O G San O G San

Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

▼

Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

from JoeUser Forums
Two weeks into the latest conflict in the Middle East, the casualty figures make interesting reading. US-sponsored Israel has sent 422 Lebanese to an early grave while Hezbollah (brought to you by Iran and Syria) has killed 42 people.

In other words, the Jewish state, armed and backed by the world’s richest country, has maintained a ten-to-one kill ratio in the first fortnight of fighting. This disparity in human suffering is the single defining characteristic of this war and must be acknowledged in any honest commentary on the conflict.

But the bald figures tell only half the story. Of the 42 people killed by Hezbollah, 24 (57%) were soldiers and 18 (43%) civilians. This relatively low per centage of civilian casualties seems strange. The Shia militia makes no distinction between an Israeli soldier and an Israeli child - they are both Zionist occupiers of Muslim land. The Party of God has demonstrated no qualms about taking innocent life.

So, the fact that more than half the Israeli dead were soldiers is probably a result of military rather than moral considerations. Obviously, Hezbollah’s guerrilla war against the IDF in southern Lebanon has been more effective than the hundreds of Kaytushas it has fired on northern Israel.

What then of the IDF’s pattern of killing? Well, unlike Hezbollah, Israel’s military proudly boasts that it is the most moral army in the world, that no other fighting force on the planet goes to such lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Logically then, you would expect the Israeli army to have killed significantly fewer civilians proportionally than Hezbollah.

Not so. Of the 422 people killed by the most moral army in the world, 27 were Hezbollah, 20 were Lebanese soldiers and 375 - a whopping 88% - were civilians. All these numbers can get a bit confusing so let me distil them all into one sentence: Israel has killed more than twice as many civilians as a per centagethan Hezbollah.

Remind me again who the good guys are.
international
45,879 views 110 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
" The violence against Lebanon will ignite the real need for Arab states to get out of the clutches of USA and get military parity by going nuclear."


Which will bring about the end of the Middle East as we know it. If you don't see this as the end of the middle ages in the Middle East, you should look again. The world will no longer tolerate this behavior, and things like this will happen every year until the Middle East joins the rest of the world in the 21st century. It will be bloody if necessary, but they will not become what you claim because they will not be allowed to.

One nation should not undertake an act of war on another unless they are prepared for war. Period. By allowing Hezbollah into their government and embracing them as legitimate military in their nation, they have to take responsibility for their actions. Civil infrastructure becomes targets during a time of war. If you don't want bombs dropped on you, it is probably better not to provoke a neighboring nation to war.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everyone knows already that war is never pretty and to expect anything less than dead people, soldiers and civilians alike, is just day dreaming.

I have to understand your point based on what you write and how you write it, I have come across a few people that, for some reason, thought that I would guess they were LOL when they wrote an article that sounded like they were mad as hell. I say this so that in case I write one of those “don’t put words in my mouth” sentences, it’s only because this is what I get and/or understand what you are trying to say.

With that said, I get the feeling, just like Baker did, that you think that we should just let terrorist get their way. That anyone who wants more than what they have should only have to hide in a civilian populated area, acquire powerful weapons by any means, attack those they wish to get what they want from and then those who are being attacked should just give in to their demands just to save the lives of those around the attackers because even though the “innocent” civilians know they are there and who they are, they should not be responsible for their actions. At the same time, the terrorist can get away with killing innocent people on the other sides.

Sure, let them kill innocent people in my town while hiding behind human shields so that our morality can get the best of us and they can get their demands. Funny, every time there is a hostage situation and S.W.A.T. comes, they try their best to get the criminals without putting the hostages in danger but shit happens sometimes. In the end we don’t give in to their demands so easily, so why should we give in to those who have already killed and will kill anyways cause they never follow thru on a ceasefire, for example.

Not only do they believe that Israel should be completely destroyed, they have vocally told everyone without any fear of retaliation, and we should be trying to work things out with them? How do you make a deal to save the lives of the Israeli people with people whose mindset is ”the only good Israeli is a dead one”? If you can answer that question with a decent answer than I will shut up and agree with you.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"the only good Arab is a dead Arab"

Israeli Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, 1983.

How are the Palestinians (or the Lebanese) supposed to deal with people with that mindset?

Peace will only come in the Middle East when both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, accept the permanence of the other.

There are many among both peoples who have already come to this conclusion - that the Jews will not be driven into the sea and neither will the Palestinians be "transfered" to Jordan. Unfortunately, there are many others who have not.

No military offensive or security "crackdown" will bring lasting peace - the last 60 years are proof of that. What is it they say about the definition of madness?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a point of fact. Current estimates of the Hezbollah forces in the South of Lebannon opposing Israel are two brigades, the same strength as the Israeli force. They are NOT few in number.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
'numbers aren't facts' - baker street

thank you for that comment, mr street. that is one of the funniest arguments i've ever read. you tell 'em.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
They aren't, soupy. Statistics don't make any sort of a point, moral or otherwise. As I said, if the number of civilians killed disqualified moral victory, then no war has really ever been won morally.

