Massive loss. Bye.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Massive loss. Bye.
No one twisted your words, you literally turned murders and a various assaults into a "war for land" that is not comparable to the actions of Hamas even though we are literally talking about the same actions and outcome.
Edit: What sick agenda am I pushing?
Last edited:
You've literally come into this thread fabricating accusations about posters in here about not condemning the Hamas attack that you then failed to back up, after which you've proceeded to deflect and insult basic questions being asked when you happily clear all blame off parties like the settlers in this conflict and again resort to name-calling when someone simply pointed out your hypocrisy.
I've reported your post and hopefully we won't have to deal with such stuff in here going forward.
The irony..... won't be missed.
One for the ‘oh no … anyway’ scrapbook.
So you've just waltzed into the thread 4 weeks after, completely made up what you determined happened(seemingly just so you could give out about 'leftists' a bit), and then gave everyone your blessing. Utter bollox
With their leadership saying this, there's no wonder that Israel are going all in. Not sure if anyone has a full translation of the Mashal interview (2cents reminded me about it but I've only seen clips)
that poor lad GameOn, poor lad indeed.No, it doesn't. Although it complicates things and is not a good idea to put them in tunnels as they could fall under proportionality calcs.
However hamas also said that they have built tunnels instead of bomb shelters for civilians, because it's the responsibility of the UN to protect the civilians. Not sure if it was the same guy and Joshi has mistranslated/misrepresented it, or somebody else.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzLBdwtvV9H/?igshid=MWhqanBtdWtidXd3dQ==
Can't embed IG but this is heart breaking from a MSF doctor working in Gaza
Can't embed IG but this is heart breaking from a MSF doctor working in Gaza
Those quotes are utterly abhorrent but them saying those things doesn't translate into them being anywhere near having the capability to do anything about that. So I don't see how going "all in" is justified. You don't wipe out entire territories because you've received terror threats from a group.
What do you mean by, no it doesn't? Israeli leaders already consider that gazans are military targets and not innocent(it's a literal statement from the president) by simple virtue being born gazans but you think that if Hamas literally sheltered the gazan population in their tunnels, they wouldn't become military targets?
Presumably Israel, wrongly, justifies it by saying the territory and the group are one and the same given the group govern the territory. Obviously not true and incorrect though.
Whilst I don't agree with their response, that reply is a little nebulous. They've not only spoken about it, but shown the capacity to carry it out in a highly organised and efficient manner. And they have said they have the capacity and intent to do it again and again. You can see exactly why Israel are at war, and why Israelis and many others are supporting them.
The problem isnt the action against hamas, its the way they are prosecuting it.
I mean it doesn't make them targets under the LOAC. Assuming that Israel are somewhat adhering (don't laugh, they are somewhat) to them, they wouldn't become targets. The idea is bad because a) if Hamas fighters are in the vicinity they are targets, and civilians couldn't be 'expected' down there, so under proportionality a strike would be ok. and b) Tunnels are predominantly military infrastructure, so there is no check there either. (Not that Israel put much credence into that, one terrorist makes an entire hospital military infrastructure. [the building not the humans; it still needs proportionality]. However Israel could not identify a group of civilians in a tunnel and legally declare them a target because of a and b - proportionality of civilian deaths vs damage to the enemy/infrastructure.
Herzog has no influence on policy, he's a cheerleader.
How depressing is it that explaining loac is more interesting than watching my club play...
Am I missing something here? How has Hamas shown the capacity to achieve something like "removal of Israel"?
They've shown the capacity to carry out the attack that they did, and that their leadership is threatening to do again and again. "We Will Repeat the October 7 Attack Time and Again Until Israel Is Annihilated"
That's enough, for any nation really.
Unfortunately, all of this sounds very, very accurate.
Who mentioned the LOAC? The point I made is very simple and grounded in reality, currently Israel and IDF consider that gazans are legitimate targets by simple virtue of being near anything related to Hamas even when they are not actually linked to Hamas or in actual Hamas facilities. Now imagine a world where gazans are literally sheltered by Hamas?
Herzog has little influence on policy but this particular topic is about narratives and the justifications of future or past actions. When Herzog made that speech it was in advance of IDF's incoming indiscriminate bombings which you first doubted but eventually had to realize that it was exactly the plan.
Take these two posts, they are three weeks apart. You wrote that first post after Herzog and IDF commanders speeches which were pretty clear but you kept denying it until a few days ago but now you deny it again. Israeli leaders at all levels are telling you what they think about gazans and palestinians, just believe them, you don't need to water down or act as if what they say isn't what they and the entire leadership thinks because past, current and future actions are in sync with their words. Herzog or individual commanders may not have the power to do what they say but they speak/spoke for the entire apparatus, those aren't rogue statements.
