Murdered vs died.

[Eyesopenwideawake]

Watching the BBC news tonight and they quoted "1200 people were murdered on the 7th October". In the same report they said that 20,000 people in Gaza had died since Israel started their campaign.

Language is so emotive. How would you think about the conflict if you were told/read that 20,000 Gazans had been murdered?

If you are responding to an act of aggression then yes, that would fall within the context of just war. And if the enemy combatants you were fighting hid themselves in civilian clothes and hid behind civilians as human shields, then yes, your killing of those civilians would not be murder. That is how we distinguish between killing (which is terrible in its own right) and murder (which is uniquely terrible for what it specifically is).

The reality is there probably are some members of the IDF who are brutal and murderous, which is part of the problem of warfare generally. One of my professors at university wrote a book about the rage of war, and what it does to otherwise ordinary people- records of American soldiers committing horrible brutalities during the pacific war. Yes, I think that there probably are murderers in the ranks of the IDF, as there generally appear to be in the ranks of virtually all militaries in the world. That doesn’t mean that the IDF as such is murderous or that its actions generally can be called murder, because it’s not the case.

I believe the intention to eradicate is the key feature of genocide, at least as per article II of the convention on Genocide.

Enough Israeli leaders have publicly stated that an intention is to target civilians that I cannot agree that the military targets do not include both Hamas and civilians.

The conditions in Gaza, with 70% of homes damaged or destroyed, with hospitals, churches, mosques, UN schools, UN humanitarian supply warehouses, Red Cross/Red Crescent/MSF buildings, journalist offices, water pumps, sanitation plants, power plants, solar panels, telecommunications, destroyed. Plus blocking of water, food, medicine, and other humanitarian aid from getting into Gaza. This are all military actions that target civilians, not Hamas.

No, you're wrong there. I mean the Bosniaks weren't eradicated and that was genocide. I've attached it below.

Intent is a key feature, but it doesn’t have to be publicly stated as an intent for it to be ruled by ICC that actions constitute a clear intent. In this case, there has been more than enough intent stated publicly by Israeli leaders that according to experts, genocidal intent is clearly present.

I’m not saying actually eradicated- the Tutsis weren’t eradicated either. It’s the intention to eradicate. The Nazis didn’t succeed in eradicating the Jews, didn’t make what they attempted not genocide.

And if the enemy combatants you were fighting hid themselves in civilian clothes and hid behind civilians as human shields, then yes, your killing of those civilians would not be murder.

Wrong. It would still be murder unless you can prove that the civilians’ deaths were completely unavoidable and that you (the armed soldiers) were under active threat of lethal force from the group of civilians + enemy combatants at the time you opened fire on them or bombed them or tank shelled them etc.

I really hope that one day in the not so distant future the Israeli government, the US government and members of the IDF are tried for war crimes. Hopefully then we will be able to call it what it clearly is. I'm sick of seeing disgusting videos of the IDF treating Palestinians in a way which would have mumsnetters foaming at the mouth if it were dogs being treated that way and it being excused. International law needs to be upheld and the crimes being commited by Israel need to be written about, something that we will all learn from and that sets the standards for future 'conflicts'.

People keep talking about world war 2 like it wasn't almost a century ago, like technology hasn't completely changed, standards can be and should be higher than those 80 years ago. 1% of a population wiped out in 2 and a bit months is an incredible killing spree and we need to make sure that it never happens again.

That doesn’t mean that the IDF as such is murderous or that its actions generally can be called murder, because it’s not the case.

Colloquially, unjustified killing of civilians could be called murder, although I agree that technically the crime of murder is more of an interpersonal crime that is defined and governed by individual nation state criminal codes. Militaries and warfare are under different national and international criminal codes.

This.

Yes this is true- you (mostly) have to infer intent- but that’s why I’m pointing out that if their actual intent was genocide, it would look different.

Most of the things people are listing as evidence of genocide I think falls under the secondary consequence argument, because the destruction of hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure etc is accounted for by the fact that Hamas use those locations for exactly the reason that they hope the Israelis will be afraid of being labelled genocidal and so not strike back when they hide there.

Equally, the refusal to allow aid in is defensible under the condition that it amounts to material aid to Hamas because Hamas plunder the aid trucks and the majority doesn’t reach Gazan civilians anyway.

Im not suggesting that everything is fine and it’s all wonderful- the whole situation is terrible. But on a thread about language mattering, the meaning of these terms is relevant to the facts.

As for statements by Israeli leaders amounting to genocidal intent, I don’t think any of them have said something approaching: “we want to kill all the Palestinians”. The closest I’ve seen is the denial of the Palestinian identity as a unique historical identity, on the basis of a variety of historical arguments (around the origins of political identity in the region). Even still, that doesn’t appear to be a justification that the Palestinians can be killed, but is mostly an argument around why the Jewish purchase of land in the Ottoman Empire and later British Mandate should not be returned.

@Toothyfruity

I think the key word in that definition is "intent".

If the intent of the Israeli military in Gaza is just to kill Gazans then this would be genocide. If the intent of this Israeli military in Gaza is to kill Hamas but in the process ordinary Gazans also get killed then this would not be genocide. Different people will have different views as to what is the intent of the Israeli military in Gaza - Gazan civilians or Hamas?

There is also an interesting overlap between war crimes and genocide, so for example the bombing of German cities by the British in WW2 in order to demoralise the civilian population would now be classed as a war crime and it would also be classed as genocide as the intent was to target Germans. Equally the intent of the IRA on for example the Warrington bombing deliberately targeted British civilians so this would also make it genocide.

