STEP 4: AUTHORIZING CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
‘We attacked almost without considering collateral damage’
One source said that when attacking junior operatives, including those marked by AI systems like Lavender, the number of civilians they were allowed to kill alongside each target was fixed during the initial weeks of the war at up to 20. Another source claimed the fixed number was up to 15. These “collateral damage degrees,” as the military calls them, were applied broadly to all suspected junior militants, the sources said, regardless of their rank, military importance, and age, and with no specific case-by-case examination to weigh the military advantage of assassinating them against the expected harm to civilians.

第四步：授權(quán)造成平民傷亡
“我們幾乎沒(méi)有考慮附帶損害就發(fā)動(dòng)了攻擊”
一位消息人士稱(chēng)，在攻擊初級(jí)特工時(shí)，包括那些被薰衣草等人工智能系統(tǒng)標(biāo)記的人員，他們?cè)趹?zhàn)爭(zhēng)開(kāi)始的幾周內(nèi)被允許殺死的每個(gè)目標(biāo)的平民數(shù)量是固定的，最多為 20 人。另一名消息人士稱(chēng)，固定數(shù)字最高為 15 人。消息人士稱(chēng)，軍方稱(chēng)這些“附帶損害程度”廣泛適用于所有疑似初級(jí)武裝分子，無(wú)論其軍銜、軍事重要性和年齡如何，而且沒(méi)有具體逐案審查來(lái)衡量暗殺他們的軍事優(yōu)勢(shì)與預(yù)期對(duì)平民造成的傷害。

According to A., who was an officer in a target operation room in the current war, the army’s international law department has never before given such “sweeping approval” for such a high collateral damage degree. “It’s not just that you can kill any person who is a Hamas soldier, which is clearly permitted and legitimate in terms of international law,” A. said. “But they directly tell you: ‘You are allowed to kill them along with many civilians.’

據(jù)曾任本場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)目標(biāo)作戰(zhàn)室軍官的A介紹，陸軍國(guó)際法部門(mén)此前從未對(duì)如此高的附帶損害程度做出過(guò)“如此全面的批準(zhǔn)”。“你不只是可以殺死任何一名哈馬斯士兵，這在國(guó)際法上顯然是被允許和合法的，”A. 說(shuō)?！暗麄冎苯痈嬖V你：‘你可以殺死他們和許多平民?！?/b>

“Every person who wore a Hamas uniform in the past year or two could be bombed with 20 [civilians killed as] collateral damage, even without special permission,” A. continued. “In practice, the principle of proportionality did not exist.”

“過(guò)去一兩年中，每個(gè)穿著哈馬斯制服的人都可能遭到轟炸，造成 20 名平民死亡，甚至沒(méi)有特別許可，”A. 繼續(xù)說(shuō)道?！皩?shí)際上，比例原則并不存在?！?/b>

According to A., this was the policy for most of the time that he served. Only later did the military lower the collateral damage degree. “In this calculation, it could also be 20 children for a junior operative … It really wasn’t like that in the past,” A. explained. Asked about the security rationale behind this policy, A. replied: “Lethality.”

據(jù) A. 說(shuō)，他服役期間大部分時(shí)間都是這個(gè)政策。直到后來(lái)，軍方才降低了附帶傷害程度?！鞍凑者@個(gè)計(jì)算，一名初級(jí)特工可能要?dú)⑺?20 名兒童……過(guò)去真的不是這樣的，”A. 解釋道。當(dāng)被問(wèn)及這項(xiàng)政策背后的安全理由時(shí)，A. 回答說(shuō)：“致命性?！?/b>

The predetermined and fixed collateral damage degree helped accelerate the mass creation of targets using the Lavender machine, sources said, because it saved time. B. claimed that the number of civilians they were permitted to kill in the first week of the war per suspected junior militant marked by AI was fifteen, but that this number “went up and down” over time.

消息人士稱(chēng)，預(yù)定和固定的附帶損害程度有助于加速使用 薰衣草機(jī)器大規(guī)模制造目標(biāo)，因?yàn)樗?jié)省了時(shí)間。B. 聲稱(chēng)，在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的第一周，他們被允許殺死的每個(gè)被 AI 標(biāo)記的疑似初級(jí)武裝分子的平民數(shù)量為 15 人，但這個(gè)數(shù)字隨著時(shí)間的推移“上下波動(dòng)”。

“At first we attacked almost without considering collateral damage,” B. said of the first week after October 7. “In practice, you didn’t really count people [in each house that is bombed], because you couldn’t really tell if they’re at home or not. After a week, restrictions on collateral damage began. The number dropped [from 15] to five, which made it really difficult for us to attack, because if the whole family was home, we couldn’t bomb it. Then they raised the number again.”

