I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking…
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
That said, Netanyahu is slime mold.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
Well said…:)