Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[HTG]

What point are you trying to make here? Don’t you think it would be better if you were to add some context to the sources you provide?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I read that Israel used 6,000 bombs in a few days. The Palestinians say that they have 4,000 casualties. Perhaps these numbers are not exact but it does seem Israel is trying to minimize civilian casualties since there is less than one casualty per bomb. I think that's extremely "surgical" (which is the word you used). But obviously, it is hard to have zero civilian casualties, since Hamas is not somewhere separate from the civilians. Certainly, you and I (and I bet most Israelis) would prefer zero civilian casualties and only Hamas to be eliminated, but is this possible?

Gazan health ministry figures (Hamas) are over 5k dead and a further 15k wounded. That's 20k+ casualties and is the only real approximation we have. Doesn't seem to reflect "extreme surgical precision" to me.

 

[That_Bloke]

The human tragedy must not be boiled down to statistics and flow charts. The hurt is off the scale.

The doctors there are saying that the children are developping massive PTSD symptoms due to the intense and continuous bombing in the last 17 days, let alone the constant presence of death around them. Half of the population are children.

That's another generation completely fecked, supposing they survive this insanity.

 

[Badunk]

What point are you trying to make here? Don’t you think it would be better if you were to add some context to the sources you provide?

You don't understand what the clip is saying? I need to add "Joe Rogan, the most successful podcaster in the world, is shocked at how how one-sided the conflict is"?

 

[owlo]

Well IDF told them to move, right @owlo ?

Im not responsible for the LOAC.

Gazan health ministry figures (Hamas) are over 5k dead and a further 15k wounded. That's 20k+ casualties and is the only real approximation we have. Doesn't seem to reflect "extreme surgical precision" to me.

It doesn’t indicate anything either way, as we have no data on ratios as Hamas don’t provide them. It could be incredible or shocking precision. There’s no accurate way to measure it yet.

 

[maniak]

It’s in the article above, that we were discussing and my post was related to. Here is the link. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/inside-idf-targeting/ Most states operate under the same roe as Israel with regards to this, but they differ in infrastructure targeting as per my post here: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/isr...s-tweets-more-discussion.438643/post-31240673

Human Shields

Human shields pose a continuing challenge. Gaza is a densely populated urban environment with roughly 2 million inhabitants, and Hamas has a long history of employing human shields to deter attacks on civilian objects that have lost their protection. AP I, Article 57(7) forbids the use of human shields. By it, which the IDF finds to generally reflect customary law, Parties may not use “the presence [of civilians] to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular . . . to shield military objectives from attacks” and may not “direct the movement of the civilian population . . . in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks.” So, Hamas’s intentional use of human shields is clearly unlawful.

However, violations of this rule by Hamas do not relieve the IDF from the requirement to consider the presence of civilians when performing a proportionality analysis or determining what precautions are required in the attack. This raises the question whether the prohibition on human shielding has any teeth. In this regard, the law is complex, with many variations in approach in State practice and scholarly opinion. A majority view among scholars, and the view held by many States, including Israel, is that involuntary human shields (those forced by Hamas to remain in the vicinity of military objectives or taken there) retain their protection from attack and must be accounted for in the proportionality analysis. With respect to voluntary human shields, physically blocking or shielding a military objective amounts to direct participation in hostilities, and civilians who do this accordingly lose their protection. However, there is a debate in the international law community about voluntary shields who do not physically block or shield a military objective but instead use their mere presence to try to influence the attacking force not to attack. The ICRC takes the position that they retain their civilian protections under LOAC, while States, including Israel, see them as direct participants in hostilities.

Maybe I'm interpreting things wrong, but with so many ifs and buts that hardly seems to be clear law. Especially the last part where you use the expression "voluntary shields". The people being killed are being killed in their homes, in hospitals, in refugee camps, in schools. Not in front of military targets, so even following the international law you're posting, Israel is committing war crimes, not following international law.

 

[HTG]

You don't understand what the clip is saying? I need to add "Joe Rogan, the most successful podcaster in the world, is shocked at how how one-sided the conflict is"?