“一開(kāi)始，我們幾乎沒(méi)有考慮附帶損害就發(fā)動(dòng)了襲擊，”B 在談到 10 月 7 日之后的第一個(gè)星期時(shí)說(shuō)道?！皩?shí)際上，你并沒(méi)有真正計(jì)算出 [每所被炸房屋里的] 人數(shù)，因?yàn)槟銦o(wú)法真正判斷他們是否在家?！耙恢芎?，對(duì)附帶損害的限制開(kāi)始生效。人數(shù)從 15 人減少到 5 人，這讓我們的襲擊變得非常困難，因?yàn)槿绻胰硕荚诩依铮覀兙筒荒苻Z炸。然后他們又提高了人數(shù)?！?/b>

‘We knew we would kill over 100 civilians’
Sources told +972 and Local Call that now, partly due to American pressure, the Israeli army is no longer mass-generating junior human targets for bombing in civilian homes. The fact that most homes in the Gaza Strip were already destroyed or damaged, and almost the entire population has been displaced, also impaired the army’s ability to rely on intelligence databases and automated house-locating programs.

“我們知道我們會(huì)殺死100多名平民”
消息人士告訴 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w，現(xiàn)在，部分由于美國(guó)的壓力，以色列軍隊(duì)不再大規(guī)模制造初級(jí)人質(zhì)目標(biāo)，轟炸平民住宅。加沙地帶的大多數(shù)房屋已被摧毀或損壞，幾乎所有人口都流離失所，這也削弱了軍隊(duì)依賴(lài)情報(bào)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)和自動(dòng)房屋定位程序的能力。

E. claimed that the massive bombardment of junior militants took place only in the first week or two of the war, and then was stopped mainly so as not to waste bombs. “There is a munitions economy,” E. said. “They were always afraid that there would be [a war] in the northern arena [with Hezbollah in Lebanon]. They don’t attack these kinds of [junior] people at all anymore.”

E.聲稱(chēng)，對(duì)初級(jí)武裝分子的大規(guī)模轟炸只在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)開(kāi)始的一兩周內(nèi)發(fā)生，之后就停止了，主要是為了不浪費(fèi)炸彈。“他們有軍火經(jīng)濟(jì)，”E. 說(shuō)。“他們一直擔(dān)心北方地區(qū)（與黎巴嫩真主黨）會(huì)發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。他們現(xiàn)在根本不會(huì)攻擊這些（初級(jí)）人了?！?/b>

However, airstrikes against senior ranking Hamas commanders are still ongoing, and sources said that for these attacks, the military is authorizing the killing of “hundreds” of civilians per target — an official policy for which there is no historical precedent in Israel, or even in recent U.S. military operations.

然而，針對(duì)哈馬斯高級(jí)指揮官的空襲仍在繼續(xù)，有消息稱(chēng)，對(duì)于這些襲擊，軍方授權(quán)殺死每個(gè)目標(biāo)“數(shù)百名”平民——這一官方政策在以色列歷史上是沒(méi)有先例的，甚至在最近的美國(guó)軍事行動(dòng)中也是如此。

“In the bombing of the commander of the Shuja’iya Battalion, we knew that we would kill over 100 civilians,” B. recalled of a Dec. 2 bombing that the IDF Spokesperson said was aimed at assassinating Wisam Farhat. “For me, psychologically, it was unusual. Over 100 civilians — it crosses some red line.”

“在轟炸舒賈伊亞營(yíng)指揮官時(shí)，我們知道我們會(huì)殺死 100 多名平民，”B. 回憶起 12 月 2 日的一次爆炸事件，以色列國(guó)防軍發(fā)言人稱(chēng)這次爆炸旨在暗殺維薩姆·法哈特。“對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)，從心理上來(lái)說(shuō)，這是不尋常的。超過(guò) 100 名平民——這已經(jīng)越過(guò)了紅線(xiàn)。”

Amjad Al-Sheikh, a young Palestinian from Gaza, said many of his family members were killed in that bombing. A resident of Shuja’iya, east of Gaza City, he was at a local supermarket that day when he heard five blasts that shattered the glass windows.

來(lái)自加沙的巴勒斯坦青年阿姆賈德·謝赫說(shuō)，他的許多家人在那次爆炸中喪生。他是加沙城東部舒賈伊亞的居民，那天他在當(dāng)?shù)匾患页袝r(shí)聽(tīng)到五聲爆炸聲，玻璃窗碎裂。

“I ran to my family’s house, but there were no buildings there anymore,” Al-Sheikh told +972 and Local Call. “The street was filled with screams and smoke. Entire residential blocks turned to mountains of rubble and deep pits. People began to search in the cement, using their hands, and so did I, looking for signs of my family’s house.”

