wtf is a person supposed to actually do about israel murdering hundreds of innocent civilians.

[LimpyLoo]

obviously, the imo is universally implied. but mo is right.

 

I'm still curious to hear what you would do if someone broke into your place with the intention of killing you.

 

Would you let him kill you because you are categorically anti-violence?

 

Is there any point at which you would fight back?

[pcock]

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

[jhonny]

to jhonny.

 

yeah. but what are you trying to say exactly with posting of that story? that war is bad and many people suffer or are you implicating idf with a war crime?

Is that all you can say about this? war is bad and people suffer? Irrespective of what might be hidden under that school, dropping bombs on or near a school full of people who the UN are trying to evacuate is heinous. IMO a war crime. It's a targeted attack on civilians (the fact that it might be a targeted attack on Hamas ammo as well is irrelevant).

 

Your posts about this have been pedantic, avoiding the point and focussing on media bias and the reason for posting. How about your view on whether it's acceptable to literally blow through a building full of civilians to hopefully destroy a cache of rockets?

[pcock]

lets turn this shit around, in a hypothetical situation. assume that a gang of vicious, murderous scottish seperatists have been stockpiling submachine guns in the flat next to mine in glasgow. is it fair that my life is wiped out in the blink of an eye by a rocket? is that acceptable?

[awepittance]

somebody working for BBC did a pretty good live on-air troll, not sure if this has been posted already



see: bottom right

i think it's pretty safe to say this is the first Israeli 'offensive' at least since 9/11 where the status quo of the world community is actually not seeing Israel as the good guy anymore, that in and of itself is a huge fucking development. Israel's free pass seems to expiring at each passing day.

[eugene]

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

acceptable by who/what? if you're asking me personally then i don't know who were the primary targets of those strikes that caused those children deaths and whether those strikes prevented casualties on the side of israelis, so i can't say whether it's acceptable. capabilities wise hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties as there are numerous tunnels dug into israel.

[pcock]

i have no idea how any sane, compassionate human being can watch the slaughter of civilians trapped in a metropolis whos borders are closed, and think its morally acceptable because there are terrorists hiding weapons under the schools/hospitals in the area etc. i really cant describe how despicable my opinion of eugene is.

[awepittance]

Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy

 

From the moment three Israeli teens were reported missing last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s military-intelligence apparatus suppressed the flow of information to the general public. Through a toxic blend of propaganda, subterfuge and incitement, they inflamed a precarious situation, manipulating Israelis into supporting their agenda until they made an utterly avoidable nightmare inevitable.

Israeli police, intelligence officials and Netanyahu knew within hours of the kidnapping and murder of the three teens that they had been killed. And they knew who the prime suspects were less than a day after the kidnapping was reported.

Rather than reveal these details to the public, Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency imposed a gag order on the national media, barring news outlets from reporting that the teens had almost certainly been killed, and forbidding them from revealing the identities of their suspected killers. The Shin Bet even lied to the parents of the kidnapped teens, deceiving them into believing their sons were alive.

pretty awesome PR on behalf of the Israeli government, let the world watch in horror as the massive man-hunt for the kidnapped 3 israeli teens is unleashed all the while they knew the whole time they had been murdered

 

 

[pcock]

i give up. im just pretty pissed off at the world/news right now. im just gonna stop watching it.

[jhonny]

 

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

acceptable by who/what? if you're asking me personally then i don't know who were the primary targets of those strikes that caused those children deaths and whether those strikes prevented casualties on the side of israelis, so i can't say whether it's acceptable. capabilities wise hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties as there are numerous tunnels dug into israel.

 

Can you remind me when the last time was that Hamas inflicted massive casualties? And since then, how many civilians have been killed by the proportionate response from Israel?

[awepittance]

jumping into this thread a little late so forgive me if these have already been posted, a few noteworthy videos during the Gaza assault

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iU3Lmq-XHE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5clNNBJ2hU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9HCE0vUy1c

[eugene]

 

to jhonny.

 

yeah. but what are you trying to say exactly with posting of that story? that war is bad and many people suffer or are you implicating idf with a war crime?

