Israel - Hamas War V

[Relic]

nm

Edited October 22, 2023 by Relic

[Ran]

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

their journalistic standards are not easy to criticise

I criticized their standards with their reporting on this topic. Alex Thompson claimed on Twitter that several experts reviewed the audio and claimed it wasn't legitimate, and then the actual published piece reduced that number to two "independent Arab journalists", which other journalists questioned as to whether they could rightly be called "experts", especially as they were anonymous so that  you'd even have to take C4's word on their level of expertise and the relevance of their analysis.

They then proceed to provide the Forensic Architecture/Al Haq analysis as being from "independent NGOs" without noting that FA and Al-Haq are Palestinian and, as I said, have had connections to the PFLP, while members of its leadership use language like this:

When a news station says, "the IDF says this," it's implicit that you should consider the fact that the IDF is a party to a conflict and you should weigh what it says against what others say.

When a news station says, "an NGO says this", and leaves out that NGO's political affiliations while passing on questionable aspects of their analysis, I'd be right to question the journalistic standards of that news station.

9 minutes ago, Relic said:

while insinuating that the death tolls in Gaza might be substantially lower than reported. 

I provided evidence that in 2014, the Health Ministry was clearly using the death tolls for propaganda, and that even their own massaged death tolls gave a wildly different division of deaths between women/children and adult men. The false claim that 500 died at Al-Ahli, when intelligence agencies think the number is in the dozens, might make you wonder about other figures that are given by the Health Ministry.

It's just a fact that we should not trust their numbers sight unseen and unverified by any third parties. They are a politicized organ of Hamas.

And yet, it is undeniable that women and children have died in this conflict, and will continue to die in the conflict, now and in the forseeable future, until the unelected jihadist regime of Hamas is removed from power in Gaza. Hamas should surrender now and spare Gaza the invasion that rooting them out will require.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Ran

[Relic]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

And yet, it is undeniable that women and children have died in this conflict, and will continue to die in the conflict until Hamas is removed from power in Gaza. Hamas should surrender now and spare Gaza the invasion that rooting them out will require.

Lol. Or if you know, the bombings were to stop and civilian life were to be respected by the people doing the bombing. 

[Ran]

Just now, Relic said:

Or if you know, the bombings were to stop and civilian life were to be respected by the people doing the bombing. 

Or the rockets stopped and the civilian life in Israel was respected by the people sending the rockets out in their thousands.

You are not championing the innocent people of Gaza. You are championing the jihadists that have brought a war to Gaza.

[Ran]

Personally, I can't help but to think of it as a lid blowing off a pressure cooker. The violence of Hamas against Israel and even its own people is systemic, generational, genocidal, and mostly unwitnessed by westerners. Edited October 22, 2023 by Ran

[Relic]

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

Or the rockets stopped and the civilian life in Israel was respected by the people sending the rockets out in their thousands.

You are not championing the innocent people of Gaza. You are championing the jihadists that have brought a war to Gaza.

See mate, this is you crossing lines. Thus far I've tried very hard to address your words, and not you as a person, even though your dispassionate discussion of civilian death is...troubling at best. 

Please do not ascribe pro-Jihadist motivations due to my concern for innocent civilian life. Don't put words in my mouth. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can - I do not support ANY government, state, ideology or people that destroy innocent lives to make themselves feel safer. Full stop. 

Edited October 22, 2023 by Relic

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, Ran said:

I criticized their standards with their reporting on this topic.

And I didn't disagree with those criticisms. (I'm not equipped to: I'm perfectly willing to admit I never heard of Al-Haq before, for example.)

I just wouldn't want anyone to be taking the point of view of 'this source has an editorial line I disagree with, so I'm going to start from the assumption that it must be flawed'. Not saying that was what happened in this instance - in fact you seemed to be doing the reverse, saying 'I find this reporting flawed so I'm concluding that the source has an extreme bias'. But that latter can easily lead to the former.

I just want to make it clear for folks who maybe aren't familiar with C4N that they are certainly as credible a source as CNN, for example.

ETA - on another topic entirely:

33 minutes ago, Relic said:

First of all, I want to reiterate something that has been said by myself and others in recent weeks. STOP linking to Twitter. Take one look at the comments made to this girl to see what  cesspool of hate and intolerance that shit-pit has become.

There's currently no board rule against linking to Twitter. People are absolutely entitled to politely ask that others don't do it, and other people are absolutely entitled to do it anyway if they think that particular tweet has information or value to the discussion.

If they do, please just respond as you would to anything else you'd rather not read - don't read it.