“我跑到我家，但那里已經(jīng)沒(méi)有建筑了，”Al-Sheikh 告訴 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w?！敖稚铣錆M(mǎn)了尖叫聲和煙霧。整個(gè)住宅區(qū)都變成了瓦礫山和深坑。人們開(kāi)始用手在水泥地上搜尋，我也一樣，尋找我家房子的蹤跡?！?/b>

Al-Sheikh’s wife and baby daughter survived — protected from the rubble by a closet that fell on top of them — but he found 11 other members of his family, among them his sisters, brothers, and their young children, dead under the rubble. According to the human rights group B’Tselem, the bombing that day destroyed dozens of buildings, killed dozens of people, and buried hundreds under the ruins of their homes.

阿爾謝赫的妻子和女兒幸免于難——倒塌的衣柜壓在了她們身上，保護(hù)了她們不被瓦礫砸中——但他發(fā)現(xiàn)，包括姐妹、兄弟和他們年幼的孩子在內(nèi)的其他 11 名家庭成員都死在了廢墟之下。據(jù)人權(quán)組織 B’Tselem 稱(chēng)，??當(dāng)天的轟炸摧毀了數(shù)十座建筑物，造成數(shù)十人死亡，數(shù)百人被埋在家園的廢墟之下。

‘Entire families were killed’
Intelligence sources told +972 and Local Call they took part in even deadlier strikes. In order to assassinate Ayman Nofal, the commander of Hamas’ Central Gaza Brigade, a source said the army authorized the killing of approximately 300 civilians, destroying several buildings in airstrikes on Al-Bureij refugee camp on Oct. 17, based on an imprecise pinpointing of Nofal. Satellite footage and videos from the scene show the destruction of several large multi-storey apartment buildings.

“全家人都被殺了”
情報(bào)人員告訴當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w，他們參加了更為致命的襲擊。消息人士稱(chēng)，為了暗殺哈馬斯中央加沙旅指揮官艾曼·諾法爾，軍方根據(jù)對(duì)諾法爾不精確的定位，于10月17日批準(zhǔn)殺害約300名平民，并在對(duì)布雷吉難民營(yíng)的空襲中摧毀了數(shù)座建筑。現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的衛(wèi)星圖像和視頻顯示，幾棟大型多層公寓樓被毀。

“Between 16 to 18 houses were wiped out in the attack,” Amro Al-Khatib, a resident of the camp, told +972 and Local Call. “We couldn’t tell one apartment from the other — they all got mixed up in the rubble, and we found human body parts everywhere.”

“襲擊中摧毀了 16 到 18 棟房屋，”營(yíng)地居民 Amro Al-Khatib 告訴 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w?！拔覀儫o(wú)法分辨出每間公寓——它們都混在廢墟里，到處都是人體殘骸。”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


In the aftermath, Al-Khatib recalled around 50 dead bodies being pulled out of the rubble, and around 200 people wounded, many of them gravely. But that was just the first day. The camp’s residents spent five days pulling the dead and injured out, he said.

事后，哈提卜回憶說(shuō)，大約有 50 具尸體從廢墟中被拖出，約有 200 人受傷，其中許多人傷勢(shì)嚴(yán)重。但那只是第一天。他說(shuō)，營(yíng)地居民花了五天時(shí)間才把死者和傷者拖出來(lái)。

Nael Al-Bahisi, a paramedic, was one of the first on the scene. He counted between 50-70 casualties on that first day. “At a certain moment, we understood the target of the strike was Hamas commander Ayman Nofal,” he told +972 and Local Call. “They killed him, and also many people who didn’t know he was there. Entire families with children were killed.”

醫(yī)護(hù)人員納埃爾·巴希西是第一批到達(dá)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的人員之一。他統(tǒng)計(jì)，第一天就有 50-70 人傷亡?！霸谀硞€(gè)時(shí)刻，我們明白襲擊的目標(biāo)是哈馬斯指揮官艾曼·諾法爾，”他告訴 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w?！八麄儦⒘怂€殺了許多不知道他在那里的人。整個(gè)有孩子的家庭都被殺了?！?/b>

Another intelligence source told +972 and Local Call that the army destroyed a high-rise building in Rafah in mid-December, killing “dozens of civilians,” in order to try to kill Mohammed Shabaneh, the commander of Hamas’ Rafah Brigade (it is not clear whether or not he was killed in the attack). Often, the source said, the senior commanders hide in tunnels that pass under civilian buildings, and therefore the choice to assassinate them with an airstrike necessarily kills civilians.