Is that all you can say about this? war is bad and people suffer?

 

no that's a banal statement that i attributed to you semi seriously.

 

 

Irrespective of what might be hidden under that school, dropping bombs on or near a school full of people who the UN are trying to evacuate is heinous.It's a targeted attack on civilians (the fact that it might be a targeted attack on Hamas ammo as well is irrelevant).

 

how can it be "Irrespective of what might be hidden under that school" ?! hamas is well willing and capable of killings hundreds of israelis, it's not a warcrime by definition if there are militants/military equipment near.

it's a targeted attack on civilians if it's a targeted attack on hamas? doesn't compute.

 

 

How about your view on whether it's acceptable to literally blow through a building full of civilians to hopefully destroy a cache of rockets?

what kind of rockets ? there are rockets that has a low chance of killing anything, there are guided ones that can do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaar_HaNegev_school_bus_attack

[Alcofribas]

 

 

Here is a good one:

 

true knowledge about this cannot be had. maybe you can sort of know the truth if you are able to live in the region and maintain the integrity of an omnidirectionally compassionate mind.

 

but for 95% of people here, to be vehement in any direction (most of you have picked the uber trendy pro-palestine/abolish israel camp [though I know how annoying hyper zionists are as well]) is to be controlled by vastly powerful groups that you cannot begin to fathom or understand. you are a drone either way.

 

live your own life and spread pacifism. all you can know is what is before you. reject politics. turn off the news. seek a connection that is unmediated by greed.

 

I'm not going to get into the israel/palestine discussion but I do feel inclined to point out this monstrosity. you "true knowledge about this cannot be had" and yet your next paragraph makes various claims to knowledge. good job dude.

he's not pretending to present true knowledge™ though, i guess, just his opinion. should have put an "imo" at the end though.

if "imo" is his only recourse than "true knowledge" statements cannot apply.

 

also, flol at your pathetic claim that "Hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties."

 

you truly are a dumbass.

[eugene]

 

 

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

acceptable by who/what? if you're asking me personally then i don't know who were the primary targets of those strikes that caused those children deaths and whether those strikes prevented casualties on the side of israelis, so i can't say whether it's acceptable. capabilities wise hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties as there are numerous tunnels dug into israel.

 

Can you remind me when the last time was that Hamas inflicted massive casualties? And since then, how many civilians have been killed by the proportionate response from Israel?

 

what does it matter when it did so last time? it has the capability and the will to do it, more than a thousand rockets were launched into israel during those two weeks is a good indication of that. the fact that israeli managed to avoid heavy civilian casualties is due to anti rocket system and shelters and training. this proportionality argument is fucking horrid, it's as if you're implying that 700 israelis need to be killed for the sake of your sense of justice.

[Alcofribas]

 

 

Here is a good one:

 

true knowledge about this cannot be had. maybe you can sort of know the truth if you are able to live in the region and maintain the integrity of an omnidirectionally compassionate mind.

 

but for 95% of people here, to be vehement in any direction (most of you have picked the uber trendy pro-palestine/abolish israel camp [though I know how annoying hyper zionists are as well]) is to be controlled by vastly powerful groups that you cannot begin to fathom or understand. you are a drone either way.

 

live your own life and spread pacifism. all you can know is what is before you. reject politics. turn off the news. seek a connection that is unmediated by greed.

 

I'm not going to get into the israel/palestine discussion but I do feel inclined to point out this monstrosity. you "true knowledge about this cannot be had" and yet your next paragraph makes various claims to knowledge. good job dude.

true knowledge that informs one side or the other re: Israel v Palestine.

you just made a true knowledge claim bro. just bc you don't want to take sides doesn't mean there isn't truth.

 

btw this will be my last contribution to this watmm gaza thread.

 

anyone who can look at the massacre of innocent civilians and respond with pontifications about "true knowledge" or "yeah but rockets" is basically not worth conversing with.

 

over 700 people have died here. 700+ innocent civilians. scores of thousands displaced. infrastructure! homes, realities, destroyed by one of the major powers in the world. it's disgusting. end of.