That may be the standard of some peaceniks, but that's not what is going on here. If you want to talk statistics ask yourself why tens of thousands killed in Sierra Leone provoked less outrage than a couple of hundred Lebanese. Were they white, too?

No, in the end, this is about Israel, period. People are being exterminated almost daily around the world, but you rarely hear about it. 200 people are probably killed in one conflict or another around the world in the time it takes you to drink a cup of coffee.

When you see them keeping an active count in the news, though, you can bet it's the US or Israel doing the killing and no amount of provocation will matter. Everything else is vague, emotionless numbers.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Statistics don't make any sort of a point, moral or otherwise"

So, by your resoning, a statistic/number does not make any moral point but a fact does?

So the "fact" that the sun rises in the east makes a moral point?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
"So the "fact" that the sun rises in the east makes a moral point?"


Are you this desperate to make an argument? Playing along, I'd say no, if you said "The sun rises in the east, therefore Israel is the bad guy" it wouldn't make any more or less sense than your arithmetic above. How many civilians killed has nothing more to tell about the moral standing of a military effort than where the sun comes up.

Granted, I also never said every fact makes a moral point, either. I was just point out that what you are doing is akin to leaning across the podium and yelling "FIVE!" at your opposition. The who, what, when, where, and why of the 'five' might have more to do with the moral standing than you'd like to admit.

Heck, though, whatever makes you feel like you are keeping up with the discussion.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How many civilians killed has nothing more to tell about the moral standing of a military effort than where the sun comes up."

Do you actually truly believe this? That the number of civilian deaths has no bearing on the morality of the action? Why then does Israel (and the US for that matter) insist that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties?

As I said way back in comment 19: "I am using facts to back up my argument. What's wrong with that?"

Granted these facts may not always be 100% accurate. For instance, it is quite possible that some Lebanese lie dead and uncounted under bombed buildings.

But I still prefer my technique - trying to get information from reliable sources - to your technique, as demonstrated on another thread, which involves randomly picking a number from the air.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Granted these facts may not always be 100% accurate. For instance, it is quite possible that some Lebanese lie dead and uncounted under bombed buildings.


As might some Israeli civilians.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How many civilians killed has nothing more to tell about the moral standing of a military effort than where the sun comes up."

Do you actually truly believe this? That the number of civilian deaths has no bearing on the morality of the action? Why then does Israel (and the US for that matter) insist that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties?


Bakerstreet is correct on this. The "number" of civilian deaths has nothing to do with the moral standing of a "military" endeavor. The reason behind it is what forms the moral answer or lack thereof.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you actually truly believe this? That the number of civilian deaths has no bearing on the morality of the action? Why then does Israel (and the US for that matter) insist that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties?


Because Democratic countries like Israel and the US actually DO feel profound regret at the loss of civilian lives whereas the likes of Hezbollah intentionally put Lebanese civilians in harm's way as well as intentionally target Israeli civilians with no regret whatsoever.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
UBoB,

I very much doubt that there are any dead Israeli civilians who are yet to be counted. Israel has received considerably less aerial attack than Lebanon and has the infrastructure to recover bodies after bombings. There is an organisation called ZAKA in Israel which collects body parts after car crashes/suicide bombs/missile attacks so they can be buried in accordance with Jewish custom.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The "number" of civilian deaths has nothing to do with the moral standing of a "military" endeavor. The reason behind it is what forms the moral answer or lack thereof."

I beg to differ. The morality of a military action depends both on the reason behind it and its effect.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The "number" of civilian deaths has nothing to do with the moral standing of a "military" endeavor. The reason behind it is what forms the moral answer or lack thereof."

I beg to differ. The morality of a military action depends both on the reason behind it and its effect.


You can beg all you wish. But down through the ages, morality of a military action has been judged on the reason NOT the effect. Hitler was judged on the how and why, NOT the who.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
You may see it that way, I do not. It is possible for a moral war to contain immoral actions. For example, some would argue that, while the war against Hitler was certainly morally justified, a part of this war - the fire-bombing of Dresden - was not.

By your logic, any action in war, no matter how monstrous, is OK as long as the war itself is morally justified. Consider the implications of such a mentality.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
You may see it that way, I do not. It is possible for a moral war to contain immoral actions. For example, some would argue that, while the war against Hitler was certainly morally justified, a part of this war - the fire-bombing of Dresden - was not.


