apparently the answer there is to bomb first and deal with the criticism later.
Target a universally protected consulate or embassy in a 3rd party (really any) country when known foes might be present? Blow em up.
This is not civilized behavior, and violates the spirit and letter of most international law, proportionate violence and human rights doctrines built up in the aftermath of WWII.
Like the emperor wearing no clothes, to the unvarnished witness this is first and foremost fury and vengeance, and obviously illegal, inhumane and even genocidal (in the actual sense of the term, with aspects of ethnic cleansing too).
If you actually read the report, the sole basis for the claim "armed Hamas terrorist" was a drone observed a possibly armed security guard on the aid truck.
What must not be allowed under any circumstances, aside from the mass slaughter of civilians, women and children (bystanders), is for Israel to be allowed to bait Iran into this non-war (you can't really declare war on the people you occupy, or a terrorist group amidst those people).
Seems the only thing that will save Bibi and Israeli hard right is provoking a wider war however (and also likely the only thing that may keep the ultra-orthodox from losing many of their privileges as well, first and foremost not serving in military to defend country, e.g. doing their fair share, which would also include work and not mass welfare).
Netanyahu seems to be hell-bent on provoking that wider war to ensure his political survival for a while longer; I don't see how the US could prevent it. Perhaps he also hopes that a Mideast war would give him cover to finish the 'ethnic cleansing' of Gaza. Biden had better make it clear to him that the US will not be drawn into a conflict he instigates.
This is what happens when you send in your armed forces without clear rules of engagement, and a nod and a wink if they choose to shoot at anything that moves. Israel is not waging war against Hamas. They are waging war against Gaza, and they were pretty clear about that at the beginning. I believe it was Smotrich who said they are all Hamas and they are all animals.
I think 'shoot at anything that moves' was the one rule of engagement. See golack's comment above.
It is for some IDF units in Gaza. The IDF high command hasn't issued a uniform set of rules of engagement. It's left up to individual commanders in the field, some of whom have clearly set up free fire zones in which "shoot anything that moves" is the rule.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000
America's continued supply of bombs to Israel is unconscionable. I have generally agreed with Biden's handling of international relations, or at least respected his reasons for his actions, but in this instance he has gone from bad to worse. America is now complicit in a campaign of systematic genocide that is generating hostility all around the world. And for what?
Thank you for this. Biden could have and should have stopped the supply of bombs to Israel once their government's intentions were clear. Yet, even now he plans to send more.
He now owns Netanyahu's genocidal war. And for what? I shudder to think.
I remember it well. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Netanyahu was definitely NOT grief-stricken. It was notable at the time.
Even if a militant was amidst the aid group, that would not have justified this attack on international aid charity workers (or any known aid workers for that matter). But worse, we're told the suspected militant was not amid the aid convoy.
Hence, if true that this aid group was coordinating with IDF and clearly marked above and on the side as themselves, their deaths are not the fog of war but murder and likely war crimes.
The only question is whether an officer in the Israeli chain of command gave the order(s), given this was not a single missile strike but coordinated, or Israel is recklessly rolling out faulty beta software (drones) that they are also singularly responsible for, and would then beg the question if this beta software has been involved in all, many or some of the other questionable murders of clearly identified aid personnel and journalists, which would amount to grave crimes and extreme financial liability for the responsible party, in any sane and just world that imagines itself "civilized" and respectful of human life, rights and dignity.
Hamas must no longer be recognized by free civilized nations and peoples, and it's a damn shame that Israel has followed their example and embraced savagery and vengeance instead of wisdom and sanity, and not one more missile or weapon of war should be sent by America or any free people to either party until this matter is settled and justice is done, anything less would be obvious complicity in the multitude of war crimes continuing to occur with impunity.
The drone was explicitly targeting the effort to move the wounded from the first attacked vehicle to the 2nd attacked vehicle and then again from the first two bombed vehicles to the third vehicle. They then fired a 4th missile at that last vehicle solely to ensure the death of any survivor's
Astonishing. No "yes but Hamas" or "Israel is only defending itself" comments on this thread. When even Israel's staunchest supporters fall silent, you know it's time for governments... to ask Israel to "investigate. Which they did, as always in such cases. And Israel will say it will, and wait for the news cycle to move on, as always in such situations. And nothing will change, except two things:
1. After waging war on UNRWA, saying other charities should take over from it, Israel attacks those other charities, causing them to cease food deliveries. It never was about UNRWA but about aid. How Gaza will survive now, even in part, is beyond me.
2. Israel also attacked a foreign (Iranian) diplomatic mission in a foreign country (Syria). Among the many parts of the international order it is destroying, to the detriment of the entire world and especially of small countries like itself, is now the Vienna Convention. Apparently it wants a free-for-all world in a mistaken perception of its own strength.
Netanyahu claims that it was an “unintentional hit,” but that simply isn’t credible. There have been too many similar attacks on humanitarian workers throughout the war for anyone to believe that this was just an unfortunate accident. We heard many of the same excuses from the Saudi coalition in Yemen when their jets would bomb clearly marked hospitals and clinics. When a client government commits an outrageous crime like this, it claims it was not intentional and promises to investigate itself. Washington takes the denials at face value because acknowledging the reality would require the U.S. to stop arming the client to the teeth.
The Israeli war in Gaza has been a war on humanitarian workers from the start. The New York Times reports:
Humanitarian workers have been killed throughout the war in Gaza. Since the war started, 176 workers for UNRWA, the United Nations body that provides aid to Palestinians, have been killed, including in the line of duty, said Juliette Touma, the agency’s director of communications. Several other aid groups say their staff members have been killed in airstrikes.
- https://daniellarison.substack.com/p/the-war-on-humanitarian-aid-workers