[eugene]

 

 

 

Here is a good one:

 

true knowledge about this cannot be had. maybe you can sort of know the truth if you are able to live in the region and maintain the integrity of an omnidirectionally compassionate mind.

 

but for 95% of people here, to be vehement in any direction (most of you have picked the uber trendy pro-palestine/abolish israel camp [though I know how annoying hyper zionists are as well]) is to be controlled by vastly powerful groups that you cannot begin to fathom or understand. you are a drone either way.

 

live your own life and spread pacifism. all you can know is what is before you. reject politics. turn off the news. seek a connection that is unmediated by greed.

I'm not going to get into the israel/palestine discussion but I do feel inclined to point out this monstrosity. you "true knowledge about this cannot be had" and yet your next paragraph makes various claims to knowledge. good job dude.

he's not pretending to present true knowledge™ though, i guess, just his opinion. should have put an "imo" at the end though.

if "imo" is his only recourse than "true knowledge" statements cannot apply.

 

also, flol at your pathetic claim that "Hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties."

 

you truly are a dumbass.

 

what part of it is pathetic you ignorant moron? when the borders were open it killed about 700 Israeli civilians in 4 years as i already mentioned. now there are suspected numerous tunnels into israel from gaza, and already two attempts were idf intercepted their incursion into nearby kibbutzim.

[awepittance]

but don't you understand Alco, the 'capability' is what drives this rational. It doesn't matter what actually happens in reality or what's probable, just merely possible

[chenGOD]

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

[jhonny]

It's a war crime if innocent civilians are murdered. It comes down to whether or not you believe Israel are purposefully killing innocent civilians, that's why it's irrelevant if rockets are nearby. They were clearly informed by the UN that innocent civilians were at that location and then they decided to drop bombs on them.

 

Again, stop being pedantic about the type of rockets, and who might be using them. You're talking about the potential for what Hamas could plausibly do, rather than the proportionate response to the deaths caused by Hamas rockets. They're two very different things.

[Alcofribas]

FYI my "700+" was supposed to be 70%

[eugene]

yes, that's basically impossible for hamas to enter israel and massacre the whole kibbutz. fucking idiot, why do you even bother?

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4545029,00.html

[jhonny]

 

 

 

so eugene, the deaths of 165 children are acceptable collateral damage when taken in regard of fighting an elusive terrorist force, penned into a very small area of urban landscape no-one is capable of leaving?

acceptable by who/what? if you're asking me personally then i don't know who were the primary targets of those strikes that caused those children deaths and whether those strikes prevented casualties on the side of israelis, so i can't say whether it's acceptable. capabilities wise hamas is very well capable of inflicting massive casualties as there are numerous tunnels dug into israel.

 

Can you remind me when the last time was that Hamas inflicted massive casualties? And since then, how many civilians have been killed by the proportionate response from Israel?

 

what does it matter when it did so last time? it has the capability and the will to do it, more than a thousand rockets were launched into israel during those two weeks is a good indication of that. the fact that israeli managed to avoid heavy civilian casualties is due to anti rocket system and shelters and training. this proportionality argument is fucking horrid, it's as if you're implying that 700 israelis need to be killed for the sake of your sense of justice.

 

what?! How have I in any way implied that? I want less people to be killed by Israel, not more by Palestine!

 

I understand that 1000s of rockets have been launched at Israel, I'm not condoning that.

 

However, how many rockets has Israel launched in the last week?

[awepittance]

You're talking about the potential for what Hamas could plausibly do, rather than the proportionate response to the deaths caused by Hamas rockets. They're two very different things.

 

logically speaking of course they are two very different things, but what you just said is the best 'card' these people have to pull out to rationalize what's going on. Pretty sad if you think about it

[chenGOD]

It's a war crime if innocent civilians are murdered. It comes down to whether or not you believe Israel are purposefully killing innocent civilians, that's why it's irrelevant if rockets are nearby. They were clearly informed by the UN that innocent civilians were at that location and then they decided to drop bombs on them.

