I'm waiting for someone to come in with an xDeaths based argument for why Israel are not doing anything wrong at this point.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Oh god, have you just opened Pandora's Box?
ah but have you accounted for the quality of the (missile) striker?
You use a ratio (ccr) to determine efficiency but “wrong” is more about if they break any laws within the permissive boundaries they operate. It’s impossible to get an accurate ratio currently due to dishonest reporting on both sides, but rest assured Israel’s is currently awful and only likely to get worse. It’s partly due to a jus ad bellum targeting determination which only they and Denmark seem to use, and they seem to be using rather liberally.
We don’t get to decide whether war crimes are committed before doing the analyses of whether they are committed, or to conflate casualties with war crimes. (Although you do get to say they are doing something “wrong” from a personal point of view). We just don’t know what’s happening. No accuracy in reporting and no count of dead Hamas.
(Sorry for the “uncaring” post)
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/inside-idf-targeting/
Good article if anybody is interested in the law and IDF targeting.
Good article if anybody is interested in the law and IDF targeting.
The problem is that the Israeli state doesn't give much of a shit about how many civilian casualties they cause beyond optics (and even then barely.)
Interesting article.
Going by it, then theoretically if Hamas are storing rockets in the basement of an apartment building, or operate out of one of the apartments, then Israel (and other unspecified states) takes the view that the people who live in the rest of the building are voluntary shields and thus fair targets.
Seems at bit grim given the open air prison state of Gaza. It's not like the people have many places to go, thanks in large part to Israel itself.
I get the impression it does apply to any building.
I’d actually semi agree with the top half of your statement. I think they ‘care’, but only insofar as “as long as it doesn’t interfere with our objectives,” and obviously far less than about the lives of Israelis.
Kind of. They still need to consider proportionality .It feeds into another law/opinion where israel see an entire building as military infrastructure, even if a small part is used by hamas, so they don’t find the need to conduct proportionality analysis on the infrastructure itself as it will not be considered collateral including hospitals schools etc.
So as an example: Israel or Denmark want to attack a school with a single Hamas fighter in it. They will consider the entire school building (the infrastructure) a legitimate target, and warn the population to move.
If the civilians move, they bomb. If the civilians don’t move, they consider whether they were forced to stay by the Hamas fighter, or stayed voluntarily. If they stayed voluntarily, why? (Did they lack means to evacuate or not hear the warning etc). If a determination is made that they voluntarily stay, they become legitimate collateral casualties.
But another country, say Italy might have a different combat manual where they see a school with a Hamas fighter, and they do not consider the whole building a military target, but rather do a proportionality analysis and decide that the civilian infrastructure (a school) destroyed would be excessive relative to the military objective. So they will halt there, and not get to the next stage
Last edited:
Pretty sure 99.9% of the population have a default setting of boycotting the Ritz because of its prices.
After the embarrassment of people realising how awash London is with dirty Russian money, now people are suddenly giving a shit that Qatar owns multiple trophy assets in the UK.
Call to boycott the Ritz over Qatar’s Hamas links
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-to-boycott-the-ritz-over-qatars-hamas-links-3g2vj32f9
After the embarrassment of people realising how awash London is with dirty Russian money, now people are suddenly giving a shit that Qatar owns multiple trophy assets in the UK.
Call to boycott the Ritz over Qatar’s Hamas links
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/call-to-boycott-the-ritz-over-qatars-hamas-links-3g2vj32f9
Oh. Did the IDF ask them one by one? Census? Or just assuming?
And almost Manchester United. What a relief the Glazers are stingy bastards
They have multiple ways of warning about an impending strike. Not sure what in my post attracted such sarcasm.
I was too young to experience this, but were we this ridiculous after 9/11, with fake news and documents recovered from Al Qaeda?
If you want to know was there a bunch of people online calling every single piece of evidence from the 9/11 investigation fake then yes, definitely.
Sure, you'd make a great hostage negotiator
We've warned them to walk out several times, they don't reply. Let's go boys.
Absolutely. Very famous case that comes straight to mind is Jeffrey Goldberg getting duped on alleged Al Qaeda-Iraq connections, subsequently debunked by Jason Burke, but not before the case had already been made and decisions put in action.
Well apparently they found passports of the hijackers. Also the US presented a lot of fake evidence to the UN to justify it's invasion of Iraq. Which ironically made the whole of the middle east unsafe, and led ultimately to the rise of ISIS and the Afghan war dragging on and eventually ending up with the Taliban back in charge.
Those are the LOAC, not my opinion. And it’s not a “let’s go boys” situation, it’s a determination as to whetherwhy they didn’t move, as per this paragraph:
If the civilians move, they bomb. If the civilians don’t move, they consider whether they were forced to stay by the Hamas fighter, or stayed voluntarily. If they stayed voluntarily, why? (Did they lack means to evacuate or not hear the warning etc). If a determination is made that they voluntarily stay, they become legitimate collateral casualties.
No, you become a war criminal.
Which LOAC have you broken?
Any Romanians in the thread?
Indeed. Apologists for war crimes and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians will start with mealy-mouthed justifications but, eventually, they'll shrug their shoulders and say they deserved it.
The state of this...
The human tragedy must not be boiled down to statistics and flow charts. The hurt is off the scale.
It‘s international law. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Can you quote the specific bit that says it's ok to bomb civilians if you tell them to leave a place and they don't.
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.
Any Romanians in the thread?
"they are pretty close to us in this moment but it seems to have stopped, the Israeli army intercepts (something), it seems to have calmed down, so it's safe to get up." Not a perfect translation, my romanian is at a childs level but kinda the gist of it.
Some incredible takes in this thread. This being a prime example.
Didn't know they had such a formal ceremony to distribute weapons to terrorists. Impressive.
I would use the word disgusting. It is like telling someone who has lost a sibling to a violent death that it is not that bad because they have lost only 25% of the siblings.
What’s your post in reference to? From the discussion I’m reading the added poster is merely clarifying the legal framework within which Israel is acting, which does not in any way warrant a reaction like this. Did I miss something?