另一名情報(bào)人士告訴當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w，軍隊(duì)12月中旬摧毀了拉法赫的一座高層建筑，造成“數(shù)十名平民死亡”，目的是試圖殺死哈馬斯拉法旅指揮官穆罕默德·沙巴內(nèi)（目前尚不清楚他是否在襲擊中喪生）。消息人士稱(chēng)，高級(jí)指揮官通常躲在穿過(guò)平民建筑的隧道中，因此選擇用空襲暗殺他們必然會(huì)導(dǎo)致平民死亡。

“Most of those injured were children,” said Wael Al-Sir, 55, who witnessed the large-scale strike believed by some Gazans to have been the assassination attempt. He told +972 and Local Call that the bombing on Dec. 20 destroyed an “entire residential block” and killed at least 10 children.

“大多數(shù)傷者都是兒童，”55 歲的瓦埃爾·阿爾西爾目睹了這次大規(guī)模襲擊，一些加沙人認(rèn)為這是一次暗殺企圖。他告訴 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w，12 月 20 日的爆炸摧毀了“整個(gè)住宅區(qū)”，并造成至少 10 名兒童死亡。

“There was a completely permissive policy regarding the casualties of [bombing] operations — so permissive that in my opinion it had an element of revenge,” D., an intelligence source, claimed. “The core of this was the assassinations of senior [Hamas and PIJ commanders] for whom they were willing to kill hundreds of civilians. We had a calculation: how many for a brigade commander, how many for a battalion commander, and so on.”

情報(bào)部門(mén)消息人士 D 聲稱(chēng)：“對(duì)于（轟炸）行動(dòng)的傷亡，政府采取了完全寬容的政策 —— 這種寬容在我看來(lái)帶有報(bào)復(fù)的成分。”“事件的核心是暗殺高級(jí)指揮官（哈馬斯和巴基斯坦伊斯蘭圣戰(zhàn)者組織指揮官），他們?cè)敢鉃檫@些指揮官殺害數(shù)百名平民。我們進(jìn)行了盤(pán)算：旅長(zhǎng)要?dú)⒍嗌偃耍瑺I(yíng)長(zhǎng)要?dú)⒍嗌偃?，等等?！?/b>

“There were regulations, but they were just very lenient,” said E., another intelligence source. “We’ve killed people with collateral damage in the high double-digits, if not low triple-digits. These are things that haven’t happened before.”

“雖然有規(guī)定，但非常寬松，”另一位情報(bào)人員 E 說(shuō)。“我們殺人造成的附帶損失高達(dá)兩位數(shù)，甚至三位數(shù)。這些事情以前從未發(fā)生過(guò)?！?/b>

Such a high rate of “collateral damage” is exceptional not only compared to what the Israeli army previously deemed acceptable, but also compared to the wars waged by the United States in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

如此高的“附帶損害”率不僅與以色列軍隊(duì)此前認(rèn)為可以接受的水平相比，而且與美國(guó)在伊拉克、敘利亞和阿富汗發(fā)動(dòng)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)相比都是異常的。

General Peter Gersten, Deputy Commander for Operations and Intelligence in the operation to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria, told a U.S. defense magazine in 2021 that an attack with collateral damage of 15 civilians deviated from procedure; to carry it out, he had to obtain special permission from the head of the U.S. Central Command, General Lloyd Austin, who is now Secretary of Defense.

2021 年，負(fù)責(zé)伊拉克和敘利亞伊斯蘭國(guó)行動(dòng)的作戰(zhàn)和情報(bào)副指揮官彼得·格斯滕將軍對(duì)美國(guó)一家國(guó)防雜志表示，一次造成 15 名平民附帶傷害的襲擊偏離了程序；為了實(shí)施這一襲擊，他必須獲得美國(guó)中央司令部司令、現(xiàn)任國(guó)防部長(zhǎng)勞埃德·奧斯汀將軍的特別許可。

“With Osama Bin Laden, you’d have an NCV [Non-combatant Casualty Value] of 30, but if you had a low-level commander, his NCV was typically zero,” Gersten said. “We ran zero for the longest time.”