Edited October 22, 2023 by mormont

[Relic]

8 minutes ago, Ran said:

Personally, I can't help but to think of it as a lid blowing off a pressure cooker. The violence of Hamas against Israel and even its own people is systemic, generational, genocidal, and mostly unwitnessed by westerners.

This is also true. 

[Relic]

dp

Edited October 22, 2023 by Relic

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

'this source has an editorial line I disagree with, so I'm going to start from the assumption that it must be flawed'.

With this, I agree. I even credited some of the analysis as interesting (re: the alleged intercept of Hamas operatives discussing the situation). But because the editorial line is obviously biased to the point of at least two examples of shoddy journalism, on top of the fact that the NGOs have a clear bias, I don't think even the interesting things should be considered too heavily without some others weighing in.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Relic said:

Please do not ascribe pro-Jihadist motivations due to my concern for innocent civilian life. Don't put words in my mouth. Let me make this as clear as I possibly can - I do not support ANY government, state, ideology or people that destroy innocent lives to make themselves feel safer. Full stop. 

I am not saying you are pro-jihadist. I am saying that you are being a useful idiot for jihadists.

I noted they are unelected, as well, but you're not up in arms that I said you were anti-democratic. Because I think you understood my actual meaning.

ETA: Of course, some may think I am a useful idiot for Israel! But I can't help but notice that I'm willing to actually tell people to consider IDF's own biases and to suggest people wait out time to understand something like the Al-Ahli situation, even after Israel's initial denial, because the light of day and time may make things clearer. It's only fair to ask people to have a similar degree of reticence about claims coming from Hamas.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Ran

[Relic]

9 minutes ago, Ran said:

I am not saying you are pro-jihadist. I am saying that you are being a useful idiot for jihadists.

Well, that's a pretty convenient view for you to hold, given your stated positions. Ran, it takes two parties to "bring war" anywhere. So, i suppose you can flip that comment around on yourself. 

I have zero qualms with killing Hamas soldiers and leadership whenever they can be killed without the cost of innocent lives. In fact, i fully support hunting them down surgically and removing them from the gene pool. I feel the same way about any other murderer or rapist. Shoot them into the sun. BUT ONLY THEM. If you harm innocent life you become no better than the murderer. 

 

Edited October 22, 2023 by Relic

[Relic]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

ETA: Of course, some may think I am a useful idiot for Israel! But I can't help but notice that I'm willing to actually tell people to consider IDF's own biases and to suggest people wait out time to understand something like the Al-Ahli situation, even after Israel's initial denial, because the light of day and time may make things clearer. It's only fair to ask people to have a similar degree of reticence about claims coming from Hamas.

Agree that the Al-Ahli situation was something that required more time understand. It certainly does seem to be a Hamas fuckup. Another debt to lay at their feet and punish THEM for. On the other hand I don't see much reason to doubt the casualty numbers coming out of Gaza. They are being reported by most news outlets, and while you can take them with a grain of salt they are probably smaller than the actual numbers, given that there are many hundreds of missing Palestinians that haven't been added to the tolls yet. 

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I am not saying you are pro-jihadist. I am saying that you are being a useful idiot for jihadists.

How is being concerned for innocent lives being a useful idiot for Jihadists?

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Craving Peaches said:

How is being concerned for innocent lives being a useful idiot for Jihadists?

How is repeating unverifiable casualty figures by a Hamas-led organ that has in previous conflicts been found to overstate and misclassify casualties for propagandistic reasons, including clearly having done so now with regards to Al-Ahli, helping innocent civilians?

Every news agency should feel free to both state those figures and then add that they are unable to verify those figures due to the nature of the conflict.

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Every news agency should feel free to both state those figures and then add that they are unable to verify those figures due to the nature of the conflict.

That’s true. But none of the major MSM are doing that, are they? The reported numbers of casualties have been pretty consistent across the board. Why? Is it b/c no one is even trying to verify said numbers, or is it b/c these news outlets are finding the numbers to be somewhat accurate? I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely interested b/c this is something I’ve been thinking about for days now. 

[GrimTuesday]

When the Ukrainian war kicked off, countries were throwing their doors open to take in those fleeing from Russia's bombing and invasion. There were those who cried foul not because they had a problem with taking in refugees, but rather because of how readily white refugees are taken in vs brown and black refugees. Now the opportunity has been presented to these governments  to prove us wrong and to throw open their arms to take in the people who are fleeing an ethnic cleansing and merciless bombing campaign, and people like the British Immigration Minister out here saying it's premature to talk about accepting refugees.