I do. I don‘t understand the point you’re making, however.
This is not really about you, if I’m honest. I just heavily dislike it when people post clips without any context whatsoever, any explanation whatsoever and expect everyone else to follow or understand what is being meant. I just think posting these sources without any context is lazy and counterproductive to the discussion on here. Especially since the topic is so sensible. I believe we would all be better off, if we provided a little more context to our sources.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I do. I don‘t understand the point you’re making, however.
This is not really about you, if I’m honest. I just heavily dislike it when people post clips without any context whatsoever, any explanation whatsoever and expect everyone else to follow or understand what is being meant. I just think posting these sources without any context is lazy and counterproductive to the discussion on here. Especially since the topic is so sensible. I believe we would all be better off, if we provided a little more context to our sources.

I would be more bothered about anyone giving a flying feck what a meat-head like Joe Rogan thinks about anything.

 

[owlo]

Maybe I'm interpreting things wrong, but with so many ifs and buts that hardly seems to be clear law. Especially the last part where you use the expression "voluntary shields". The people being killed are being killed in their homes, in hospitals, in refugee camps, in schools. Not in front of military targets, so even following the international law you're posting, Israel is committing war crimes, not following international law.

The target (infrastructure) becomes a military target if you have any hamas presence or weapons etc there. Israel do not do a proportionality test on infrastructure itself. So say a school has a hamas fighter in it, the whole school is a valid target under their doctrine because they do not recognise “excessive damage to civilian infrastructure “

They can become “voluntary shields” under the conditions I mentioned in the post if they don’t move. The IDF must then make another determination, as to whether they were able to move after warnings (voluntary) or were unable to move because they didn’t get a warning, or the hamas fighter forced them to stay etc. If the determination is that they are voluntarily staying, they become legitimate collateral damage “As direct participants in hostilities.”

Worth noting the last paragraph Though. Whilst most states and experts take this view, “The ICRC takes the position that they retain their civilian protections under LOAC.”

 

[maniak]

The target (infrastructure) becomes a military target if you have any hamas presence or weapons etc there. Israel do not do a proportionality test on infrastructure itself. So say a school has a hamas fighter in it, the whole school is a valid target under their doctrine because they do not recognise “excessive damage to civilian infrastructure “

They can become “voluntary shields” under the conditions I mentioned in the post if they don’t move. The IDF must then make another determination, as to whether they were able to move after warnings (voluntary) or were unable to move because they didn’t get a warning, or the hamas fighter forced them to stay etc. If the determination is that they are voluntarily staying, they become legitimate collateral damage “As direct participants in hostilities.”

Worth noting the last paragraph Though. Whilst most states and experts take this view, “The ICRC takes the position that they retain their civilian protections under LOAC.”

Again, I must be missing something obvious because what it sounds like is that Israel's LOAC directly contradicts international law. So Israel can consider whatever they want and make all the determinations they want, but if they bomb a school killing a bunch of civilians because they say a hamas terrorist is there, they are in fact committing a war crime. I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.

 

[HTG]

I would be more bothered about anyone giving a flying feck what a meat-head like Joe Rogan thinks about anything.

That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[Jippy]

That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.

I agree it's annoying if people post say a 10 min Youtube vid with people you don't know and not give any reason why you should sit through it.

 

[2cents]

Yup, Friedman’s “suck on this!” doctrine, with hostages written off.

 

[Ainu]

That’s a different issue. But obviously an issue.

Personally I just think it doesn’t do justice to the complexity and emotionality of the topic if people just keep posting tweets without any context. It’s their sources, so I think it’s their responsibility, to give some sort of context as to who is speaking, why it’s relevant and so on.

This bothers me as well. The thread title even specifically states "Less tweets, more discussion", so the very least people can do is post a short comment along with the tweet, either giving their own opinion or clarifying why they believe the tweet to be credible or relevant. Surely that wouldn't cost the poster much.

 

[HTG]

I agree it's annoying if people post say a 10 min Youtube vid with people you don't know and not give any reason why you should sit through it.

To me it often feels as if people just try to post as much as possible in order to „win“.

 

[jasT1981]

it's a jihadi flag

Calling for Jihad is not hate speech apparently as there are multiple meanings.

