While his answer will shock people, it's worth pointing out that if gazans were ostensibly sheltered by Hamas they would logically become legitimate military targets and considered as Hamas supporters.
Have I ever said that I support the "settlers policy"?
A war for land? So to be clear when an Israeli kills or injures palestinians, it's part of a war for land but when a palestinian kills or injures an israeli it is terrorism?
No surprise they are following up with the same old chestnuts, like reading off a script."War for land"
Some people here are living in their own little reality, aren't they?
This opinion piece illustrates well how hopeless the conflict is. Bad faith actors on both sides.
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.
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.
The irony..... won't be missed.
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
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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
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.
I'm not denying or changing anything. Nor am I basing stuff on bellicose rhetoric coming after a horrible terrorist attack.
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.
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.
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.
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)
What I said about the question and the potential answers to it was pretty clear.
