The Dahiya Doctrine: Israel's military doctrine of mass civilian casualties

[oneworld2]

How would you suggest one nation go about responding to rocket attacks coming from within another nation (or ’proxy’ forces within it funded by a third nation)?

The rocket attacks, on so many occasions , are a response to Israeli abuses/murders/aggression.

The Israelis could always stop abusing/violating/murdering Palestinians and see if that had an impact of the rocket fire you, so selectively and dishonestly, want to make out happens in a vacuum.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Doesn't the US attempt to limit civilian casualties?

Yep, but our forces have killed quite a few civilians as ‘collateral damage’. Hamas poses a special problem since they intentionally place their munitions and forces in civilian structures making it all but impossible not to have significant ‘collateral damage’.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The rocket attacks, on so many occasions , are a response to Israeli abuses/murders/aggression.

The Israelis could always stop abusing/violating/murdering Palestinians and see if that had an impact of the rocket fire you, so selectively and dishonestly, want to make out happens in a vacuum.

Goodbye.

 

[oneworld2]

Goodbye.

Scared off by the truth lol

 

[lwf]

It has failed repeatedly. The only message Israel is sending is its willingness to kill large numbers of innocent civilians….and the world is hearing that message loud and clear, and is disgusted by it.

 

[Bodi]

I am actually waiting for you to admit that you aren't clued up enough to even be in the debate, i await it still lol

I might just do that so that you are able to get a good night sleep not having to worry about being proven wrong over and over...

 

[Nickyjo]

Maybe the Israelis know the psychology of the Arabs better than any other group.

So I guess that -- according to the info in the OP -- the Israelis feel that their current massive response in Gaza is the only "language" their enemies understand.

So all Arab nations (and Iran) had better watch their p's and q's.

The attitude you describe sounds like Custer before he massacred the Cheyenne on the Washita, or Chivington before Sand Creek.

 

[Nickyjo]

He's saying the neighborhood should be treated as a large military base, and that disproportionate force should be employed compared to the threat and action of the terrorists on the other side. I agree with both claims. It is a military base, and Israel should react with much larger force than whatever is attacking its citizens.

That is understandable. But if Israel wants more support from the world community, it might consider halting the evictions of Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank, as apparently hundreds have been since the Hamas atrocity.

 

[Fledermaus]

Nope, you support IDF war crimes/ state terrorism always and against whichever Palestinians it is directed at.


Nope, you start at 7th October to present the Palestinians as the initiators of a conflict that started before Hamas were even created.

You said every war is due to Hamas aggression, I showed you that you were wrong, you ignored the post



If you care for the law, even if not for the Palestinians, you would condemn, completely, ALL of the settlements and not just " the expansion" , They are ALL illegal

Even when you are presenting yourself as reasonable you show a complete bias.

1. I support the IDF in its bag smashing of Hamas. Your biased opinion is irrelevant.

2. I do recognize this is war and innocent civilians will suffer due to the war that Hamas started. My hopes are the the IDF will strive to reduce civilian suffering. 10/7 started this war. Hamas attacked in force in an orgy of intentional killing of civilians. Oh, quote me saying "every war is due to Hamas".

3. I do not support the expansion of West Bank settlements nor of violence by the settlers. I don't care about your litmus taste.

As to bias?


Physician... Heal thyself.

 

[Tigerace117]

View attachment 67481601

Israel’s actions are little different than those of its old friend apartheid South Africa.

 

[Surrealistik]

Yep, but our forces have killed quite a few civilians as ‘collateral damage’. Hamas poses a special problem since they intentionally place their munitions and forces in civilian structures making it all but impossible not to have significant ‘collateral damage’.

Coalition forces, with similar tools, managed to achieve roughly a 2 to 1 ratio in terms of ISIS operatives to civilians killed during the siege of Mosul; ISIS also tried to hide among the populace and generally held its support. Mosul was roughly 30% less dense than Gaza, so if we increase the number of civilian casualties by 30% as a rough offset for this, it works out to about 1.53 to 1, adjusted.