You and I are obviously of differing opinions. I do not see the fire-bombing of Dresden as immoral. By "your" logic, the US dropping of the nuke on Japan was immoral.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you think the civilian casualties in London were equal in moral standing to the ones who died in Berlin? If three civilians are killed in a Hezbollah rocket attack, and later three civilians are killed in an artillery attack on that rocket emplacement, do you really feel that the two military endeavors are of equal moral standing?

"Why then does Israel (and the US for that matter) insist that they do everything possible to avoid civilian casualties?"


Because the final judgment is not based upon numbers, but care, intent and the necessity of the action, which is what you can't seem to understand. How many civilians were killed in Afghanistan? A lot more than were killed in 9/11 I bet. Does that make us the 'bad guy' in the exchange?

Perhaps a nation with ethical reasons to make war can be careless towards civilians, sure. That isn't something you can prove with bare numbers, though. Especially given the hundreds of tons of ordinance that has been dropped on Lebanon and the very small death toll that has resulted.

Compare it to what might have been if it had been focused on civilians, as terrorists do as a matter of procedure.

"For example, some would argue that, while the war against Hitler was certainly morally justified, a part of this war - the fire-bombing of Dresden - was not."


And what you refuse to acknowledge is that sometimes the threat is so great that civilian casualties are morally justified, even on a grand scale if it is the only option. It's easy to tell the difference when you are critiquing it 60 years after. When you are a military commander weighing the possibility of hundreds of thousands or millions more casualties on your side, against civilian deaths on the other side that would end the war for all concerned much faster, it might not be so easy.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Re: Dresden

I was using this as an example. There are many others. The point is not whether or not you think the bombing of Dresden was immoral, it's the principle. Do either of you accept that a moral war can contain immoral actions?

BakerStreet,

"Because the final judgment is not based upon numbers, but care, intent and the necessity of the action, which is what you can't seem to understand."

But the number of people killed is important. When one side kills ten times more than the other it is important, it is relevant, it is as I said:

"the single defining characteristic of this war and must be acknowledged in any honest commentary on the conflict."

But Israel's friends don't want to mention this because it makes the country look bad.

By severely underestimating the number of Lebanese killed, as you did today, you implicitly acknowledged this.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
" When one side kills ten times more than the other it is important, it is relevant"


But you don't offer why. I appreciate that you quote yourself as saying that it is the single most defining characteristic, but I can quote you folks who think it is a sign that Jesus is coming back. I'm not swallowing either based upon the statement alone.

The single most defining fact to probably millions around the world is that Jews are killing Muslims. Maybe you shouldn't assume that your standard of human suffering, and its relative importance, is universal. Obviously it isn't, given how we give a damn about Lebanon and yawn through tens of thousands elsewhere.

If we really gave a damn about relative human suffering, Lebanon probably wouldn't even be on the front page, much less a major headline.

"By severely underestimating the number of Lebanese killed, as you did today, you implicitly acknowledged this."


Unless you are lamenting totals, including Hezbollah fighters, you can't for a moment tell me accurately how many civilians are killed. Why? Because the people counting them have every reason to inflate the total as much as humanly possible. No doubt anyone under 20 is a child and anyone without a gun in their hands is a civilian.

No thanks. This is a propaganda war, and swallowing propaganda doesn't give you a clearer view. The minute-by-minute al Jazeera numbers will no doubt be revised greatly before it is all over, the same way we were expected tens of thousands dead in the WTC.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Re: Dresden

I was using this as an example. There are many others. The point is not whether or not you think the bombing of Dresden was immoral, it's the principle. Do either of you accept that a moral war can contain immoral actions?


Yes, I do. But that has absolutely "nothing" to do with the numbers of casualties. If that were truly the case, then "every" war ever fought has immorality as part of it.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
"But you don't offer why."

Because Israel, armed and funded by the most powerful country in the world, is battering a much weaker country in a way which would be unacceptable in other parts of the world.

I think if the ratio was ten-to-one the other way, you might consider these numbers (whether they are facts or not) to be relevant.

"No thanks. This is a propaganda war, and swallowing propaganda doesn't give you a clearer view."

I don't swallow anybody's propaganda. Just because I have the temerity to disagree with you, you suggest this makes me gulible. I am reading many things about this conflict from many different viewpoints - including those of The Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
OG--I know you like a good debate and all, but I'd venture a guess that banging your head against a brick wall would be far more productive.

(hi soupy).
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well I thought it was productive. Certain ludicrous statements were challenged.

Looking back over these comments, as I have just done, it's interesting to note which bloggers enjoy name-calling and which can be civil.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Certain ludicrous statements were challenged


Sure. But everyone still holds firm and fast to their original point of view.

PS. I liked your other article. I'm actually a little afraid to admit that I had used a similar argument with my boss before reading your article ("would you find this acceptable if Britain had done it to Ireland? blah blah blah" --clearly less articulate than your blog, but the same general sentiment.) I'm pretty sure the apocalypse is coming if we are agreeing and thinking alike.