“對(duì)付奧薩馬·本·拉登，非戰(zhàn)斗人員傷亡值會(huì)達(dá)到 30，但如果是低級(jí)別指揮官，他的非戰(zhàn)斗人員傷亡值通常為零，”格斯滕說(shuō)?！拔覀冮L(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的傷亡值都是零?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


‘We were told: “Whatever you can, bomb”’
All the sources interviewed for this investigation said that Hamas’ massacres on October 7 and kidnapping of hostages greatly influenced the army’s fire policy and collateral damage degrees. “At first, the atmosphere was painful and vindictive,” said B., who was drafted into the army immediately after October 7, and served in a target operation room. “The rules were very lenient. They took down four buildings when they knew the target was in one of them. It was crazy.

“有人對(duì)我們說(shuō)：‘盡你所能，轟炸一切’”
所有接受調(diào)查的消息人士都表示，哈馬斯10月7日的屠殺和綁架人質(zhì)事件極大地影響了軍隊(duì)的射擊政策和附帶損害程度?！耙婚_(kāi)始，氣氛很痛苦，充滿(mǎn)報(bào)復(fù)心理，”B 說(shuō)，他在 10 月 7 日之后立即被征召入伍，在目標(biāo)行動(dòng)室服役。“規(guī)則非常寬松。當(dāng)他們知道目標(biāo)在四座建筑中時(shí)，他們就拆除了其中一座。這太瘋狂了。

“There was a dissonance: on the one hand, people here were frustrated that we were not attacking enough,” B. continued. “On the other hand, you see at the end of the day that another thousand Gazans have died, most of them civilians.”

“存在著矛盾：一方面，這里的人們對(duì)我們的攻擊不夠感到沮喪，”B. 繼續(xù)說(shuō)道?！傲硪环矫?，你會(huì)看到，到最后又有 1000 名加沙人死亡，其中大多數(shù)是平民?！?/b>

“There was hysteria in the professional ranks,” said D., who was also drafted immediately after October 7. “They had no idea how to react at all. The only thing they knew to do was to just start bombing like madmen to try to dismantle Hamas’ capabilities.”

“專(zhuān)業(yè)隊(duì)伍里一片恐慌，”同樣在 10 月 7 日之后被征召入伍的 D 說(shuō)?！八麄兺耆恢涝撊绾螒?yīng)對(duì)。他們唯一知道的就是開(kāi)始瘋狂轟炸，試圖摧毀哈馬斯的能力。”

D. stressed that they were not explicitly told that the army’s goal was “revenge,” but expressed that “as soon as every target connected to Hamas becomes legitimate, and with almost any collateral damage being approved, it is clear to you that thousands of people are going to be killed. Even if officially every target is connected to Hamas, when the policy is so permissive, it loses all meaning.”

D. 強(qiáng)調(diào)，他們并沒(méi)有被明確告知軍隊(duì)的目標(biāo)是“報(bào)復(fù)”，但他表示“一旦與哈馬斯有關(guān)的每一個(gè)目標(biāo)都變得合法，并且?guī)缀跛械母綆p害都得到批準(zhǔn)，那么你們就會(huì)明白，成千上萬(wàn)的人將會(huì)被殺害。即使官方認(rèn)為每個(gè)目標(biāo)都與哈馬斯有關(guān)，但當(dāng)政策如此寬容時(shí)，它就失去了一切意義。”

A. also used the word “revenge” to describe the atmosphere inside the army after October 7. “No one thought about what to do afterward, when the war is over, or how it will be possible to live in Gaza and what they will do with it,” A. said. “We were told: now we have to fuck up Hamas, no matter what the cost. Whatever you can, you bomb.”

A. 還用“復(fù)仇”這個(gè)詞來(lái)形容 10 月 7 日之后軍隊(duì)內(nèi)部的氣氛?！皼](méi)有人想過(guò)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)結(jié)束后該怎么辦，也沒(méi)有人想過(guò)如何才能在加沙生活，以及他們會(huì)如何處理這些事情，”A. 說(shuō)?！拔覀儽桓嬷含F(xiàn)在我們必須搞垮哈馬斯，無(wú)論付出什么代價(jià)。只要你能，就轟炸它?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


B., the senior intelligence source, said that in retrospect, he believes this “disproportionate” policy of killing Palestinians in Gaza also endangers Israelis, and that this was one of the reasons he decided to be interviewed.

高級(jí)情報(bào)人士B表示，回想起來(lái)，他認(rèn)為這種在加沙殺害巴勒斯坦人的“不相稱(chēng)”的政策也危及以色列人，這也是他決定接受采訪(fǎng)的原因之一。

“In the short term, we are safer, because we hurt Hamas. But I think we’re less secure in the long run. I see how all the bereaved families in Gaza — which is nearly everyone — will raise the motivation for [people to join] Hamas 10 years down the line. And it will be much easier for [Hamas] to recruit them.”