The attack they carried out is nowhere near the claim and the intent they are talking about and there's no evidence they have any means to achieve that either. Which is what I understood your initial post to be that Israel is responding to a threat comparable to what those quotes are talking about, which isn't the case.
As for your last sentence, if you think having undergone a terror attack and having those terror groups making threats of repeating that is justified grounds to invade an entire foreign territory and wipe it out then I'd advise you to go out and educate yourself on how similar situations have been handled by multiple other countries that have undergone the same situation.
How does this gel with the whole 'Gazans love Hamas, they all support them' narrative that they like to push?
The primary narrative I've seen of late from the IDF is an attempt to separate the interests of Gazans and Hamas. I'm sure there were a few pro-Israeli accounts suggesting what you have as well.
I'm gonna get called heartless/callous and that I don't care again but here we go.
This is an specifically an LOAC discussion on targeting.
They are not targets. The laws allow civilian deaths as a result of killing military targets. They allow destroying infrastructure and considering it military if a single terrorist is here. For example, if Hamas is in a hospital, that infrastructure is then considered a military facility under the LOAC. This isn't some IDF conspiracy. This is the LOAC. And I have explained above how it would be applied to tunnels.
The IDF does not build target packages to kill civilians. They simply have very loose proportionality interpretations. (as do the US etc). They are entirely different thing. The charge of targeting civilians is so serious and theres no evidence whatsoever of it. The charge of bombing indiscriminate targeting is similarly disturbing, and there is no evidence for it.
I'm not denying or changing anything. Nor am I basing stuff on bellicose rhetoric coming after a horrible terrorist attack.
What am I denying? The attacks can both be terrible and wrong, and largely fall within the LOAC. The two aren't mutually exclusive. War is absolutely horrible, as are mass civilian casualties. I specifically said in the first post too that they were using 'lax rules for target selection and probably far less safeguards than usual.' I can specifically be against what they are doing, aghast and horrified by it, whilst it is still within the LOAC.
You seem to be basing your opinion from IDF rhetoric. There's no evidence of indiscriminate bombings or targeting civilians, and I'd encourage you to not make such accusations without basis in reality.
I made the point, I decide whether what I said is about legality or legitimacy and I literally mentioned the later. I said legitmate, not legal.
One of the videos (the latter) said that they intend to continue Oct 7th over and over, until Israel is gone.
Ok, lets consider what you said at face value and look at the 5 worst terror attacks since 1970.
1. 9/11 - 3000+ Casualties - resulted in invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Tikrit attack, ISIS (1400) - Resulted in the eradication and killing of the group
3. This attack (1300) - Resulting in invasion and war in Gaza
4. Musha Church (1200) - Resulting in the hunting and killing of paramilitary group, as well as multiple extrajudicial killings against Hutu civilians
5. ISIS again (900) - Destruction of ISIS.
We can carry on, but that's how exactly how powerful nations react to an incident like this if they have the means and the target. Not to do so would be more shocking.
A legal target is a legitimate target. The word legitimate derives from legislation, which is the law. A legitimate target is simply one that conforms to the law.
And a legitimate target isn't necessarily legal.
Wow, thought I'd check on the thread and now we are at the genocide is actually okay part if Western or Western allies do it. Narrative is truly changing, may Palestine be free!
How so? I assume you don't mean the target isn't legal, but the way the target is prosecuted can be illegal. Which is precisely what the LOAC address.
The term legitimate has several defintion one of them is fairly common and means that you can defend or justify something. As an example Hamas leaders are legitimate targets for Mossad even though killing them would be lillegal because murder is illegal.
Last edited:
Killing them wouldn't [usually] be illegal. It's a targeted killing, not an assassination or murder, and is jus in bello under LOAC. (There might be an additional layer if the target is an Israeli citizen)
Regardless, what's your point here? Are you claiming based on political rhetoric that israel are targeting civilians/indiscriminately firing?
What I said about the question and the potential answers to it was pretty clear.
But there's no evidence of it. What's the point in making an accusation like that in an already heated situation when there's no evidence whatsoever for it.
You're essentially accusing everybody in the decision chain of mass murder, (usually about 8 people unless civcas is very high) including the lawyers and analysts who will have spent a career moderating these strikes.
This is quite an exchange, in public no less.
First the post that you quoted was an hypothetical based on a question asked by the interviewer. Secondly Israel has already and for years justified strikes that would obviously kill hundreds if not thousands of civilians with the argument that a Hamas target was in the vicinities, the latest example beinga refugee camp this week. Then you have the fact that gazans have been delcared by israeli leaders complicit of Hamas and not innocent.
So logically what do you think would happen if Hamas ostensibly sheltered civilians, just base it on past actions and current narratives from IDF and israeli leaders? You think that they wouldn't strike Hamas shelters full of civilians?