Israel - Hamas War VII

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

The rules of war should be followed to the best of the party's abilities. It gets more complicated when the other side actively says we're not going to follow them at all. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

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.

And what exactly would be changed by this relabeling? The people who commit terrorist attacks in Israel are completely untroubled by international law and routinely violating it does not cause their supporters to abandon it. To the extent that the Israelis are safe, it's because of the protection of their military and security forces and they would be exactly as safe as they are now (in fact, probably a whole lot safer if they could retaliate in kind).

[JoannaL]

13 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

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. 

this was in response to a poster who denied that Israel is held to a higher standard, and who described examples of war crimes (some of which may be true and others are debatable)

But if there has never been a war without war crimes then to expect it now means holding Israel to a higher standard then everyone else ever. this is why I ask about an example in history of such a war.

[Kalbear]

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

Yes, famously the western world is somehow more sympathetic to people who look like Palestinians than they are people who look like the Portuguese. I'm sure if you had almost 9000 Portuguese civilians killed, with thousands of Portuguese children killed and hundreds of those people killed in a major bomb in Lisbon people would be much more cool with it. 

The hypotheticals are so very tiring. There are a lot of reasons that Israel is getting this kind of reaction - prior history with the region, the way they've treated Palestinians for a long time, their inability to hold anyone in their government accountable for any actions against Palestinians - but the biggest one? They're killing more civilians than any Western power has in a war in over 50 years, while fighting humanitarian efforts and support at every possible turn. 

[Craving Peaches]

According to BBC and Al Jazeera there has been another strike on the same refugee camp, with dozens reported dead.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The rules of war should be followed to the best of the party's abilities. It gets more complicated when the other side actively says we're not going to follow them at all. 

True. It’s just sad, though. If no one is following the rules, what’s the point? 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The rules of war should be followed to the best of the party's abilities. It gets more complicated when the other side actively says we're not going to follow them at all. 

I'm not sure how that follows. It gets more complicated to follow laws when dealing with criminals? So, like, the entire principle of policing? I mean, okay, but I don't think that matters much. 

1 minute ago, JoannaL said:

this was in response to a poster who denied that Israel is held to a higher standard, and who described examples of war crimes (some of which may be true and others are debatable)

But if there has never been a war without war crimes then to expect it now means holding Israel to a higher standard then everyone else ever. this is why I ask about an example in history of such a war.

I don't see how expecting Israel to not commit war crimes and getting upset when they commit war crimes is somehow holding them to a higher standard than other countries that we get upset about when committing war crimes. Are you suggesting that we...don't...get upset about war crimes?

[Fragile Bird]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

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. 

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

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

I miss DMC so much at this point. Fuck yes I get it. I get the fact that at the end of the 1947 war there were roughly 750,000 Palestinian refugees who have gone nowhere and have been helped by no one, especially not their neighbors. Only the rich left the country and settled elsewhere, planning to return after the Arab states surrounding the new state of Israel wiped them off the face of the earth. Try to remember that part.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

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."

What the actual fuck???

[Luzifer's right hand]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What the actual fuck???

If you looked at stuff that was posted when the attacks happened on reddit that was a standard response by pro-Palestinian people on the 7th.

Also that the people for South East Asia killed and abducted deserve it because their work supports Israel.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Fragile Bird said:

I miss DMC so much at this point. Fuck yes I get it. I get the fact that at the end of the 1947 war there were roughly 750,000 Palestinian refugees who have gone nowhere and have been helped by no one, especially not their neighbors. Only the rich left the country and settled elsewhere, planning to return after the Arab states surrounding the new state of Israel wiped them off the face of the earth. Try to remember that part.

So what? That makes bombing them or their plight somehow acceptable? Or it makes calling this a refugee camp (which by every definition it absolutely is) somehow wrong to do? 

I don't know that @DMC would be coming to your aid here in the way you might expect. 

Here's the thing. Palestinians have been helped by no one in the region, and certainly not to the degree that they have needed. They have been dispossessed for 75 years. But only one country is currently bombing refugee camps. There is only one force on earth, right now, that is choosing to do that. We can talk about all the reasons that we're here now and how many different people are at fault, but the fact is that there is precisely one country that is choosing to bomb refugee camps. That Israel is also largely at fault for the existence of said refugee camps doesn't even matter in that calculus! If Egypt was 100% responsible for this refugee camp or Palestinians being refugees bombing it would STILL not be any better - because it is still a refugee camp with a whole lot of people who cannot do any better. 

I mean, what term would you prefer for refugees without permanent homes who have been forced to flee their original place of origin? Permanent homeless shelters? The absolute worst AirBnB that is definitely going to get a lower rating after this? Because I agree - a refugee camp doesn't capture the actual horribleness of this situation, as most refugee camps are significantly less long-lasting than this has been. 

[JoannaL]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

I don't see how expecting Israel to not commit war crimes and getting upset when they commit war crimes is somehow holding them to a higher standard than other countries that we get upset about when committing war crimes. Are you suggesting that we...don't...get upset about war crimes?

No absolutly not. Get upset about war crimes! 

But it often sounds as if only Israel fails to abide to the rules of war when in fact I think they are honestly  struggeling to do their best, and when also in fact no one ever achieved a clean war.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

If you looked at stuff that was posted when the attacks happened on reddit that was a standard response by pro-Palestinian people on the 7th.

Also that the people for South East Asia killed and abducted deserve it because their work supports Israel.