“從短期來(lái)看，我們比較安全，因?yàn)槲覀兇驌袅斯R斯。但我認(rèn)為從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，我們的安全感會(huì)降低。我看到加沙所有失去親人的家庭——幾乎是所有人——將在 10 年后激發(fā)人們加入哈馬斯的積極性。而且哈馬斯招募他們也會(huì)容易得多?！?/b>

In a statement to +972 and Local Call, the Israeli army denied much of what the sources told us, claiming that “each target is examined individually, while an individual assessment is made of the military advantage and collateral damage expected from the attack … The IDF does not carry out attacks when the collateral damage expected from the attack is excessive in relation to the military advantage.”

在向當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w發(fā)表的聲明中，以色列軍方否認(rèn)了消息人士所說(shuō)的大部分內(nèi)容，聲稱(chēng)“對(duì)每個(gè)目標(biāo)都進(jìn)行單獨(dú)審查，對(duì)襲擊預(yù)計(jì)帶來(lái)的軍事優(yōu)勢(shì)和附帶損害也進(jìn)行單獨(dú)評(píng)估……當(dāng)襲擊預(yù)計(jì)造成的附帶損害相對(duì)于軍事優(yōu)勢(shì)過(guò)大時(shí)，以色列國(guó)防軍不會(huì)發(fā)動(dòng)襲擊?！?/b>

STEP 5: CALCULATING COLLATERAL DAMAGE
‘The model was not connected to reality’
According to the intelligence sources, the Israeli army’s calculation of the number of civilians expected to be killed in each house alongside a target — a procedure examined in a previous investigation by +972 and Local Call — was conducted with the help of automatic and inaccurate tools. In previous wars, intelligence personnel would spend a lot of time verifying how many people were in a house that was set to be bombed, with the number of civilians liable to be killed listed as part of a “target file.” After October 7, however, this thorough verification was largely abandoned in favor of automation.

第五步：計(jì)算附帶損害
“該模型與現(xiàn)實(shí)脫節(jié)”
據(jù)情報(bào)部門(mén)消息稱(chēng)，以色列軍隊(duì)對(duì)每所房屋中預(yù)計(jì)被殺害的平民人數(shù)的計(jì)算——這一程序在當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w之前的調(diào)查中進(jìn)行了檢查——是借助自動(dòng)和不準(zhǔn)確的工具進(jìn)行的。在以往的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，情報(bào)人員會(huì)花費(fèi)大量時(shí)間核實(shí)一所即將被轟炸的房屋里有多少人，并將可能被炸死的平民人數(shù)列為“目標(biāo)文件”的一部分。然而，在 10 月 7 日之后，這種徹底的核實(shí)工作基本上被放棄了，取而代之的是自動(dòng)化。

In October, The New York Times reported on a system operated from a special base in southern Israel, which collects information from mobile phones in the Gaza Strip and provided the military with a live estimate of the number of Palestinians who fled the northern Gaza Strip southward. Brig. General Udi Ben Muha told the Times that “It’s not a 100 percent perfect system — but it gives you the information you need to make a decision.” The system operates according to colors: red marks areas where there are many people, and green and yellow mark areas that have been relatively cleared of residents.

10月份，《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道了以色列南部一個(gè)特殊基地運(yùn)行的系統(tǒng)，該系統(tǒng)通過(guò)收集加沙地帶手機(jī)信息，向軍方提供從加沙地帶北部向南逃亡的巴勒斯坦人數(shù)的實(shí)時(shí)估計(jì)值。準(zhǔn)將烏迪·本·穆哈 (Udi Ben Muha) 告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》：“這不是一個(gè) 100% 完美的系統(tǒng)——但它能為你提供做出決定所需的信息?！痹撓到y(tǒng)根據(jù)顏色進(jìn)行操作：紅色標(biāo)記人口眾多的區(qū)域，綠色和黃色標(biāo)記相對(duì)沒(méi)有居民的區(qū)域。

The sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call described a similar system for calculating collateral damage, which was used to decide whether to bomb a building in Gaza. They said that the software calculated the number of civilians residing in each home before the war — by assessing the size of the building and reviewing its list of residents — and then reduced those numbers by the proportion of residents who supposedly evacuated the neighborhood.