 

Again, stop being pedantic about the type of rockets, and who might be using them. You're talking about the potential for what Hamas could plausibly do, rather than the proportionate response to the deaths caused by Hamas rockets. They're two very different things.

 

Just to note - it doesn't have to be purposeful to be considered a war crime. See my post above.

[eugene]

 

 

 

1. Right, but there has to be some way to do it without violating international humanitarian law.

Which the Israeli army is (in terms of proportionality and distinction).

 

2. Also important to recognize the other side's argument: Hamas needs Israel to maintain legitimacy and power. By ceding to many of their demands, Israel would actually lessen the authority that Hamas currently enjoys.

 

Also: and interesting hypothesis - Israeli operations actually cause an increase in the number of rocket attacks. (study from 2012, interesting if anyone wants to add data to the current round)

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/11/dissecting-idf-propaganda-the-numbers-behind-the-rocket-attacks.html

1. does it? i've asked this question many times on reddit and here when this argument came up and got no sensible answer. what number of civilian casualties is a proper threshold of proportionality given the circumstances on the ground (the way hamas operates and the threat it poses, the density of gaza and so on) and did israel cross it?

 

2. that's an argument i use when i argue with israeli right wingers, but a sensible counter argument could be that hamas will actually gain legitimacy in the eyes of gazans because it forced its demands on israel.

 

3. mondoweiss is poop.

 

 

1. Sure - easy to prove. There are four basic principles to the LOAC (Law of Armed Combat, which is the same thing as international humanitarian law).

1. Principle of Military Necessity

2. Principle of Distinction

3. Principle of Proportionality

4. Principle of Unnecessary Suffering

 

While Israel might argue that they are meeting the principle of military necessity, (basically securing complete submission - not destruction, and important distinction), a state (or actor) cannot use this as a reason to breach other acts prohibited by the LOAC.

So that leaves us with the last 3 - with 2 and 3 probably being the most relevant:

The principle of distinction is sometimes referred to as the principle of discrimination, this principle requires that belligerents distinguish combatants from civilians and military objectives from civilian objects (i.e., protected property or places). In keeping with this “grandfather” principle of the LOAC, parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against combatants and military objectives. In addition, Additional Protocol I (AP I) prohibits “indiscriminate attacks.”

Now of course you would argue that the defensive party has a responsibility as well, and it is true, under the LOAC, the principle of distinction requires that military forces “distinguish themselves from the civilian population so as not to place the civilian population at undue risk. This includes not only physical separation of military forces and other military objectives from civilian objects . . . but also other actions, such as wearing uniforms.” However, in order to enforce that on Hamas, they would have to be recognized as a legitimate actor, which to my knowledge, Israel has not done.

 

The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Since Israel has gained little military advantage in their attacks (rocket attacks from Hamas have not ceased, rather, they have increased), clearly there is little military advantage expected to be gained in proportion to the loss of life.

 

So (because I have limited time before I go to work) there is a pretty straightforward, not very nuanced explanation of how Israel has violated international law.

 

2. With Hamas recognized as a legitimate international actor, sanctions could be made much more enforceable - and the current government in Egypt would be more willing to go along with them (seeing as how Hamas is basically an offshoot of the recently ousted Muslim brotherhood). Target the cash flow to Hamas, and watch popular support nosedive. While Israeli offensives are met more and more with criticism (and imo rightfully so), dialogue, sanctions, and diplomacy would receive much more popular support globally. In the end, you would have fewer Israelis and Palestinians dying, and people in Gaza would see that Hamas rule is not the way forward.

 

3. Great argument.

 

 

you're dead wrong on the second point, when civilian object/building whatever is used to contain military equipment or actual militants it ceases to be protected by the second principle. israel sure does recognize hamas as a "legitimate actor" lol, it shoots rockets at it, this is a silly legalistic argument.

 

regarding the 3rd and 4th principle you have only your own opinion to establish that israel didn't gain enough from its attacks, so it's not even an argument. the rockets are much less of a threat than tunnels, for example, but you i bet it's the first time you're actually hearing of this.