Israel - Hamas War VII

[kissdbyfire]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Which is the case. Israel is clearly being held to a much higher standard despite being the one that got attacked. 

I don’t think Israel is being held to a much higher standard despite having been brutally and viciously attacked, but rather it is being held to a higher standard because it is a legitimate government, the solitary democracy in the region and not a vile terrorist organisation. No? 

[Ran]

I think it's held to a high standard as it ought to be, but I think a lot of people are using a standard that goes well above and beyond what the laws and customs of war actually say, and are doing it with a particular vehemence because this particular conflict sits high on partisan radar compared to, say, the Yemeni civil war.

[GrimTuesday]

35 minutes ago, Ran said:

"Of course an IDF officer will say that," but I don't know, it seems to me like to sustain the idea that it's all bad faith requires believing in a vast conspiracy of silence in the military. But this is the same military whose pilot corps were about ready to go on strike to protest Netanyahu's attack on the judiciary, so I don't think it very likely at all that the IDF only pays lip service to the laws of armed combat, because otherwise I expect it would leak and the left-wing press in Israel would eat it up.

It isn't a vast conspiracy when you have an army made up of people who are brainwashed from birth to believe that every action Israel takes is necessary in the defense of the Jewish race and are compelled to serve in the military, therefore forcing people to rationalize the crimes that they are forced to be complicate it if not directly, than certainly those done by their friends and family.

I would also add that citing the protests in Israel regarding the attacks on the judiciary is not really a good argument to show how moral or upstanding Israelis are. Those protests were never even remotely considering the treatment of Palestinians either in Gaza or the West Bank. It was exactly like the Trump voters from desperately poor areas in West Virginia who were mad that the abuses of the state were also now being done to them rather than just those they considered the rightful recipients of that abuse. There was never a notion of shared struggle, it was always about the privileged being worried about suddenly potentially being demoted to the same status as they see as beneath them.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

It isn't a vast conspiracy when you have an army made up of people who are brainwashed from birth to believe that every action Israel takes is necessary in the defense of the Jewish race and are compelled to serve in the military, therefore forcing people to rationalize the crimes that they are forced to be complicate it if not directly, than certainly those done by their friends and family.

I would also add that citing the protests in Israel regarding the attacks on the judiciary is not really a good argument to show how moral or upstanding Israelis are. Those protests were never even remotely considering the treatment of Palestinians either in Gaza or the West Bank. It was exactly like the Trump voters from desperately poor areas in West Virginia who were mad that the abuses of the state were also now being done to them rather than just those they considered the rightful recipients of that abuse. There was never a notion of shared struggle, it was always about the privileged being worried about suddenly potentially being demoted to the same status as they see as beneath them.

I feel I must say I personally know left wingers who furiously protested the judicial overhaul and did care for the abuses of Palestinians by Israel.

Though for many protesters yeah they wanted liberal democracy for domestic ly and fascist rule for everyone else.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

It isn't a vast conspiracy when you have an army made up of people who are brainwashed from birth to believe that every action Israel takes is necessary in the defense of the Jewish race

Ah, so the Jewish conspiracy is not a conspiracy because actually it's a nation-wide conspiracy of "brainwashing" that somehow fails to touch all the peace activists and people who want peace who are in the service.

Time to reacquaint myself with Протоколы сионских мудрецов to put my mind right, I guess?

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t think Israel is being held to a much higher standard despite having been brutally and viciously attacked, but rather it is being held to a higher standard because it is a legitimate government, the solitary democracy in the region and not a vile terrorist organisation. No? 

I’ll be honest I’m unsure whose holding Israel to a high standard if we’re talking about Israel’s allies/benefactors who’d the power to reign Israel in somewhat.

Are we hyperfixating on dumb young people on Twitter and  couple deranged college professorS? 

[Luzifer's right hand]

A lot of people have hopes that Israel or at least its allies might be swayed by appeals to human rights.

Nobody realistically hopes that when it comes to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Yemen. Countries where citizens are killed by state actors for tweets or dressing inappropriately.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Luzifer's right hand

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On a meta level… how is what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank different from what the US did to First Peoples during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries?  I’m not saying this as apologia or defense of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians but to note that it seems fairly close to US treatment of Native peoples that is seen today as noxious and a national shame.

Concurrently, that doesn’t justify murder, rape, and kidnapping of civilians by Hamas or Islamic Jihad.  We, as a species, seem to be desirous of making “others” to attack and vilify… everywhere we go.

 

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

how is what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank different from what the US did to First Peoples during the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries?

The West Bank, very little difference. It’s wrong and should be condemned. The occupation should end and agreements made for a contiguous Palestinian state there as soon as it is practicable. Violent settlers should be arrested and prosecuted for their terrorizing of their Palestinian neighbors, and Israel’s government should face repercussions for its role.

Gaza, due to the disengagement in 2005, is different. Gaza has ruled itself. The blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt was never total, and was in reaction to Hamas’s militancy, but otherwise Gaza was a self-governing territory that wasn’t interfered with outside of military conflicts. Unfortunately, this was one reason Hamas grew so powerful and entrenched in Gaza and ultimately capable of perpetrating the atrocities of October 7th. Israel obviously has no intention of letting Hamas have a second chance.