接受當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w采訪(fǎng)的消息人士描述了一種類(lèi)似的計(jì)算附帶損害的系統(tǒng)，該系統(tǒng)用于決定是否轟炸加沙的一座建筑物。他們說(shuō)，該軟件通過(guò)評(píng)估建筑規(guī)模和審查居民名單，計(jì)算出戰(zhàn)前每戶(hù)人家中居住的平民數(shù)量，然后根據(jù)據(jù)稱(chēng)撤離該社區(qū)的居民比例減少這些數(shù)字。

To illustrate, if the army estimated that half of a neighborhood’s residents had left, the program would count a house that usually had 10 residents as a house containing five people. To save time, the sources said, the army did not surveil the homes to check how many people were actually living there, as it did in previous operations, to find out if the program’s estimate was indeed accurate.

舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，如果軍隊(duì)估計(jì)某個(gè)街區(qū)一半的居民已經(jīng)離開(kāi)，該計(jì)劃就會(huì)將一棟通常有 10 名居民的房屋算作有 5 個(gè)人的房屋。消息人士稱(chēng)，為了節(jié)省時(shí)間，軍隊(duì)并沒(méi)有像以前的行動(dòng)那樣對(duì)這些房屋進(jìn)行監(jiān)視，以檢查那里實(shí)際居住的人數(shù)，以查明該計(jì)劃的估計(jì)是否確實(shí)準(zhǔn)確。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


“This model was not connected to reality,” claimed one source. “There was no connection between those who were in the home now, during the war, and those who were listed as living there prior to the war. [On one occasion] we bombed a house without knowing that there were several families inside, hiding together.”

“這種模式與現(xiàn)實(shí)脫節(jié)，”一位消息人士稱(chēng)?！皯?zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間住在這所房子里的人與戰(zhàn)前被列為住在那里的人之間沒(méi)有任何聯(lián)系。[有一次]我們轟炸了一所房子，卻不知道里面有幾戶(hù)人家躲在一起?！?/b>

The source said that although the army knew that such errors could occur, this imprecise model was adopted nonetheless, because it was faster. As such, the source said, “the collateral damage calculation was completely automatic and statistical” — even producing figures that were not whole numbers.

消息人士稱(chēng)，盡管軍方知道可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)此類(lèi)錯(cuò)誤，但還是采用了這種不精確的模型，因?yàn)樗俣雀?。消息人士稱(chēng)，因此，“附帶損害計(jì)算完全是自動(dòng)和統(tǒng)計(jì)的”——甚至得出的數(shù)字也不是整數(shù)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


STEP 6: BOMBING A FAMILY HOME
‘You killed a family for no reason’
The sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call explained that there was sometimes a substantial gap between the moment that tracking systems like Where’s Daddy? alxed an officer that a target had entered their house, and the bombing itself — leading to the killing of whole families even without hitting the army’s target. “It happened to me many times that we attacked a house, but the person wasn’t even home,” one source said. “The result is that you killed a family for no reason.”

第六步：轟炸家庭住宅
“你毫無(wú)理由地殺害了一個(gè)家庭”
接受 當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w采訪(fǎng)的消息人士解釋道，有時(shí)候，從“爸爸在哪？”之類(lèi)的追蹤系統(tǒng)向警官發(fā)出目標(biāo)進(jìn)入其房屋的警報(bào)到爆炸本身發(fā)生之間會(huì)存在很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間間隔，甚至可能導(dǎo)致整個(gè)家庭喪生，即使軍隊(duì)的目標(biāo)沒(méi)有擊中?！拔矣龅竭^(guò)很多次這樣的情況，我們襲擊了一所房子，但那個(gè)人甚至不在家，”一位消息人士說(shuō)?！敖Y(jié)果是你毫無(wú)理由地殺死了一個(gè)家庭?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


Three intelligence sources told +972 and Local Call that they had witnessed an incident in which the Israeli army bombed a family’s private home, and it later turned out that the intended target of the assassination was not even inside the house, since no further verification was conducted in real time.

三名情報(bào)人員告訴當(dāng)?shù)孛襟w，他們目睹了以色列軍隊(duì)轟炸一戶(hù)家庭私人住宅的事件，后來(lái)發(fā)現(xiàn)，暗殺的目標(biāo)甚至不在屋內(nèi)，因?yàn)闆](méi)有進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的實(shí)時(shí)核實(shí)。

“Sometimes [the target] was at home earlier, and then at night he went to sleep somewhere else, say underground, and you didn’t know about it,” one of the sources said. “There are times when you double-check the location, and there are times when you just say, ‘Okay, he was in the house in the last few hours, so you can just bomb.’”