What Israel has done to Palestinian civilians is disgusting and reprehensible.  What Hamas has done to Israeli civilians is disgusting and reprehensible.  

That will always be my position.  Civilians should never be seen as legitimate targets for hostile action.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, JoannaL said:

No absolutly not. Get upset about war crimes! 

But it often sounds as if only Israel fails to abide to the rules of war when in fact I think they are honestly  struggeling to do their best, and when also in fact no one ever achieved a clean war.

I'm pretty sure people are upset about Hamas committing war crimes. But Hamas didn't bomb a refugee camp yesterday. So we're talking about that. 

I also think that the 'struggle' that Israel is doing is very much in the eye of the beholder. Israel chose to cut off all food and water to Gaza. Israel chose to cut off electricity and internet. Israel chose to bomb a refugee camp. In fact, if it weren't for US pressure Israel would still be doing these things. But mostly I don't care about how much they're struggling; they've killed by various reports almost 9000 civilians in 3 weeks time, more than the Beirut siege, more than all of Afghanistan for the first 3 years of the war, and close to what Assad has done in Syria. I refuse to believe that this is Israel's 'best'. They can, and should, do better. 

[JoannaL]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm pretty sure people are upset about Hamas committing war crimes. But Hamas didn't bomb a refugee camp yesterday. So we're talking about that.

But also yesterday a Hamas commander (and it seems also a lot of Hamas soldiers ) were in a refugee camp and using civilians as a human shield. That is also a war crime and cause for the bombing of said refugee camp. Have you been equally upset with Hamas?

[Relic]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're killing more civilians than any Western power has in a war in over 50 years, while fighting humanitarian efforts and support at every possible turn. 

That's not true, unfortunately. The USA killed/murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Relic

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Relic said:

That's not true, unfortunately. The USA killed/murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. 

Give it time, it’s only been 3 weeks or so. 

[Ran]

3 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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.

I'm more talking about the forum (and social media).

That said, I know and like Le Monde. It is indeed high quality. I don't know this particular reporter, but I'm sure he has done thorough efforts to talk to experts and synthesize an understanding of what the law says, and his editors have fact-checked and done due diligence. That said, what you take from those quotes is actually not the same as what I take from it, and it is especially bizarre to be told that the hugely complex arena of war and the often-debated application of laws and customs  is in fact, "not in debate that Israel has committed and is committing war crimes."

Here, for example, is Jill Goldenziel, a professor at the US National Defense University, who has given laws of armed combat training to both domestic and foreign militaries,

Quote

This article takes no position on the legality of Israel’s strike in Jabaliya. Not enough information is known at this time to make such a determination—for this or most other Israeli strikes in Gaza this month. The article aims to shed light on the calculations that military lawyers in states bound by the law of war—including Israel—make when striking targets in an extraordinarily complex combat environment.

And this is true, we have very little info about most everything. The things you quote don't say you can't hit a protected site if it's being used for military purpose -- it says special efforts should be made and reasonable timeframes given, and I know for some in some cases Hamas reported that warnings have in fact been given about certain hospitals but they have refused to move (of course)... and in others? We just don't know. I mean, that ancient Christian church was damaged, but the IDF immediately showed that they were aiming for a building across the street and the bomb dropped ten meters short, close enough to do the damage it did without being intended. (I also have no clue if the proximity of other targeted buildings in the close vicinity triggered any warnings or not, even though the church was never an intended target).

I saw Lt. Col. Conricus on CNN International mention that they gave information regarding why they struck the camp as they did to the US and other foreign powers, so they likely have more of a sense of the actual process, but we just know a broad set of details and can't really make a certain determination either way. I do believe that the IDF believes the strike was lawful, that's obvious enough, but it may well be that, say, US officers briefed on the whole array of information would say they themselves would never have done it and that the US rules of engagement would have forbidden it. Or maybe not, the US has made many strikes against high-value terrorist targets that also caused unfortunately high collateral damage. Anotherr thing Goldenziel right seems relevant:

Quote

Proportionality is assessed based on the information a commander has at the time of the attack itself. The principle recognizes that a commander makes decisions with incomplete information, under time and operational pressure, and within the fog of war. It requires that the commander makes a reasonable decision—not one that is always correct.

So, I don't know. It's a very complex area, the law and its application is always up for debate (otherwise we wouldn't have so many lawyers and law professors!), and we lack the full range of information that is used to make decisions.

For me, what Conricus and the IDF have articulated, given the context of an immediate ground operation in the area, it seems defensible and within the lines of what the laws of armed combat allows. Others can, of course, disagree, but I'm not going to be told there's "no debate" on any of this. A Le Monde article, however well-written and researched, is going to be drawing its views from subject-experts... and subject experts don't all agree on these questions, they have different views.

This is complicated.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Ran

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

But also yesterday a Hamas commander (and it seems also a lot of Hamas soldiers ) were in a refugee camp and using civilians as a human shield. That is also a war crime and cause for the bombing of said refugee camp. Have you been equally upset with Hamas?

Per reports that commander wasn't actually there. So that's fun.

And no, I'm not equally upset because their presence did not make Israel bomb that refugee camp. I'm upset about it and do think it is a war crime, but they didn't drop the bomb. I don't even understand what would make those things equivalent.

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Relic said:

That's not true, unfortunately. The USA killed/murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. 

That's fair, though my point was more about the time frame.  Over 20 years more Afghani civilians were killed too, but that is a difference between 20 years and 3 weeks. I think that matters quite a bit.