So any deliberate targeting of civilians is both a war crime and genocide by this definition.

You're just being goady and awful now. Or possibly very hard of understanding.

What part of Both are horrific tragedies. But they mean different things makes you think I'm OK with war? It's literally there in the post you're quoting.

War is monstrous. War is horrific and brutal and violent. In every post I've said that.

How do you contort War And Murder Are Different into "Lena's cool with mass deaths"? That's incredibly offensive.

@BigandBeefy I doubt they ever will. We will knight them too!

No, it would not look any different. Most of what you have written is unsubstantiated allegations against Hamas that even if they were true do not excuse IDF targeting civilian infrastructure under the laws of armed conflict. E.g, even if Hamas were proven to be in a hospital it is still a war crime to fire on the hospital.

The same with the refusal to allow in humanitarian aid, it is not defensible due to fear of plundering or “dual use”. This is a war crime.

Israel’s excuses are illegal excuses. They are only getting away with it because there is no bigger military power on the ground to enforce the law.

“As for statements by Israeli leaders amounting to genocidal intent, I don’t think any of them have said something approaching: “we want to kill all the Palestinians”. - there are lots of examples, very easy to find. The Alamek speech by Nethanyu alone is genocidal.

I believe that is incorrect. I believe that the military must weigh the proportional military gain against the death of the humans being used as shields. You do not have to be under immediate threat of death in order to justify the killing of human shields, however you have to consider the potential military gain (thus Israeli aren’t carpet bombing Gaza).

Think about it practically- you could walk down the street with all your weaponry concealed with your human shield compelled to follow you, you then open fire upon a military objective, and just as immediately throw your weapons away and wave a white flag, while moving away with your human shield between you and your one-time targets. If your standard was the required standard, it would encourage the use of human shields. It would in fact make enemy combatants virtually invulnerable as long as they made it clear moments after attempting to attack that they were now not attempting to attack.

Yes, WWII was the point at which we humans realised that total war resulted in horrific deaths of civilians that should not be repeated in future.

Post WWII is when all the international laws were written and genocide, ethnic cleansing, weaponised rape and so on were formally defined and agreed on to be war crimes.

So posters that try and justify Gaza by comparison to what the Allies did in WWII are way off the mark. Much of how WWII was fought would be a war crime and genocide today.

No, you are incorrect as is your scenario.

You can return lethal fire into civilians and it not be a war crime, what you cannot do is pre-emptively fire on civilians that you think may be a threat or contain a threat hidden within them.

The porportionality is in regards to how you return fire, e.g Hamas on a roof with sniper rifle that he’s just fired at you. Do you: call in an airstrike and pancake the entire building killing the hundreds of residents or do you instruct a sniper to shoot the Hamas guy (and you know he is as he’s popped up with a rifle and fired off a shot at you). ? Porportionality states you must avoid civilian deaths as much as possible. That you cannot pancake an entire building full of civilians to get to one or a few Hamas terrorists. You cannot use a tank shell either, in case you are wondering.

This law doesn’t encourage the use of human shields. It is not my standard, it is the ICC standard.

@Hellenika

"Much of how WWII was fought would be a war crime and genocide today."

+++

Actually because of the broad definition much of how any war is committed today would be classed as a war crime and genocide.

The Houthi attacks on civilian ships = war crime and genocide.
The Russian bombing of Kiev ='war crime and genocide
The Ukrainian bombing of Sevastopol in Crimea = war crime and genocide

That is wrong- civilian objects become military targets when used to conceal military targets.

If this is unsubstantiated (despite 2 decades of Hamas practice) then the allegation that it is a war crime despite allegations that the civilian infrastructure is used to conceal military targets needs to be established to decide one way or another.

No, most of how wars are executed today are not war crimes or genocide.

There are legal ways to wage war and for most operations, they stay within the bounds of legal armed conflict.

Your examples aren’t very good. Houthi attacks on shipping are not genocide, they may not even be war crimes as stopping logistical supply is acceptable when it isn’t humanitarian aid. Russian bombing of Kyiv, is not genocide, if the bombing was shown to include avoidable civilians deaths or avoidable hits on civilian infrastructure, that could be a war crime, but the reports do not amount to genocide when you look at civilian deaths. Same for Sevastopol.

No, it’s not as simple as civilian objects becoming military targets when used or suspected of being used to conceal military personnel or equipment.

A military target does not have to present a current threat to be a valid military target. A munitions factory with workers inside it is a valid military target. A highway, or rail line, that has civilian motorists or trains on it is still a valid military target. And yes, a hospital that conceals a command centre is a valid military target.

As for proportionality, you COULD pancake the building, provided it was not disproportionate to the military advantage to be obtained. So, maybe not for some pleb Hamas foot soldier, but if there was a senior Hamas leader considered vital to Hamas operations, that may be considered proportionate.

@Hellenika

Well the intent of the Russian attacks on Kiev was to kill the nationality of Ukrainians which under the UN definition makes it genocide.
The intent of Ukrainian attacks on Sevastopol was to kill the nationality of Russians which again makes it genocide.
The Houthi attacks by targeting specific nationality of ships again would make it genocide.

But we were not talking about military targets, we were talking about civilian targets suspected of concealing military personnel or equipment. This is very different and rules are different in how you handle them compared to a bona fide military target.

The importance of a leader doesn’t matter to porportionality. Ie, Russia could not nuke Washington DC because Biden is there. Proportionality has nothing to do with the military advantage, btw.