I know some of you all don't like seeing Twitter links, but it's the BBC

These people don't see Palestinians fleeing for their lives as refugees, they see them as refuse to be turned away or discarded.

And before anyone say that they were talking about Israelis as well, those carrying an Israeli passport have visa free travel to 163 countries including the US, all of Europe and tons of other generally desirable places to wait out the conflict if thy so choose to do so. Palestinian passport holders have 12, none of which I would consider to be high on the desirability scale, especially considering that pretty much once they leave, they have no right to return once the conflict is over.

[Werthead]

Egyptian media reporting a second convoy of aid trucks has crossed into Gaza. 17 trucks after 25 yesterday. Still not enough - 100 a day will be needed - but some vaguely good news.

The Eisenhower carrier group is being diverted from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, to provide deterrence to Iranian intervention in the conflict. Patriots and THAAD are being deployed to Israel, an indication that the US fears ballistic missile strikes on Israel from Iran.

Edited October 22, 2023 by Werthead

[Ran]

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

That’s true. But none of the major MSM are doing that, are they?

They do at times. It's inconsistent. At present the BBC makes a point of emphasizing that the ministry is run by Hamas, for example ("Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry says...") I

Personally think numbers from both sides should also include a statement as to what the BBC could or could not independently verify.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

The reported numbers of casualties have been pretty consistent across the board. Why? Is it b/c no one is even trying to verify said numbers, or is it b/c these news outlets are finding the numbers to be somewhat accurate? I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely interested b/c this is something I’ve been thinking about for days now. 

As far as I know, there is no independent news agency or organization that is collecting and verifying the figures. 

Just to contrast it, over 13 days after the October 7th massacre, and Israel was still counting and verifying bodies killed by the terrorists, with full access to Western media. For reasons of safety, Western media are extremely thin (or non-existent) in Gaza. I think there's maybe one BBC affiliated reporter and he's in Khan Younis. 

[Rippounet]

Some thouhts on general principles and laws... I have no authority here - I've read a couple of good articles on the topic - but I notice some things haven't exactly been said.

- The Hamas attacks are war crimes - terrorism is a murky concept in law.
- Israel has the right to defend itself from Hamas - by initiating military operations.
- Hamas using civilians and civilian infrastructure to protect its fighters is a war crime.
- Israel can thus target Hamas fighters in civilian areas or buildings. However, the fact that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure does not eliminate Israel's responsibility to minimize civilian casualties (under the 4th Geneva Convention, to which it is a signatory).
Therefore Israel must 1) ensure/prove its targets are in fact legitimate and 2) make sure it uses proportionate force to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.
Direct attacks against civilians and indiscriminate strikes constitute war crimes.
- Evacuation orders do not eliminate Israel's responsibility to minimize civilian casualties: the evacuation must be physically possible (which is difficult for hospitals), and the IDF should check that the evacuation has in fact been carried out.
- Gaza can still be considered occupied territory. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled so in 2004, and even though the IDF left it in 2005, Israel having control over earth, maritime, and air ways means it still "occupies" (i.e. controls) the strip.
I'm aware this seems like a controversial position taken by one professor of international law. The opinion by the ICJ is here though (sorry, it's in French), and it seems the wall built by Israel to exercize control over the border was always the key point, rather than the presence of Israeli soldiers inside Gaza itself.
- While Israel has the right to lay siege to Gaza, it must avoid significant impact on civilians. Creating a famine or depriving hospitals of fuel can be considered war crimes.
- Consequently, Israel must facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid - hindering it would constitute a war crime.
- Dehumanizing language can be used as evidence that civilians were targeted - as proof of intent.

As you can see, a number of war crimes have already been established (by Amnesty International). They will constitute a crime against humanity if they can be proved to be systematic (using dehumanizing language of Israeli officials as proof of intent).
Genocide would be the destruction of a significant proportion of the population (though it's not clear to me what proportion would be enough for the qualification). They are not mutually exclusive, and while only war crimes can be proved at present, there is a growing suspicion of crimes against humanity. Genocide may occur if humanitarian aid doesn't get through, resulting in massive loss of life - not impossible at present, but US/international intervention reduces the possibility.

[dbergkvist]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Genocide may occur if humanitarian aid doesn't get through, resulting in massive loss of life - not impossible at present, but US/international intervention reduces the possibility.

According to Article III of the UN convention ( https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml ), "attempt to commit genocide" and "conspiracy to commit genocide" is criminalized under the same stature, so if somebody else intervenes and the genocide is thus averted, wouldn't the people who attempted to achieve this massive loss of life via deprivation, still be liable?