Israel And Lebanon By Numbers

Published on July 26, 2006 By O G San In International

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.

Comments (Page 3)

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

"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?

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2006

"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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

"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.

UBoB

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

drmiler

on Jul 30, 2006

"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.

UBoB

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

"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.

drmiler

on Jul 30, 2006

"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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

drmiler

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

O G San

on Jul 30, 2006

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.

bakerstreet

on Jul 30, 2006

" 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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!