Gee, I wonder what context the call for Jihad is here?

 

[Raoul]

This is the public talking point among Israeli leaders, but they will definitely try to get hostages out where possible; although many will also die either during rescue attempts or during the invasion.

 

[Badunk]

It says "Joe Rogan on Palestine - Israel" in the title. It's barely over a minute long. I'd understand if it was a 20 minute video with no sort of explanation.

Half a dozen posts about whether I should have added something to what is self-evident.

 

[Gehrman]

But their updated charter is not super anti semitic!

 

[VorZakone]

Netanyahu still hesitant?

 

[Jippy]

To me it often feels as if people just try to post as much as possible in order to „win“.

A mixture of that, the well-meaning and those wanting to look first with the news.
I'm the king of posting inane links, but not in very serious threads concerning deaths etc...

 

[africanspur]

But their updated charter is not super anti semitic!

I don't think anyone is claiming this are they? Some odd strawmen on here at times.

 

[Gehrman]

I don't think anyone is claiming this are they? Some odd strawmen on here at times.

Actually going back a few pages to my last replies some were.

 

[owlo]

Again, I must be missing something obvious because what it sounds like is that Israel's LOAC directly contradicts international law. So Israel can consider whatever they want and make all the determinations they want, but if they bomb a school killing a bunch of civilians because they say a hamas terrorist is there, they are in fact committing a war crime. I don't see how you can interpret it any other way.

LOAC just means the laws of armed conflict. These are the rules of international law for armed conflict . If Israel is determining targets correctly via these rules, it’s legal as it’s very permissive for state actors. Under the conditions I mentioned above, it’s legal under LOAC (international law). We can’t make an analysis of whether that strike is legal until after the war though.

The determination of whether a) a Hamas fighter/weapons was actually there/the intel was solid b) civilians were voluntarily there or had no means to leave c) they were sufficiently warned, or a blanket warning was sufficient d) possibly whether that infrastructure destruction was excessive (probably a non starter but worth mentioning for completeness) - all these things will determine if a strike was legitimate or not, and experts will comb over them. They could very well amount to war crimes in several strikes.

My opinion/prediction (as a random guy who did 2 semesters in ocs and is far from an expert) is that the more egregious lawbreaking will be the ethnic cleansing and the siege and these will more likely be prosecuted or at least chased. I also think you could extend the West Bank terrorism (from settlers) as an extension of this and under LOAC, which would/should be prosecuted too. My gut instinct is these strikes will be considered borderline legal and they’ll get away with it as they are how most western countries operate (each country has a manual and Israel is middle of the road)

 

[Badunk]

BREAKING

Sunak: UK intelligence says hospital blast caused by missile launched from Gaza
Rishi Sunak says in his statement to the Commons that on the basis of analysis by British intelligence, "the UK government judges that the explosion [at al-Ahli hospital] was likely caused by a missile or part of one that was launched from within Gaza towards Israel".

 

[africanspur]

Calling for Jihad is not hate speech apparently as there are multiple meanings.

Gee, I wonder what context the call for Jihad is here?

A bit confused about what you think this link shows, considering this poster's initial claim that the main demonstration was filled with aspiring Jihadis?

This was the hizb-ut-Tahrir protest. Separate from the main one. Tiny in comparison. An organisation banned by most Muslim countries. One organiser chanting Jihad, a chant not subsequently taken up by basically anyone in their (still tiny) group.

So what's your point? Does anyone on here support this group or claim that Jihad is good or the answer?

 

[Gehrman]

I don't think anyone is claiming this are they? Some odd strawmen on here at times.

It's not anymore though. Not since 2017.

Here's the document in full.

And when i responded do "Do you think anyone with something to lose believes that?". All i got was a reply about Israel's own wrongdoings etc.

 

[africanspur]

Actually going back a few pages to my last replies some were.

Were they? I've just gone back to have a look and they were replying to a point about the killing of all Jews being in the Hamas charter and saying that the updated charter doesn't say that.

Now of course no longer writing you want to kill all Jews is an incredibly low bar and isn't the only marker of anti-semitism.