There is no reasonable explanation as to how the IDF is, per its own surely overstated estimates, doing worse than the inverse of that (0.5-0.33) Hamas combatants per civilian killed other than that it bombs with impunity and callous indifference. Moreover, given the IDF's penchant for habitually lying/exaggerating in its favour, and that only approximately 30% of the dead are grown men, which would mean that just about every grown man killed would impossibly have to be in Hamas for the IDF's estimates to even be in the ballpark, that ratio is definitely worse in reality. If the IDF managed even an unrealistically optimistic 50% accuracy rate in terms of killing Hamas operatives among grown men, or if 15% of those killed were Hamas operatives in otherwords (0.3 * 0.5), it would have a ~5.67 : 1 civilian to combatant ratio (85% / 15%) which is obviously atrocious, and more than an order of magnitude worse than Coalition forces at Mosul.

 

[OlNate]

Yep, but our forces have killed quite a few civilians as ‘collateral damage’. Hamas poses a special problem since they intentionally place their munitions and forces in civilian structures making it all but impossible not to have significant ‘collateral damage’.

Yes, you have. Civilian casualties is a part of the tragic nature of war - well, since WW2, anyway, when both sides deemed it acceptable to attack civilian populations by bombing cities. Prior to that it was considered taboo within "civilized" nations.

But i see a difference here. Today the US would say they try not to kill civilians. New weapon systems are praised for being more tactical, able to hit targets with less civilian casualties. American soldiers have strict rules of engagement for the same reason. And not just out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they understand that civilian casualties are the best tools of propaganda, and bolster resistance and extend the conflict.

In contrast, the word deliberate is used a lot here. Disproportionate response is the goal. Isn't that different from what America does?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, you have. Civilian casualties is a part of the tragic nature of war - well, since WW2, anyway, when both sides deemed it acceptable to attack civilian populations by bombing cities. Prior to that it was considered taboo within "civilized" nations.

Hmm… how many wars have the US won since WWII?

But i see a difference here. Today the US would say they try not to kill civilians. New weapon systems are praised for being more tactical, able to hit targets with less civilian casualties. American soldiers have strict rules of engagement for the same reason. And not just out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they understand that civilian casualties are the best tools of propaganda, and bolster resistance and extend the conflict.

Hmm… weren’t Vietnam and Afghanistan extended conflicts?

In contrast, the word deliberate is used a lot here. Disproportionate response is the goal. Isn't that different from what America does?

Which tactic is apt to result in a shorter duration conflict?

 

[OlNate]

Hmm… how many wars have the US won since WWII?

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm guessing the hmmm implies sarcasm, I'm just not getting the reference. Did our wires get crossed? Usually i understand the jabs... hehe Help me out, bud, I'll do my best to answer.

Hmm… weren’t Vietnam and Afghanistan extended conflicts?

Compared to the Israeli / Arab thing? Not really. Those were long wars because they were tough wars, fraught with bad leadership decisions. And even still, they were nothing like the 75 years of conflict in the middle east, and that 75 years is only if you limit your scope to the history of the conflict during the latest existence of Israel as a nation... hehe

Nah, those were not extended conflicts when compared to what we're talking about here.

Which tactic is apt to result in a shorter duration conflict?

The one that doesn't inspire hatred and violence being passed down from generation to generation.

I guess I'm getting hung up on the idea that disproportionate response changes the victim to the victimizer. Logically and ethically speaking, it's tough to justify, and it doesn't seem particularly effective in bringing the conflict to an end. Rather, it fuels and perpetuates it. I don't really get it i guess.

 

[Apocalypse]

All that word salad because you have been the only one outed for supporting war crimes/state terrorism.

You don't have the capacity for embarrassment, you're an Israeli propagandist, the two things are mutually exclusive.

Hilarious.
You can't even pretend you don't support Hamas.
You can't even say it.

 

[oneworld2]

Hilarious.
You can't even pretend you don't support Hamas.
You can't even say it.

Flog that dead horse!!! lol

I have laid my position out and am fine with it, it is both supported by the law and also morally.

Your's ,however, is based on support for war crimes/state terrorism and an obvious animosity to the protection of human rights outside of Jewish human rights.

Thus it has no moral of legal backing

No wonder you try to keep the focus on me.

 

[Apocalypse]

Flog that dead horse!!! lol

I have laid my position out and am fine with it, it is both supported by the law and also morally.

Your's ,however, is based on support for war crimes/state terrorism and an obvious animosity to the protection of human rights outside of Jewish human rights.

Thus it has no moral of legal backing

No wonder you try to keep the focus on me.

Do you or do you not support Hamas?
Here, I'll make it supposedly easier for you: Do you or do you not support ISIS?