 

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't know anything about murders, but bombing in the north has definitely been much more intense than in the south, but Israel did not say it would be "safe" in the south -- merely that it'd be safer. Which is true, it is in fact safer. They've since given more guidance to try and help people find safety in a place that Hamas has made very unsafe.

No, this is not accurate. Israel in several leaflets and messages did say they would be safe south of Wadi.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

I think it's held to a high standard as it ought to be, but I think a lot of people are using a standard that goes well above and beyond what the laws and customs of war actually say,.

This is honestly super weird to me, because there's a lot of articles and debates on this in French media, and that's absolutely not what is being said. Quite the contrary.

For instance, this is a recent article from the fact-checking section of Le Monde. Le Monde is widely considered France's most reliable source. Wikipedia says: "Le Monde is considered one of the French newspapers of record, along with Libération and Le Figaro. A Reuters Institute poll in 2021 found that Le Monde is the most trusted French newspaper."

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/10/31/israel-gaza-ce-que-dit-le-droit-international-en-temps-de-guerre_6197537_4355770.html

On the topic of bombings:

Quote

During an attack in a densely populated area, the laws of war require the attacker to effectively warn civilians. The concept of effectiveness depends on the circumstances, with the primary goal being to provide sufficient time for civilians to evacuate the area. Without such a warning, it would not be considered compliant with the law.

However, international law states that civilians who do not evacuate the threatened area must be protected; otherwise, the belligerents would effectively have the right to forcibly displace entire populations and threaten populations with no means of defense. This provision must also offer protection to civilians who cannot move (due to precarious health, disability, etc.).

As for civilian buildings:

Quote

 

All civilian buildings are protected by international humanitarian law and may not be subjected to any form of aggression, including bombing, looting, invasion, shooting, encirclement, deprivation of water or electricity, etc.

Health facilities are specially protected under international law. 'They are sanctuaries (...), and they cannot be considered military targets. The term 'military objective' is used when an attack is intended to achieve a specific military advantage,' says Caroline Brandao. This protection includes hospitals as well as medical laboratories, clinics, first-aid stations, blood transfusion centers, and pharmacies.

But this protection does not apply if these places are diverted from their humanitarian functions to carry out 'acts harmful to the enemy.' The presence of weapons or armed guards alone is not sufficient to constitute a hostile act. In the case where the enemy shelters their combatants or stores ammunition in a hospital, it is considered an abusive use. To act legitimately, the attacker must first demand that the abusive use in question cease within a reasonable timeframe.

 

So considering the information we have so far, including the fact that Israel has bombed hospitals, schools, and at least one mosque, it is not in debate that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes.
What is in debate among experts of international law is whether the war crimes committed by Israel can be described as a crime against humanity or an attempted genocide.

I mean, since the responsibility of efficient warning lies on the attacker, the civilian casualty rate among Palestinians is enough to constitute a war crime (indiscriminate bombing).
And one should also bear in mind that collective punishment and forced transfers of population are war crimes, and we have all been witnesses to those.
To this we can add crimes that are in debate, but which seem to be well documented: violation of medical neutrality, use of white phosphorus, abuse of detainees, and in one case, execution of surrendering combatants.

It is not enough to say that war is ugly and that such things were going to happen. Nor is it helpful to say international law is routinely ignored by states. The point is that Israel is, in fact, not being held to a particularly high standard by the world, quite the contrary. As law professors keep pointing out, Israel is now stretching the limits of can be considered acceptable, morally and legally, which is setting a dangerous precedent for the conflicts to come.
 

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

I think it's held to a high standard as it ought to be, but I think a lot of people are using a standard that goes well above and beyond what the laws and customs of war actually say, and are doing it with a particular vehemence because this particular conflict sits high on partisan radar compared to, say, the Yemeni civil war.

I think this notion of fairness misses the point entirely and is precisely why Israel is fucking this up. Again, let's say that everything that Israel is doing is 100% legal and entirely without flaw from war crime perspective. It would change none of the reaction. 

Israel has made a lot of choices that may have had value militarily but had massive negative value diplomatically. Bombing a densely populated area to kill one commander thar is not in the immediate fight is a great example. This is in theory entirely permissible and is also going to dominate news and both internal and external political discourse. When you do that AND give only a couple of days to relocate AND cut off supplies to a place AND cut off all humanitarian routes out - it gives a picture that may be perfectly legal and absolutely revolting. 

And no, Israel does not need to do it this way. There are less bad options. Those options take more time. Those options may make the war longer or require more risk to soldiers or cost more money, but let's not pretend they do not exist. 

 

[TrueMetis]

Really can't believe people are claiming that because the refugee camp is really old that makes Israel's actions more defensible and not that it makes the situation all the fucking worse. Like what the actual fuck?

"It's not a refugee camp! It's successful ethnic cleansing!"

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And no, Israel does not need to do it this way. There are less bad options. Those options take more time. Those options may make the war longer or require more risk to soldiers or cost more money, but let's not pretend they do not exist. 