 

[jasT1981]

A bit confused about what you think this link shows, considering this poster's initial claim that the main demonstration was filled with aspiring Jihadis?

This was the hizb-ut-Tahrir protest. Separate from the main one. Tiny in comparison. An organisation banned by most Muslim countries. One organiser chanting Jihad, a chant not subsequently taken up by basically anyone in their (still tiny) group.

So what's your point? Does anyone on here support this group or claim that Jihad is good or the answer?

More the point the Met police seem well out of their depth on this issue

 

[Gehrman]

Were they? I've just gone back to have a look and they were replying to a point about the killing of all Jews being in the Hamas charter and saying that the updated charter doesn't say that.

Now of course no longer writing you want to kill all Jews is an incredibly low bar and isn't the only marker of anti-semitism.

But taking into account their largest terrorist attack in history, do you honestly believe that people who have their security at stake believes this bullshit?

Its like with the Taliban being more modernised and stuff but of course they are not.

 

[Raoul]

Netanyahu still hesitant?

Barak Ravid, who has senior sources within the Israeli government, as already reported the delay has been due to the US asking the Israelis to wait until the US can evacuate its non-essential embassy staffs in the region and get adequate troops into the region to protect US bases.

 

[Raoul]

Thread

 

[africanspur]

But taking into account their largest terrorist attack in history, do you honestly believe that people who have their security at stake believes this bullshit?

Its like with the Taliban being more modernised and stuff but of course they are not.

That isn't the point though. You initially sarcastically wrote that their new charter isn't super anti semitic, as if people on here have said that. They haven't. All they've said is that it no longer explicitly calls for killing of all Jews. Now as I said that's not exactly a high bar but none of the initial conversation mentioned anti senitisim, nor did anyone deny it's presence in their charter in other ways.

You've now changed the goalposts and are asking whether anyone should trust Hamas. This is completely different from what you were initially saying. And no I don't believe anyone really believes that.

 

[africanspur]

More the point the Met police seem well out of their depth on this issue

Because they didn't immediately arrest one man in a tiny demonstration? And that otherwise multiple demos have happened across both sides in the past few weeks in a huge, incredibly multi cultural city, with very little incident of note?

Not to mention that, as I said, the poster you were replying to had been insinuating many people in the main protest had jihadi sentiment.

 

[Gehrman]

That isn't the point though. You initially sarcastically wrote that their new charter isn't super anti semitic, as if people on here have said that. They haven't. All they've said is that it no longer explicitly calls for killing of all Jews. Now as I said that's not exactly a high bar but none of the initial conversation mentioned anti senitisim, nor did anyone deny it's presence in their charter in other ways.

You've now changed the goalposts and are asking whether anyone should trust Hamas. This is completely different from what you were initially saying. And no I don't believe anyone really believes that.

Okay, yes you are correct their updated charter doesnt call for war on all jews but their actions negate their updated charter for obvious reasons. Hence its utterly irrelevant. Its a smokescreen to draw international support.

 

[africanspur]

It’s crazy seeing the disconnect between world leaders and the people they govern. Israelis in Israel against Bibi and the War. Palestinians protesting against Abbas’ leadership. Egyptians fighting against Sisi. There’s another protest tomorrow in London (there’s actually 2) and similarly we’ve seen the French defy Macron and the Germans defy their fascist-lite laws. There’s also a sit in of US based Jews in DC against the US position (as well as the poll above).

This is exactly what the various Arab despots like Sisi will be most scared of from this conflict I think.

The optics of gunning down/ rounding up protestors for Palestine in these countries would be awful.....yet these protests if allowed to hold may evolve into more serious questions about the record of these various leaders domestically...

 

[Badunk]

Okay, yes you are correct their updated charter doesnt call for war on all jews but their actions negate their foundational charter for obvious reasons. Hence its utterly irrelevant. Its a smokescreen to draw international support.

Same for Israel's statements about targeting militants and not civilians. Actions speak louder than words, no?

 

[Gehrman]

Same for Israel's statements about targeting militants and not civilians. Actions speak louder than words, no?

I agree. I made a gaffe in the post you replied. I meant their actions negates any idea that their 2017 charter can be considered different than their 1988 charter.