“有時(shí)（目標(biāo)）早些時(shí)候在家，然后晚上去其他地方睡覺(jué)，比如說(shuō)在地下，而你對(duì)此一無(wú)所知，”其中一位消息人士說(shuō)?！坝袝r(shí)你會(huì)仔細(xì)檢查位置，有時(shí)你會(huì)說(shuō)，‘好吧，他過(guò)去幾個(gè)小時(shí)一直在屋里，所以你可以轟炸他?！?/b>
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://equalizerredsea.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處


Another source described a similar incident that affected him and made him want to be interviewed for this investigation. “We understood that the target was home at 8 p.m. In the end, the air force bombed the house at 3 a.m. Then we found out [in that span of time] he had managed to move himself to another house with his family. There were two other families with children in the building we bombed.”

另一位消息人士描述了一起類(lèi)似的事件，這起事件對(duì)他影響很大，讓他想要接受采訪(fǎng)以進(jìn)行調(diào)查。“我們了解到目標(biāo)晚上 8 點(diǎn)就在家里。最后，空軍在凌晨 3 點(diǎn)轟炸了這所房子?！比缓笪覀儼l(fā)現(xiàn) [在那段時(shí)間里] 他已經(jīng)設(shè)法和家人搬到了另一所房子里。我們轟炸的那棟樓里還有另外兩個(gè)有孩子的家庭?！?/b>

In previous wars in Gaza, after the assassination of human targets, Israeli intelligence would carry out bomb damage assessment (BDA) procedures — a routine post-strike check to see if the senior commander was killed and how many civilians were killed along with him. As revealed in a previous +972 and Local Call investigation, this involved listening in to phone calls of relatives who lost their loved ones. In the current war, however, at least in relation to junior militants marked using AI, sources say this procedure was abolished in order to save time. The sources said they did not know how many civilians were actually killed in each strike, and for the low-ranking suspected Hamas and PIJ operatives marked by AI, they did not even know whether the target himself was killed.

在之前的加沙戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，在人類(lèi)目標(biāo)被暗殺后，以色列情報(bào)部門(mén)會(huì)進(jìn)行炸彈損害評(píng)估（BDA）程序——這是襲擊后的例行檢查，以查看高級(jí)指揮官是否被殺以及有多少平民與他一起被殺。正如之前的 +972 和本地電話(huà)調(diào)查所揭示的那樣，這涉及監(jiān)聽(tīng)失去親人的親屬的電話(huà)。然而，在當(dāng)前的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，至少對(duì)于使用人工智能標(biāo)記的初級(jí)武裝分子，消息人士稱(chēng)這一程序已被廢除，以節(jié)省時(shí)間。消息人士稱(chēng)，他們并不清楚每次襲擊究竟造成多少平民死亡，而對(duì)于被 AI 標(biāo)記的低級(jí)別疑似哈馬斯和伊斯蘭圣戰(zhàn)組織成員，他們甚至不知道目標(biāo)本人是否被擊斃。

“You don’t know exactly how many you killed, and who you killed,” an intelligence source told Local Call for a previous investigation published in January. “Only when it’s senior Hamas operatives do you follow the BDA procedure. In the rest of the cases, you don’t care. You get a report from the air force about whether the building was blown up, and that’s it. You have no idea how much collateral damage there was; you immediately move on to the next target. The emphasis was to create as many targets as possible, as quickly as possible.”

“你不知道你殺了多少人，殺了誰(shuí)，”一名情報(bào)人員在 1 月份發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查中告訴《本地呼叫》?！爸挥挟?dāng)殺的是哈馬斯高級(jí)特工時(shí)，你才會(huì)遵循 BDA 程序。其余情況下，你不必在意?？哲姇?huì)向你報(bào)告大樓是否被炸毀，僅此而已。你不知道附帶損害有多大；你會(huì)立即轉(zhuǎn)向下一個(gè)目標(biāo)。重點(diǎn)是盡快創(chuàng)造盡可能多的目標(biāo)?！?/b>

But while the Israeli military may move on from each strike without dwelling on the number of casualties, Amjad Al-Sheikh, the Shuja’iya resident who lost 11 of his family members in the Dec. 2 bombardment, said that he and his neighbors are still searching for corpses.

然而，盡管以色列軍隊(duì)可能在每次襲擊后就不再糾結(jié)于傷亡人數(shù)，但舒賈伊亞居民阿姆賈德·阿爾謝赫表示，他和鄰居仍在尋找尸體。12 月 2 日的轟炸中，他的 11 名家人喪生。

“Until now, there are bodies under the rubble,” he said. “Fourteen residential buildings were bombed with their residents inside. Some of my relatives and neighbors are still buried.”

“直到現(xiàn)在，廢墟下還有尸體，”他說(shuō)?！笆臈澗用駱潜徽?，里面還有居民。我的一些親戚和鄰居還埋在那里?！?br />