 

Yeah but people are gonna pretend that soldier's lives are more important even though the entire fucking point of a soldier is to put your life at risk.

Edited November 1, 2023 by TrueMetis

[Rippounet]

I wonder if people defending Israeli war crimes in these threads understand why making the distinction between a civilian and a combatant is so important in the first place.

Do people have in mind that military service is mandatory in Israel and lasts at least two years ? That with the exception of ultra-orthodox Jews and a handful of others, every single Israeli adult has been trained as a soldier? That many individuals and communities store weapons to be used in cases of emergency?
Because that's the fact that has been used in the past to argue that there are no civilians in Israel, and that children can be considered "collateral damage" in the fight against the "occupier."

Yes, in this specific case, the same arguments that condone state terrorism also condone terrorism.
Using the exact same logic that is being applied to the IDF to defend its actions, no Israeli can be safe, ever. Setting aside October 7th and a handful of other particularly gruesome cases, almost all acts of terrorism committed on Israeli soil can be redefined as legitimate acts of war.

[DanteGabriel]

I don't want to get too drawn into this thread, but I can't help but observe that, less than a month after the worst anti-Jewish atrocity since the Holocaust, Israel has managed to degrade its own moral and diplomatic standing in such dramatic fashion.

One of my best friends as a kid, from first grade through high school, was the son of a senior ADL official. His mom once loaned me a game she was working on, where you take over as Israeli PM after your predecessor was assassinated, and guide the state of Israel through diplomatic and military confrontations with its hostile neighbors. Suffice it to say I have been sympathetic to the cause of Israel for as long as I can remember. And I think they are making bigger, more existential mistakes now than the US did after 9/11.

I hope there's a Hell, and I hope Netanyahu and his erstwhile allies of convenience in Hamas get to share it together.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t think Israel is being held to a much higher standard despite having been brutally and viciously attacked, but rather it is being held to a higher standard because it is a legitimate government, the solitary democracy in the region and not a vile terrorist organisation. No? 

Eh, I'd say it's more complicated than that, in part because Hamas is also a governing body, not just a terrorist organization. Just as a hypothetical, if we replicated the situation and made something like Hamas the governing body of Portugal and they did what Hamas did to Spain, I think there would be less negative reaction if Spain retaliated in a manner similar to Israel. 

[Fragile Bird]

28 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Really can't believe people are claiming that because the refugee camp is really old that makes Israel's actions more defensible and not that it makes the situation all the fucking worse. Like what the actual fuck?

"It's not a refugee camp! It's successful ethnic cleansing!"

Yeah but people are gonna pretend that soldier's lives are more important even though the entire fucking point of a soldier is to put your life at risk.

No, I did not say that because the refugee camp is old it makes attacking it more defensible. Words have meaning. When you’ve lived there for literally 75 years and it’s a city calling it a refugee camp is really loaded, isn’t it? My post was about the fact it’s a Hamas stronghold and has been since Hamas was founded, and that’s why the IDF attacked it. 

And isn’t every person living in Gaza a refugee? Isn’t everyone a refugee or a descendent if the refugees from the 1947 war? The whole area is a refugee camp.

[JoannaL]

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, in this specific case, the same arguments that condone state terrorism also condone terrorism.
Using the exact same logic that is being applied to the IDF to defend its actions, no Israeli can be safe, ever. Setting aside October 7th and a handful of other particularly gruesome cases, almost all acts of terrorism committed on Israeli soil can be redefined as legitimate acts of war.

Yes, obviously, If the Hamas had attacked some military outpost, that could be seen as act of war and not terrorism. Even if they had attacked said military outpost and unfortunately killed some children nearby because their rocket malfunctioned that could be an act of war between Gaza and Israel  and not terrorism. Sure.  so what ? Are the Israeli more or less safe if you call it terrorism or war?

About the standards in war : Please give me some example in history -any example- where the laws of war were thouroghly followed. It is great that there are standards and , I agree ,everyone should try to achieve them, but in reality war is, by its nature, always ugly and I doubt that you can give me an example of a clean war. Also war is fought between at least to parties. If one party use humans as a shield , they are as much  committing a war crime.

 

[kissdbyfire]

So there’s now a shift from “nothing that is happening is outside the ‘rules of war’” or whatever other technical term one uses to “but no one follows the rules of war anyway”. Sigh. 

[Kalbear]

46 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

No, I did not say that because the refugee camp is old it makes attacking it more defensible. Words have meaning. When you’ve lived there for literally 75 years and it’s a city calling it a refugee camp is really loaded, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. It means that for 75 years people have been unable to return to their location, have had no real government or state to protect them, and have had 4 generations of population dispossessed. 

That is, as you say, really loaded. 

46 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

My post was about the fact it’s a Hamas stronghold and has been since Hamas was founded, and that’s why the IDF attacked it. 

That doesn't make it any less of a refugee camp. 

46 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

And isn’t every person living in Gaza a refugee? Isn’t everyone a refugee or a descendent if the refugees from the 1947 war? The whole area is a refugee camp.

Oh man, you're just so close to getting it.